Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

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

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

YEC has nothing to do with anything. That's just one sects interpretation - just as every sect of evolutionary biology proposes a different set of beliefs.

Sorry, you don't get to redifine the question being asked in response to clear claims.

It wasn't about scientists who also happen to believe in god.

Which one of the many theories of how life began do you personally believe in? Because if one is true - the others are all false, right?

This is something that fundie theists really need to get into their head......

Science is not about "belief" and it certainly isn't about "pick your hypothesis and stick to it".
None of us are "required" to "pick a hypothesis" that we then "need to believe".

Here's a list of just the top ten.
http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-theories-on-beginning-of-life-on-earth/
http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

Great.
To this, I say, "nice list of ideas".

And I'll await the outcome of the research.
And even when they all agree on one, it will still JUST be a tentative acceptance of that single idea.

You should stop projecting your psychological need for "beliefs" about anything and everything.

I, along with the other rational folks, are pretty content saying "we don't know yet, scientists are working on it".

You should try it sometime.

I don't "need" to believe anything.

 

[RickG]

Now Rick G has brought forward some information about some type of eye in the life forms prior to these but has neglected to give the pertinent information concerning what type of eyes were found so I will withhold comment until he has provided that.

That's because you have a phobia about reading links to full articles in the scientific literature provided. Additionally I did not present that article with any intention of discussing eyes, rather life forms that are seen both in the Cambrian and preceding Period of which I did present examples of.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The evidence is design in all living organisms. An analogy would be the appearance of white fur on a polar bear is evidence that the bear has evolved traits that are advantageous to his habitat. We know this due to its appearance and we know that evolution produces such a trait to better suit a organism to its habitat. The appearance of design is the evidence such is the white fur but nothing has been shown to produce this appearance of design in all living organisms. Nothing circular there.

Just claiming it is designed is just claiming it is designed.
Then turning around and saying that "the evidence that it is designed, is that it is designed", is laughable at best.

I always say, Dawkins claims that this appearance of deliberate design is produced by evolutionary processes, yet he gives no actual evidence that evolutionary processes did produce the design observed in all living organisms.

That's because you stop listening/reading.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's because you have a phobia about reading links to full articles in the scientific literature provided. Additionally I did not present that article with any intention of discussing eyes, rather life forms that are seen both in the Cambrian and preceding Period of which I did present examples of.

No, that is because I am very busy right now and can come and go but to sit down and read the entire paper wasn't feasible. Well there you go, you presented something by giving a link without giving the pertinent information you wanted to convey and I didn't know it was not the eyes you were discussing. However, there is nothing in there as I scanned it about any ancestral forms in fossil evidence that were precursors of the Cambrian fauna. Want to provide it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just claiming it is designed is just claiming it is designed.
Then turning around and saying that "the evidence that it is designed, is that it is designed", is laughable at best.



That's because you stop listening/reading.

Well why don't you give me the evidence that Dawkins provided? Because it isn't there. It is might haves, could have's and imagination and nothing about evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't deny evolution.

Then what are you arguing about???

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then what are you arguing about???

I deny claims made by others about evolution. I don't believe that evolution is an un-directed, unguided, mindless process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well why don't you give me the evidence that Dawkins provided? Because it isn't there. It is might haves, could have's and imagination and nothing about evidence.

I have given you countless examples of how evolutionary processes will inevitably produce things that would appear "designed". So much so in fact, that it's perfectly reasonable to say that the evolutionary process results in "design optimisation".

You brushed each and everyone of those examples aside with rather juvenile, and downright ignorant, one-liners.

Why would I put in any effort again? I know the outcome will be the same:

I gave you a very, very, very simple example of an evolutionary process producing actual designs of cars, while starting with a collection of non-designed and random polygons.


Your reaction was phenomenally ignorant.
Several people, including myself, have then explained to you why your reaction was phenomenally ignorant.

Your response?
Well.... the picture above is quite accurate.

No, sorry, I'm not going to put in that effort again.
Clearly, it doesn't matter at all what I say. You have made up your mind and nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

You say that evolution can't produce designs.
I give you a link of an evolutionary process doing exactly that.

And it doesn't make any difference to you. You simply continue to assert that evolution can't produce designs.

Well then..... yea.... Nothing much left to say at that point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I deny claims made by others about evolution. I don't believe that evolution is an un-directed, unguided, mindless process.

Then you deny evolution as it is understood in mainstream biology.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have given you countless examples of how evolutionary processes will inevitably produce things that would appear "designed". So much so in fact, that it's perfectly reasonable to say that the evolutionary process results in "design optimisation".

You brushed each and everyone of those examples aside with rather juvenile, and downright ignorant, one-liners.

Why would I put in any effort again? I know the outcome will be the same:

I gave you a very, very, very simple example of an evolutionary process producing actual designs of cars, while starting with a collection of non-designed and random polygons.


Your reaction was phenomenally ignorant.
Several people, including myself, have then explained to you why your reaction was phenomenally ignorant.

Your response?
Well.... the picture above is quite accurate.

No, sorry, I'm not going to put in that effort again.
Clearly, it doesn't matter at all what I say. You have made up your mind and nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

You say that evolution can't produce designs.
I give you a link of an evolutionary process doing exactly that.

And it doesn't make any difference to you. You simply continue to assert that evolution can't produce designs.

Well then..... yea.... Nothing much left to say at that point.

No, you gave me a programmed computer simulator that designs cars from already existing material put into the program. Evolution doesn't produce cars.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you deny evolution as it is understood in mainstream biology.

You can't have it both ways.

That is absolutely false. However, I do not believe what mainstream biology asserts without evidence.

 

[whois]

Did you read my post directly above this one?

yes.

Koonin, Eldridge, Gould, etc... None of them deny evolution. None of them deny (near-)universal common ancestry*, speciation, natural selection, descent with modification, or any of the key parts of evolution.

i never said they did.

They have issues with some of the mechanisms and feel that it needs revision.

smith outright states there is no theory to explain the increasing complexity of the record and there is no reason to expect this increase, nor is there any empirical evidence of it.
koonin has issues with more than "some" of the mechanisms, he outright states in "the origin at 150" that ALL of the tenets of neodarwinism (AKA the modern synthesis) has either been overturned or replaced.

You have stated outright that you do not believe that the evidence warrants the claim that evolution can produce disparate clades, and you seem to reject that this is possible.

i base my remarks on what i've read from various scientists on the matter.
the record itself is not one of change, but one of statsis, which puts a lot of nails into the "small accumulating change" theory.
this is basically my stand, the record is discontinuous phylogenetically.
the adaptive nature of darwinism is also incorrect as one of my recent posts shows.
the MA experiment conclusively shows a linearly decreasing fitness with the accumulation of mutations.

Koonin, Eldridge, and Gould are not evolution deniers.

i never said they were.

You are. I'm basing this off your own post where I specifically asked what about evolution you disagree with; if I have misinterpreted you, please tell me so that I can correct that.

do you really want to know what my beef is?
the "he didn't say it" garbage.
evolution is RIFE with this type of charade.
when someone brings something like this up, there is no digging to get to the bottom of it.
you, and others immediately go on the "denier, creationist, ignorant" crusade.
well, you and the others need to get over yourselves, because koonin did indeed say what i posted he said.
it's on the record for anyone to see.
you keep insinuating i am misrepresenting him.
i have asked you twice to send him my posts and get his comments on what i said he said.
make sure you also send him the sources i got his words from.
as of this date you have refused to do that.

*Not entirely sure where the science stands on this issue; I know it's still nearly universal, but HGT at the base of the tree of life makes the issue rather confusing.

HGT isn't the only confusing thing.
transposons and gene duplication also complicates matters, and quite a bit in my opinion.
koonin goes into this with "the origin at 150"

Well, if you don't reject any part of the core of the theory of evolution (I know I just asked you about this and you gave me an answer on it that wasn't this, but I can't find the post, so I'll just take you on your word here), then I have no idea what we're fighting about.

your assumptions, the cadet, that's what.
you are apparently assuming i am arguing for a god, and it's simply not true.
also, you seem to be totally blind to the fact that you cannot interpret the record in terms of evolution, then point to that interpretation as proof.
this is circular reasoning.

I'm sorry I misinterpreted your statements with regards to Koonin and the others; I could have sworn you were arguing that they had somehow debunked evolution.

this is how it almost ALWAYS goes.
of course it's to be expected to a degree on a religious site.
eldredge and ayala, both of them point to the disparities of the record, and the truth will NEVER be fleshed out by saying "creationist, debunker, or they didn't say it".

And on a side note, to anyone wanting to play the conspiracy card, why is Koonin considered a respectable, cutting-edge scientist while seriously criticizing numerous aspects of the modern synthesis, whereas Behe is seen as a joke? I'll give you a hint: It starts with "ID" and ends with "is not science".

it isn't just koonin.
a large number of scientists are changing their minds about the modern synthesis.
4 different fields are coming together and promises an almost total revamping of this theory, genomics, molecular biology, statistical physics, and evo devo.

 

[Oncedeceived]

yes.

i never said they did.

smith outright states there is no theory to explain the increasing complexity of the record and there is no reason to expect this increase, nor is there any empirical evidence of it.
koonin has issues with more than "some" of the mechanisms, he outright states in "the origin at 150" that ALL of the tenets of neodarwinism (AKA the modern synthesis) has either been overturned or replaced.

i base my remarks on what i've read from various scientists on the matter.
the record itself is not one of change, but one of statsis, which puts a lot of nails into the "small accumulating change" theory.
this is basically my stand, the record is discontinuous phylogenetically.
the adaptive nature of darwinism is also incorrect as one of my recent posts shows.
the MA experiment conclusively shows a linearly decreasing fitness with the accumulation of mutations.

i never said they were.

do you really want to know what my beef is?
the "he didn't say it" garbage.
evolution is RIFE with this type of charade.
when someone brings something like this up, there is no digging to get to the bottom of it.
you, and others immediately go on the "denier, creationist, ignorant" crusade.
well, you and the others need to get over yourselves, because koonin did indeed say what i posted he said.
it's on the record for anyone to see.
you keep insinuating i am misrepresenting him.
i have asked you twice to send him my posts and get his comments on what i said he said.
make sure you also send him the sources i got his words from.
as of this date you have refused to do that.

HGT isn't the only confusing thing.
transposons and gene duplication also complicates matters, and quite a bit in my opinion.
koonin goes into this with "the origin at 150"

your assumptions, the cadet, that's what.
you are apparently assuming i am arguing for a god, and it's simply not true.
also, you seem to be totally blind to the fact that you cannot interpret the record in terms of evolution, then point to that interpretation as proof.
this is circular reasoning.

this is how it almost ALWAYS goes.
of course it's to be expected to a degree on a religious site.
eldredge and ayala, both of them point to the disparities of the record, and the truth will NEVER be fleshed out by saying "creationist, debunker, or they didn't say it".

it isn't just koonin.
a large number of scientists are changing their minds about the modern synthesis.
4 different fields are coming together and promises an almost total revamping of this theory, genomics, molecular biology, statistical physics, and evo devo.

whois why don't you write to him? Why ask them to do it?

 

[whois]

whois why don't you write to him? Why ask them to do it?

i have no need to.
what i posted from koonin came from the papers he himself wrote.
somehow, and don't ask me why, the cadet says i misrepresent koonin when i post his words verbatum.
i have no idea why the cadet has such an issue with it.
the only thing i can think of is he doubts a scientist would say such a thing.
well, he did.
google "the origin at 150" from NCBI, it's a pay for article though almost 40 bucks.
i have it on my hard drive but i've been forbidden to quote it or uploading it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i have no need to.
what i posted from koonin came from the papers he himself wrote.
somehow, and don't ask me why, the cadet says i misrepresent koonin when i post his words verbatum.
i have no idea why the cadet has such an issue with it.
the only thing i can think of is he doubts a scientist would say such a thing.
well, he did.
google "the origin at 150" from NCBI, it's a pay for article though almost 40 bucks.
i have it on my hard drive but i've been forbidden to quote it or uploading it.

Common tactic. It seems that if it is something they don't want to hear it is a misrepresentation. The same thing done to me about Richard Dawkins...I've misrepresented him but I quoted the cover of his book and even clearly said he thinks evolution produced the design results. Go figure. It seems materialists lose sight of rationality when faced with things they don't like.

 

[The Cadet]

No, you gave me a programmed computer simulator that designs cars from already existing material put into the program. Evolution doesn't produce cars.

Congratulations on completely missing the point over and over and over again.

Just for reference, here's the #1 on the "Best" page from boxcar2d for the "Speedway" course:

And here's a screenshot of the car I have after some 106 generations:

(Which, by the way, beats that other car's time by .06 seconds.)

Do you really not understand the significance of this? What this algorithm is doing is simulating the forces of evolution. Go into the program and look at the first few generations. You'll see complete messes of polygons, wheels buckled on every-which-way, absolutely nothing of meaning or structure. Sooner or later, more or less by chance, you'll happen upon something which can actually roll, and in the following reproduction, that organism will be favored. And after a while, you see organisms evolving which are not only well-adapted as cars, but which are well-adapted to the specific environment that they're in, be that environment a straight track, a parabolic curve, a sine wave that's gradually getting tighter and tighter, or just a random clutter of lines that gradually get harder and harder to navigate.

It doesn't matter that evolution does not produce cars. It doesn't matter that the program takes "already existing material". What matters is that we have a random process with no inherent design producing what appears to be clearly designed organisms. And yes, you could object that "the computer program is designed". Fair enough. However, if we could build a 1:1 simulation of the universe that perfectly hindcasts and forecasts all of the earth's history, it would surely be a valuable source of information on how natural processes work... But it would be a computer program. Designed by humans. Does that mean that it is therefore evidence that the tides were intelligently steered? That you ate that burger because an intelligent being made you?

The objections you raise either completely miss the point of the argument or are really, really wrong. Boxcar2d shows without a doubt that evolutionary mechanisms can produce a subjective appearance of design with no trouble whatsoever. Is it a perfect parallel for evolution? It doesn't have to be; we're talking strictly about the appearance of design. It provides a disproof that isn't even necessary, because your "evidence" doesn't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny anyways!

Whois, I'm going for ice cream and I will get to you next.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Congratulations on completely missing the point over and over and over again.

Just for reference, here's the #1 on the "Best" page from boxcar2d for the "Speedway" course:

And here's a screenshot of the car I have after some 106 generations:

View attachment 161638
(Which, by the way, beats that other car's time by .06 seconds.)

Do you really not understand the significance of this? What this algorithm is doing is simulating the forces of evolution. Go into the program and look at the first few generations. You'll see complete messes of polygons, wheels buckled on every-which-way, absolutely nothing of meaning or structure. Sooner or later, more or less by chance, you'll happen upon something which can actually roll, and in the following reproduction, that organism will be favored. And after a while, you see organisms evolving which are not only well-adapted as cars, but which are well-adapted to the specific environment that they're in, be that environment a straight track, a parabolic curve, a sine wave that's gradually getting tighter and tighter, or just a random clutter of lines that gradually get harder and harder to navigate.

It doesn't matter that evolution does not produce cars. It doesn't matter that the program takes "already existing material". What matters is that we have a random process with no inherent design producing what appears to be clearly designed organisms. And yes, you could object that "the computer program is designed". Fair enough. However, if we could build a 1:1 simulation of the universe that perfectly hindcasts and forecasts all of the earth's history, it would surely be a valuable source of information on how natural processes work... But it would be a computer program. Designed by humans. Does that mean that it is therefore evidence that the tides were intelligently steered? That you ate that burger because an intelligent being made you?

The objections you raise either completely miss the point of the argument or are really, really wrong. Boxcar2d shows without a doubt that evolutionary mechanisms can produce a subjective appearance of design with no trouble whatsoever. Is it a perfect parallel for evolution? It doesn't have to be; we're talking strictly about the appearance of design. It provides a disproof that isn't even necessary, because your "evidence" doesn't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny anyways!

Whois, I'm going for ice cream and I will get to you next.

Don't you even understand that the program is intelligently designed. So you are back to explaining design that you don't see. Amazing.

 

[justlookinla]

Don't you even understand that the program is intelligently designed. So you are back to explaining design that you don't see. Amazing.

Yes, it's amazing.

 

[The Cadet]

Don't you even understand that the program is intelligently designed. So you are back to explaining design that you don't see. Amazing.

Yes. The program is intelligently designed. Intelligently designed to simulate random evolution. It doesn't matter that the program itself was designed; what matters is that within the context of the simulation, the cars are not. Again, if I were to simulate the entire universe, accurate down to the last pixel, and this simulation showed no intervening intelligence in the process of life, what would that mean? It would mean that life was not designed. It doesn't matter that the program is designed, the simulation shows in context that life was not designed.

Let me ask you something. The Miller-Urey experiment was "designed" to simulate ancient earth. Does that mean that its results are evidence that the first amino acids were intelligently designed?

smith outright states there is no theory to explain the increasing complexity of the record and there is no reason to expect this increase, nor is there any empirical evidence of it.

In this paper some 45 years ago, he seems to argue the opposite point. That said, I don't have the fulltext, merely the first two pages, so...
In his seminal book, he speaks of exactly this issue, but I'm not sure you understand the point. He brings it up right at the start, and makes it clear that while there is no reason to expect an increase in complexity from an evolutionary standpoint (after all, bacteria today are not that much more complex than they were millions of years ago), he clearly holds that it did happen.

koonin has issues with more than "some" of the mechanisms, he outright states in "the origin at 150" that ALL of the tenets of neodarwinism (AKA the modern synthesis) has either been overturned or replaced.

Clearly not tenets like descent with modification, common ancestry, and natural selection. Because he accepts all of those, and everything else, while surely interesting, is all refinement of the core theory.

the record itself is not one of change, but one of statsis, which puts a lot of nails into the "small accumulating change" theory.

Again, this is knowledge that's 40+ years out of date...

this is basically my stand, the record is discontinuous phylogenetically.

...But this is wrong.

do you really want to know what my beef is?
the "he didn't say it" garbage.
evolution is RIFE with this type of charade.
when someone brings something like this up, there is no digging to get to the bottom of it.
you, and others immediately go on the "denier, creationist, ignorant" crusade.

Do you know why we do that? It's because virtually every biologist alive today accepts evolution. It would be absurd to hear someone like Koonin say "evolution is wrong". That there are individual aspects that need cleaning up, sure, but the core tenets of the theory are valid and demonstrable. And then someone trots up and says, "No, see, this core tenet of evolution is wrong, and here's this scientist who said so". This is a dance we've done a million times before. So we investigate. We don't just immediately cry foul, we look for the source and investigate the context!

well, you and the others need to get over yourselves, because koonin did indeed say what i posted he said.
it's on the record for anyone to see.
you keep insinuating i am misrepresenting him.
i have asked you twice to send him my posts and get his comments on what i said he said.
make sure you also send him the sources i got his words from.
as of this date you have refused to do that.

I must have missed that. Send me a post via PM that I should send to him and I will gladly send it to him, and to you as a CC if you care to give me your email address, just to prove I did it.

a large number of scientists are changing their minds about the modern synthesis.
4 different fields are coming together and promises an almost total revamping of this theory, genomics, molecular biology, statistical physics, and evo devo.

It's an exciting time to be involved in the field of biology. Wanna bet that, 50 years from now, dinosaurs are still the direct ancestors of modern birds?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, you gave me a programmed computer simulator that designs cars from already existing material put into the program. Evolution doesn't produce cars.

Right, see? Just like I said.

Brushed aside with a phenomenally ignorant one-liner.

This is akin to saying that ice on the arctic is not the natural result of
the cold environment, "because freezers are not natural".

Fact remains...

The boxcar2d example is an evolutionary process which starts with random polygons at generation 0 and results in highly efficient designs of cars driving the track, very successfully, after a couple of dozen iterations.

No "intelligent" interventions required. Just a "mindless, directionless, purposeless" process of "mutate, survive, reproduce".


Exactly what you claim can't happen.

So yea... nothing much left to say.