The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Scuffer]

An eight winged chicken might evolve in a situation where an advantage might be gained in improved flight. Or perhaps for another use, like attracting a mate with an inpressive display of flapping of fighting off predators.
The fact that no 8 winged chicken (or other bird) shows that such a body plan doesn't have any of these advantages. The existance or absence of freak chickens has no bearing one way or the other on the validity of evolution.

 

[stormbind]

But, Scuffer, you could create an artificial environment to facilitate the evolution of an 8 winged chicken if you understood the responses of evolution to all given situations.

Your response if qualitative at best. Without an empirical/quantitative thesis on the specifics of evolution, there remains a dependency on faith in the Theory of Evolution.

With regards to Gravity, we have the level of knowledge required to deliver KO evidence. With regards to ToE, we have insufficient knowledge to make absolute claims.

 

[CrazyScientist]

So you have no example then? Not even a plan to show how an 8-winged chicken might evolve?

This matters, because without it, you have no KO.

Wrong. It would matter if eight-winged chickens were running around everywhere and we couldn't explain how they evolved. As it is, it doesn't matter. Evolution does not predict the existance of eight-winged chickens, so it need not explain them.
Anatomy does suggest that the vertebrate body plan cannot easily support more than four limbs. I predict that if engineered, an eight-winged chicken would not survive long after birth, if it even made it that far.

 

[sir_schwick]

Theorhetically we could design creatures, if we fully understand how DNA affects development. However, the step from Genes to Organism is long and complicated. Genes determine what kind and quantity of proteins are produced. Proteins combine and trigger chemical reactions, or build structures. These reactions cause other reactions. Proteins feed in again to cause reactions of reactants of the first reaction(try saying that five times fast). And a variety of other chemical processes. If someone figured out the math, then it would be a simple matter of reverse engineering. However, this math is well beyond most computers and has not been discovered yet. Also take into account mutation, non-pure chemical environments, and a thousand ohter micro issues that would effect developement. The net result is the fact that most genetic change by humans has to be made slowly and over time. Our knowledge of evolution and genetics has allowed the breeding of more resilent and efficient plants. It has allowed scientists to grow bacteria that secrete Insulin rather than relying on ground up animal pancreases, which are unreliable because the protein is designed for animals.

An 8-wing chicken would not evolve and stay around because it would lack competative advantage. Now how the anomalous 8-wing chicken evolves, the math does not exist to prove it, but by extending other proofs of evolution, you can in theory. Remember, no science is complete.

 

[carlosMM]

So you have no example then? Not even a plan to show how an 8-winged chicken might evolve?

This matters, because without it, you have no KO.

why SHOULD I? I can KO creationism easily without it.

And, btw, YOU should now come up with a way to make friction of car wheels only 50% of present values UNLESS for braking!

You can't?


God, turn that friction thing OFF ASAP, we can't fully control it....





but, to ease your mind a bit I'll play your idiotic little childish rethorics game:


get a chicken farm
get some gamma ray source
bombard the chicken
select those young chicks that exhibit extra wings (and it WILL happen)
breed them


takes a while, but as we fully understand the processes involved it is feasible.


and now I dare you to tell me you didn't think of this answer yourself. Please quit your childish nonsense argumentation which is nothing but blowing smoke and get to the issue: Evolution is well understood and works jsut fine - care to disprove that?

 

[Scuffer]

In theory, yes you could. Practically, no real-world situation would favour it. There simply no advantage to be gained from this many wings. They wouldn't be able to fly any better and would require a lot of maintenance. If you can think of one, you can make that chicken and have that BBQ in celebration.
They might occur naturally (like the 4 winger in the link), but very very unlikely. The best way would be to blast eggs with radioactivity until you got a 8 winger and breed from that. This obviously is not 'the real thing'.
You can demonstrate these effects in things that actually provide an advantage, like antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but not any alteration that comes off the top of your head. That misunderstands the principles behind the theory of evolution.

And yes, in my opinion you won't ever be able to conclusively prove something like this. But the theory hangs together, makes logical sense, plenty of good evidence to support it. I will defend it until something even 1% as convinving comes along. I won't argue against creationism, there isn't any point. It has no credibility whatsoever.
You know the Black Knight in Monty Pythons Holy Grail, who refuses to give in even though his limbs are gone? (http://www.slangcity.com/movie_quote/holy_grail.htm). It's how I see the argument.

 

[stormbind]

why SHOULD I? I can KO creationism easily without it.

You are insinuating here that you can disprove Creationism without mentioning Evolution!

And, btw, YOU should now come up with a way to make friction of car wheels only 50% of present values UNLESS for braking!

Actually, you are again incorrect. Car tyres require friction to move forward, or else they would spin on the spot and the car wouldn't leave the drive. Maximum friction is always beneficial for car tyres.

If you are talking about the wheel mechanics, then ofcourse we do have that control. It's called the common break. Every detail of the wheel, from friction, to lost forces, to metal fatigue, etc. can be explained in mathematical terms.

God, turn that friction thing OFF ASAP, we can't fully control it....

And I said, I am not asking you to turn off Evolution, merely take advantage of it. Stop twisting things.

 

[stormbind]

Give me some empirical data to support Evolution!

Some day, a brilliant mind will write down the Coeficient of Evolution and back it up with mathematics. This brilliant mind does not appear to visit our forums

 

[stormbind]

In theory, yes you could. Practically, no real-world situation would favour it.

If you created a real world livestock farm, supplying KFC, I am sure it would be beneficial.

 

[carlosMM]

Give me some empirical data to support Evolution!

how does the sum of all life on this planet do?

Some day, a brilliant mind will write down the Coeficient of Evolution and back it up with mathematics. This brilliant mind does not appear to visit our forums

maths can only be descriptive. You can also sometimes use it to predict compley systems you described. But there is no need for brilliance when we deal with billions and billions of variables - only the need for a quantum computer

 

[Scuffer]

As I said though, selective breeding is not evolution (though others will differ). If you wanted an 8 winged chicken, you could breed one. KFC obviously don't. Perhaps breast meat produces better return on investment, maybe they don't need 4x the number of wings, quite likely the problems of keeping 8 winged birds would outweigh the benefits. Almost certainly, there would be a big public outcry (in Europe anyway) about the practice.
I don't know why exactly chcken producers don't want 8 winged chickens, but patently they don't.

 

[carlosMM]

selective breeding is not evolution

well, OK, that's like saying a court trial is not law.

selective breeding is a process that works on the basis of facts and processes explained by the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. If the SToE was patetly wrong in broad terms, selective breeding would not work. There is NO other explanation as to why it works than the SToE.

 

[stormbind]

Now how the anomalous 8-wing chicken evolves, the math does not exist to prove it, but by extending other proofs of evolution, you can in theory. Remember, no science is complete.

The Theory of Evolution is far less complete than most other theories. What I was trying to get at, is that our understanding of ToE is still so incomplete, that it requires some leap of faith.

Science changes all the time, and the Theory of Evolution has some evolving of it's own to do

 

[carlosMM]

The Theory of Evolution is far less complete than most other theories. What I was trying to get at, is that our understanding of ToE is still so incomplete, that it requires some leap of faith.

Science changes all the time, and the Theory of Evolution has some evolving of it's own to do

nonsens, for such a complicated topic as life, the SToE is quite refined by now. Comparing solid body physics and the biology of living animals is like comparing an axe to a nuclear reactor. So saying 'most other theories are more complete' just shows that you have no graps of the proportions!

Come on, tell us one thing that the SToE doesn't explain fairly well. Just one! At least at the level of how gravitation can be explained today!

 

[Scuffer]

As I said though, selective breeding is not evolution (though others will differ).

well, OK, that's like saying a court trial is not law.

Not really, no. We differ. Selective breeding is unnatural selection. It is not scientifically (I doubt legally either) valid to claim evolution from selective breeding. It's the same argument as claiming that whatever gunk they are putting skin cream this week is effective because it worked on a tissue culture. OK, it's an indication, circumstanial evidence if you like, but I can't sit here all day using scientific method to prove things I agree with and forget it as soon as I see something I don't. It would make me a poor scientist.
I wish there was a great proof, but there isn't yet. All the little bits of evidence that crop up don't do enough to prove something, only support it.

 

[carlosMM]

Not really, no. We differ. Selective breeding is unnatural selection. It is not scientifically (I doubt legally either) valid to claim evolution from selective breeding. It's the same argument as claiming that whatever gunk they are putting skin cream this week is effective because it worked on a tissue culture. OK, it's an indication, circumstanial evidence if you like, but I can't sit here all day using scientific method to prove things I agree with and forget it as soon as I see something I don't. It would make me a poor scientist.
I wish there was a great proof, but there isn't yet. All the little bits of evidence that crop up don't do enough to prove something, only support it.

ah, the other way round: selective breeding alone does not prove evolution - it is only an indication, as you say.

but as there is NO other explanation for it I count i as a very strong argument in favor!

 

[Scuffer]

I agree with that entirely, but I can not ignore the possiblity I am wrong. It is (very remotely) possible that there is some God figure up there dictating the outcome of every selective breed, and every other thing that anyone claims as proof. This is distinct from creationism, which I view as a wishy-washy, flippy-floppy compromise with none of the benefits of either view. Either believe in God or science!

I had a look to see if I had this quote right and who siad it, or if I invented it (unlikely, it's too coherent and snappy). Couldn't find out, but someone's bound to know, someone always does.

"The current state of scientific knowledge is not a fortress to be defended against all attack, but a shady spot to have lunch before moving on"

 

[carlosMM]

scuffer, what you refer to is what I call blowing philosophical smoke: yes there may be a GOd who dug in dinosaurs to fake us


and a good quote!

 

[Scuffer]

Yes, I realise it is utterly preposterous. I don't believe a word of it, more unbelievable than quantum physics. But I can't rule it out logically or scientifically. Neither can you, neither can anyone, how ever much they think they can. They have a circular argument set up

 

[sir_schwick]

I do not believe that Creationism has to rule out the principles of Evolution. Life does evolve and adapt. The real dispute is the history of that evolution, rather than the principles. The problem with any history is the fact that one can never truly know what happens without directly observing it(time machine). I know this makes the issue unresolvable, but I see many side issues which are seperate. I will categorize them by arguments that effect the outcome of the debate, and those that do not.

Relavent Arguments:
R1) Resolved: Through a process of gene recombination, genetic mutation, and other processes genetic lines change over time and evolve. This makes the assumption of 'survival of the fittest', a principle that would be next to impossible to refute.

Irelevant Arguments:
I1) Resolved: The theory of evolution predicts the progress of life that evidence shows us.
I2) Resolved: God is responsible for placing the universe as it is, so everything appears to have aged properly.
I3) Resolved: The nature of Creationism excludes the teachings of biological evolution.

I believe a focused debate would be more productive here. If interested, the format is you declare if you are affirmative or negative on a resolution by putting A or N before the appropriate Title(ex. A R1). Also, subpoints are added in ascending order by a number after the title(ex. A1 R1 1). Affirmative goes first for each resolution, and negative gets a chance to rebut. Negative assumes presumption, and affirmative must provide 'prima facie case' and evidence for first argument. 2nd Negative gets to disclose the 'negative philosophy' or negative arguments, but can only rebut affirmatives case subpoints and points. All argumetns and rebuttals must fullfill a burdern of proof or they are nullified. Only the 1st affirmative and negative speakers can put down new arguments, all others must rebutt established arguments.