Willful Ignorance of Evolution?

[_Trevor]

Nice work, silentkid. You seem surprisingly unconfused.

[_dartagnan]

Perhaps I should have added the word "here", since these were the evolutionists you were addressing. I thought you would be able to pick up on that.

And I would have thought most people would have picked up on the fact that "heard" wasn't to be taken literally. And most people probably did.

I simply said that you answered a question about what you had read by talking about the things you had heard.

Your whole point was to justify your head shaking by saying I frequently speak on matters on which I am not an expert. Guilty as charged. I'm trying to learn here, so what's your excuse?

You make it sound like what you have been reading is not about evolution per se, but about debating with people who take an evolutionist perspective.

I make it "sound like" huh? Is that your excuse for a poor attempt at mind reading? Evolution books do not generally attempt to explain or answer to my specific question; a question EA considers to be an irrelevant point. So stop pretending this is something that finds an answer in every book written on the subject, hence the irrelevant question "what have you read?" Asking me what books I have read is nothing more than an attempt to avoid the question. If you can't answer the question, then swallow your pride for a second and just say so.

Sort of like the "research" you had done on the historical Jesus question, which seemed centered on one apologetic book.

Excuse me? Is that where we left off? All I could remember was your silly reference to my "jousting" with DCP, which had nothing whatsoever to do with anything that was being discussed. You're going back to your "patently absurd" behavior.

I shake my head because I see you doing the same dance with every topic now. I am not looking down my nose at you. I am shaking my head ruefully because you seem to be stuck in an unfortunate phase.

And what phase is that?
Isn't it just possible that my purposes have escaped you completely?

How do you think I came around to the reality of Mormonism? By doing the same exact thing I am doing right now. I ask the questions that need to be asked knowing perfectly well I would be attacked. But in the mayhem I get the attention of those who matter. I get the available experts to take the time to do the necessary legwork and explicate their case in a public forum. You seem to think I am always trying to outdo someone intellectually.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I know none of you personally and chances are, I'll never meet any of you before I die. You can think as badly about me as you want, I really don't care. I use these forums to learn. And in that process I throw out every single thing that is on my mind to see how the experts respond. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Gee, I'm sorry. I must have mistaken you for the Kevin Graham who insists on being the resident champion of theism. My bad.

Theism and evolution are not necessarily at odds. Hasn't this been pointed out to you several times already? Is it a personal policy for you to slam theism in every discussion you have with theists, simply because they are theists? Or should they first make an argument from theism before attacking it?

[_Tarski]

This is essentially a "God of the gaps" argument. Of course, if something is not yet known or answered by science, you can use God as the explanation.

Well, it isn't just that science hasn't explained it yet.

It is that the science of materialism has essentially hit a brick wall. Life doesn't spring forth from nonlife.

Realy? Why not. Given that in an ocean of complex molecules obeying they physics can chemistry that it does, bilions upon billions of different molecules are formed and destroyed.
No explain the the logical obstacle to one of those molecules being one of the known or some other self-relicating molecule?
Or isn't that life?
Where is the logical impossibility that makes life (complex molecular systems that reproduce) can never come from combinations of simpler chemical systems (nonlife)?

[_Some Schmo]

This is essentially a "God of the gaps" argument. Of course, if something is not yet known or answered by science, you can use God as the explanation.

Well, it isn't just that science hasn't explained it yet.

It is that the science of materialism has essentially hit a brick wall. Life doesn't spring forth from nonlife.

Realy? Why not. Given that in an ocean of complex molecules obeying they physics can chemistry that it does, bilions upon billions of different molecules are formed and destroyed.
No explain the the logical obstacle to one of those molecules being one of the known or some other self-relicating molecule?
Or isn't that life?
Where is the logical impossibility that makes life (complex molecular systems that reproduce) can never come from combinations of simpler chemical systems (nonlife)?

While I admire your patience to try to explain this sort of stuff to the mental midgets, I have to wonder why you bother to exert the effort. Contrary to their disingenuous claims, they aren't here to learn anything, otherwise they wouldn't be here looking for posters to reinvent the wheel and would actually be out researching it for themselves. They're just pissed off because unconsciously (or perhaps even consciously), they know they're wrong, and just want to rile people up. Their agenda is clear.

You can't penetrate a brain that came to life from a marble table.

[_dartagnan]

Hey kid, good to hear from you,

I'm not sure I understand the statement I bolded. Genes don't "learn" anything.

Yes, I was being sarcastic to point out that something intelligence seems to be at work. If not the gene, then what?

Random mutations in genes can cause a change in phenotype, beneficial or detrimental. If the change leads to a phenotype that is beneficial and a niche can be exploited, that change stands a better chance of being passed on through reproduction then one that is detrimental.

So the mutation that caused fish to become birds had nothing to do with natural selection or adaptation? It was just a result of "random" mutation? What I don't understand is how a sea creature can develop wings without some kind of intelligence at play. You can't expect to find that intelligence in genes, so where does it come from? There are laws of aerodynamics that must be met before flight is possible. How does a sea creature stand a better chance of survival in a completely different environment like that? It seems to me that if a fish randomly grew feathers instead of fins, it would serve no benefit whatsoever to the fish inthe water, so the feathers would eventually go away via natural selection. They would get eaten by the bigger fish because they would no longer be able to escape.

Again, you're prescribing an intelligent direction to natural selection, a means to an end. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

I don't see how intelligence cannot have something to do with it. Would flying creatures, conceivably be able to mutate to the point that they could leave our atmosphere, and adapt to our orbit? Maybe develop a respiratory system like whales, where they could dive into our atmosphere for a deepth breath of air and go back up and munch on cosmic debris?

Wouldn't you suspect there was some intelligence behind that acheivement as well? We are talking about a creature accomplishing flight as a way of life. If you clip a few feathers at the ends of the wings of most birds, they can no longer fly. So theoretically, for millions of years, as they were becoming less dependant on water and their respiratory systems developed lungs, and for another million or so years, as they were "mutating" into fully feathered creatures capable of flight, they must have been something akin to dodo birds or chickens. Assuming this is true, there just seems to be have been some intelligent means at work, trying to get to a specific end: getting these creatures in the air. You're saying this is just an act of random mutation that, by sheer chance, ended up developing creatures that had the exact requirements for flight? Maybe is there was only one flying creature onthe planet, but there are thousands. This suggests a means to an end. I mean if one tiny thing is off, the bird doesn't fly. It must have extremely strong chest muscles, it must be designed a specific way, it must have high powered vision, etc. All of this is just random mutation?

Birds fly, bats fly, and insects fly, using wings that are completely different in structure.This is called convergent evolution...analagous structures develop independent of common ancestry.

Yes, but I'm still working on the first flying creature and how it managed to get itself out of the water, drop its gills, acquire an entirely new respiratory system, etc., just so it could take flight and become a mosquito, hawk or bluebird. There seems to be no purpose in this mutation. You're jumping too far into the future where adaptation and NS can explain the variety of flying creatures that already exist. I'm still working on the fish-bird..

Let's go back to the fish/shark example. Sharks essentially have wings...their pectoral fins help them acheive neutral bouyancy in water by providing lift when they swim. They fly underwater.

Actually they kinda glide. And there is a huge gap between tiny rubberish fins and an eagle's ten foot wingspan of feathers. I am trying to figure out some kind of plausible scenario that could explain how birds came from the sea. Random mutation you say?

[_Trevor]

And I would have thought most people would have picked up on the fact that "heard" wasn't to be taken literally. And most people probably did.

And if you had simply discussed what you had read, all kinds of misunderstandings could have been avoided.

Your whole point was to justify your head shaking by saying I frequently speak on matters on which I am not an expert. Guilty as charged. I'm trying to learn here, so what's your excuse?

Really! Because you spend so much time insulting other people that it can be difficult to tell that learning has the first thing to do with your purposes. I am glad you reminded us. Can we do you the service of helping you get back on track by pointing out how counterproductive your tone is? Who knows how much you could learn?!?!?

I make it "sound like" huh? Is that your excuse for a poor attempt at mind reading? Evolution books do not generally attempt to explain or answer to my specific question; a question EA considers to be an irrelevant point. So stop pretending this is something that finds an answer in every book written on the subject, hence the irrelevant question "what have you read?" Asking me what books I have read is nothing more than an attempt to avoid the question. If you can't answer the question, then swallow your pride for a second and just say so.

Wow. How insightful. First of all, that was not my attempt at mind reading. It was my attempt to parse your jump from "yes I have" to "And again, I would note that this is essentially what I predicted would happen. I ask a simple question and the evolution fanatics get defensive by attacking me for "ignorance." None of the novice evolution proponents have even tried to answer the question. I knew precisely what I was getting into here. I knew I would have to wait until either Tarski or EA took time out to explain things. The rest of you are left barking insults, similar to the cartoon illustrated on this thread."--which seems geared more toward you confirming atheist bias in discussing evolution as characterized by theist apologia than in really examining particular issues regarding evolution.

Excuse me? Is that where we left off? All I could remember was your silly reference to my "jousting" with DCP, which had nothing whatsoever to do with anything that was being discussed. You're going back to your "patently absurd" behavior.

Yes, it is true that you have great psychological defenses when it comes to critiques of your methods. A sophisticated "I'm bubble gum and you're glue approach" which you seem really "stuck on."

How do you think I came around to the reality of Mormonism? By doing the same exact thing I am doing right now. I ask the questions that need to be asked knowing perfectly well I would be attacked. But in the mayhem I get the attention of those who matter. I get the available experts to take the time to do the necessary legwork and explicate their case in a public forum. You seem to think I am always trying to outdo someone intellectually.

I seem to think... Well, your penchant for taking others to task as though you are their intellectual superior might have led a few of us astray, no doubt. Maybe you really are the gadfly of MDB. I never really pictured Socrates as behaving like such an asshole, but that could be part of the reason for the hemlock.

Theism and evolution are not necessarily at odds. Hasn't this been pointed out to you several times already? Is it a personal policy for you to slam theism in every discussion you have with theists, simply because they are theists? Or should they first make an argument from theism before attacking it?

Oh, I see. We are supposed to forget what you say in every other thread, because only the thread at hand is pertinent to the discussion. Can you practice what you preach there? Or is it only you who gets to bring in the circumstantial ad hominem when it suits you? I notice that you assume that I am bashing theism. Funny that. But you haven't explicitly raised the issue of theism, so I shouldn't bring it up?

OK. How about this. I didn't explicitly bash theism in this thread. So please, don't write as though I did.

And please, don't pretend like I need you to tell me that theism and evolution aren't necessarily at odds. Or that I failed to pick up on this when it was mentioned several times. By now it should be fairly clear that I was bringing up Shermer for a quite different purpose. It is more than a little disingenuous of you to proceed as though I had not pointed this out already.

[_Tarski]

Hey kid, good to hear from you,

So the mutation that caused fish to become birds had nothing to do with natural selection or adaptation? It was just a result of "random" mutation? What I don't understand is how a sea creature can develop wings without some kind of intelligence at play. You can't expect to find that intelligence in genes, so where does it come from? There are laws of aerodynamics that must be met before flight is possible. How does a sea creature stand a better chance of survival in a completely different environment like that? It seems to me that if a fish randomly grew feathers instead of fins, it would serve no benefit whatsoever to the fish in the water, so the feathers would eventually go away via natural selection.

You can't randomly grow wings instead of fins. *sigh*
Why must you form these cartoonical pictures?

You keep saying you are trying to figure out how this or that.

Your not!!
If you were, you would read a detailed book on evolution or one designed to explain the concepts like Dennett's book or Ken Miller's book.
It's like you are unaware of even the basics. Like you think evolution is random. It isn't. The input to the process is random but it is anything but random; which ones survive to have off spring is not random. It is a natural algorithm. Natural selection is a sifting process saving any little tiny tiny bit of accidentally useful changes, all small. It does this countless times. Even if a child only grows a hair each day he will still get big- and if one has Milennia to work with then things add up tremendously.

Look at this video to see that it has to happen when there is reproduction with heredity, survival criteria, and variability:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

[_dartagnan]

Tarski,

Realy? Why not.

Because it has never been shown to happen. The possibility has never been supported by evidence. Nobody has ever produced life in a Frankenstein kinda way. But that isn't to say nobody has tried.

Given that in an ocean of complex molecules obeying they physics can chemistry that it does, bilions upon billions of different molecules are formed and destroyed.

Did the chunk of rock that exploded during the big bang consist of complex organic molecules? Didn't it explode because of the tremendous amount of heat and pressure? Look at everything else that survived the Big Bang. The moon and Mars have been explored and there are no signs of complex organic compounds anywhere. Nothing that would hint at the existence of life.

Where is the logical impossibility that makes life (complex molecular systems that reproduce) can never come from combinations of simpler chemical systems (nonlife)?

It might not be logically impossible, but there certainly is no scientific basis to believe it is possible.

[_Trevor]

I take it all back, Kevin. Have fun learning. Good day.

[_Tarski]

Tarski,

Realy? Why not.

Because it has never been shown to happen. The possibility has never been supported by evidence. Nobody has ever produced life in a Frankenstein kinda way. But that isn't to say nobody has tried..

No, we have created self replicating molecules.
http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

That may not be good enough for you but what will you say when the next step is taken and the next?

But, we have not seen canyons forming from erosion either or mountain forming either. No one has seen it! How silly to think that way. We need to first ask what is possible chemically and probabilistically and see what can be explained.


Are you going to read one of the books with an open nondefensive mind or not?