1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Perfection, Aug 15, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ironduck

    ironduck Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,561
    Would it be new information if a species changes pigmentation? What if its digestive system adapts to process new food sources? The concept of 'new' seems entirely arbitrary..
     
  2. thescaryworker

    thescaryworker Builder

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    In my mind
    The species never underwent any change. (they never had any time to reproduce) One type died off, and the other survived. If I have red and blue coins, and someone steals all the red ones (they don't like the color blue), the blue ones are left (duh!). That just means the blue type of gene will be more common later (say, I split all the coins in two every once in a while). The gene already existed, heck, it even existed in the form it was needed.

    What I'm saying is that the article only proves natural selection, not macro-evolution. No new kinds of animals were created in the process of the experiment.

    (In response to, but not directed at El Machinae) Exlpain ANY controlled experiment where a new organ, with a function initially unavailable to the organism was developed.

    El Machinae, all that has to happen is that the DNA 'code lines' where the body is told to construct the flippers is 'read' twice. It would be very hard to tell whether it was a new gene or a flaw in the 'dna reader', so one cannot assume it is one for sure (though it must be one of the two, or one we have not thought of).
     
  3. Souron

    Souron The Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,947
    Location:
    (GMT-5)
    First of all, chances are the colors are not red and blue, but varrying shades of both. Infact initially they might all have been different shades of red. But if there are evolutionary pressures on the coins to be more blue, then the really bright red ones would die, but the darkest ones will survive. Each generation would be closer to the presumably optimal dark blue.

    Also important is that usually evolution occurs slowly. Animals live in a state or relitive equalibrium untill a change occurs. When a mutation or abnormality in an animal occurs, it that mutation either makes the animal more or less fit for it's enviroment. If less, after a few generation it will die away. If more, it will prove an advantage to the sepeices and the animals with the mutated gene will dominate over the older less fit animals.

    Other changes that occur are in the form of changes of the enviroment. when the enviroment changes, there are new standards of fitness for the animal, resulting in evolutionary pressures in a new direction, away from previous equalibrium.
     
  4. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,360
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Well, it would probably depend on why the pigmentation colour changed. If a colour was removed, because one of the producing genes was knocked out, then probably not. If colour was added, because a gene mutated to provide a novel protein ... well, I don't know (but I'm guessing not). However, if the pigmentation gene was copied and then the copy mutated to produce a novel protein that was sometimes expressed ... I can't see how that's anything other than new information.

    To use this analogy:
    "New information" would be the appearance of a yellow coin, and then the yellow coin propagating its line successfully. This type of 'information addition' happens all the time. The yellow gene never existed, and then exists from mutation. If it 'replaced' a blue or red gene, then we have a bit of a semantic debate (lol). But if it did not replace the red or blue genes, but merely dominated them (so they were still expressed) ... then you have new information and the beginnings of speciation.

    Asking for a new organ is a bit of a red herring. No evolutionary theory purports that the selection occurs at a rate that can be measured, if you measure it via the 'organ test'. New biology, though, has been exhibited (with the nylon-eating bacteria); these proteins appeared via mutation and then survived because they could out-perform regular bacteria.
     
  5. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,778
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    I've always found it a rather silly thing when someone posts some evolution related discovery in the news and says "eat that, Creationists". While they indeed are good examples of the utility of evolutionary theory they aren't some magic fact needed to bring down creationism. Posting a recent find in such manner leads to sensationalizing of the find and trivializes evolution to being significantly less supported before this find. When supporting evolution I try to go by the textbook rather then newspaper. Save those "eat that, Creationists" moments for when they lose court cases.
     
  6. thescaryworker

    thescaryworker Builder

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    In my mind
    The case is not stating that creation cannot be taught, it cannot be required to be taught. 'We' lost the same case we have been fighting for for many years (search for an Arkansas one a few years ago, and you'll see what I mean). Both cases lost because the creationists wanted intelligent design to be required in the curriculum, not because the US government does not recognize creationism as somthing that can be taught to school children. (It CAN and IS taught in my high school)

    Read deeper into the lines, and you'll see that the prosecuters wanted intelligent design to be required.
     
  7. Eran of Arcadia

    Eran of Arcadia Stormin' Mormon Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    23,090
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Sunshine and Lettuce Capital of the World
  8. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,778
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    thescaryworker, who are you adressing with your post?
     
  9. Eran of Arcadia

    Eran of Arcadia Stormin' Mormon Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    23,090
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Sunshine and Lettuce Capital of the World
  10. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,778
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    Ah, the joys of ninja editing and crossposting
     
  11. Babbler

    Babbler Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,399
    Well put.

    When you have a castle in the sky, no shift in the ground can bother you.
     
  12. Phlegmak

    Phlegmak Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Messages:
    10,966
    Location:
    Nowhere
  13. Erik Mesoy

    Erik Mesoy Core Tester / Intern

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    10,955
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    Bumped for possible coverage of beingofone's recent argument in this thread.

     
  14. ironduck

    ironduck Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,561
    I just skimmed his posts in that thread.. what arguments? He doesn't understand the basic tenets of evolution and as a result grossly misrepresents them.. what else is new?
     
  15. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Creation science is an oxymoron. :)
     
  16. thescaryworker

    thescaryworker Builder

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    In my mind
    Isn't evolution science also? (macro-evolution)

    Both are based on ideas that cannot be scientifically proved. (or disproved)
     
  17. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    No. Science and "creation science" (or pseudoscience) are completely different things.

    Science begins with observation. We note what we see, and we hypothesize reasons for why we might see those things. We then rigorously test these hypotheses, and debate them from all angles to see whether they hold true. Finally, with science, the whole point is that the theories are tentative, and not rigidly fact - it's always possible that in future, a better explanation could render a previous theory obsolete.

    "Creation science" (pseudoscience) is not even slightly related to this process. It begins with a work of fiction. Then it moves to a select bunch of individuals asserting, insisting, and twisting facts by whatever means necessary to try desperately make the increasingly contradictory observations conform with the work of fiction. "Creation science" does not change, cannot be questioned, and is completely rigid - not tentative.

    "Creation science" is not science, not the slightest form of it. It is religion. Religion also has a place in this world, but it is in the church - not in the science laboratory.
     
  18. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,778
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    Evolution has been scientifically proved as much as any other theory.
     
  19. beingofone

    beingofone Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    174
    Location:
    usa
    Can we stick to the points and not the person?

    Here we go again - I say you do not understand evolution, it is exactly why you believe in it. I did post my three points of which only one person responded to, everyone else attacked me and not the argument.

    Here is the argument against it being a sound theory:
    Three points - address them and not my 'ignorance of evolution'.


    No; science begins with an assumption, that is how a hypothesis is formed. What I think is nonsense is the concept that there is 'only' the material when our very experience of life itself demonstrates otherwise.

    Like macroevolution - it begins with a work of fiction ie: abiogenesis. Then it moves to a select bunch of individuals asserting, insisting, and twisting facts by whatever means necessary to try desperately make the increasingly contradictory observations conform with the work of fiction. Macroevolution and abiogenesis does not change, cannot be questioned, and is completely rigid - not tentative.

    Oh yes; ID is just as credible if not more so than the postulate of macroevolution. ID can clearly demonstrate intelligence and design as properties of the universe and therefore, has predictive power.

    That means it is science, Intelligent Design can be used for predictive power and can be tested.

    For example: Is DNA designed or is it random?
     
  20. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    beingofone: For a start you make the same (almost traditional) mistake as many many other Creationists; with your first objection you make the mistake of suggesting that evolution cares where life came from. Evolution requires life, nothing more, whether that life was created or came about through abiogenesis is irrelevant. (Remember: Darwin was a Creationist)

    The gap between animal and plant life was explained to you before, did you fail to understand the explanation or do you choose the traditional creationist method of ignoring evidence and explanation? Early single-celled organisms (neither plant nor animal) evolved into either plant or animal type cells, one did not evolve into the other, so of course we would not expect to see any organism suddenly cross this 'gap' - it never existed.

    If you mean 'there has been no recorded speciation event' then you are flat out wrong (check the talkorigins website for a list of observed speciation events). However I suspect that you mean something more along the lines of 'a cat has never evolved into a dog' - in which case you show an appalling lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Such an event would disprove evolution.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page