An email I sent to an evolution prof at my alma mater

[Guy Threepwood]

It would be absurdly idiotic if you were speaking about evolution, as DNA, to the best of our knowledge, is not "designed". You are attempting to use circular logic, but the term "design" cannot be reasonably used in this context if you were referring to the ToE. You are welcome to try again without using the word "design". But, you will quickly see that your argument is discredited when you do this.

Further, as I said, it is stupid to use these vague concepts to test the validity of evolution. If you use more specific information regarding the evidence rather than vague subject lines, it would be very easy to differentiate between the ToE and cars. But, because you are refusing to do that, your comparison is irrelevant. It's nothing but a cheap shot, which is obvious because you are refusing to use clarifying terms. Here, I'll help:

records of similar past designs no longer in use (DNA, to the best of our knowledge, is not "designed", so this is merely circular logic, assuming your conclusion in your premise ... a.k.a. no relevant)
similarities among and across current designs (again, can't be evolution because no "design")
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past designs (again, can't be evolution because there is no "design")

You could argue with this guy how idiotic he is.



Prog Brain Res. 2012;195:373-90. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00018-0.
Design principles of the human brain: an evolutionary perspective.
Hofman MA1.
Author information

• 1Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected]

Likewise by design, I am referring to the totality of structure, composition, organization, layout, whatever word you prefer

But semantics aside, there is no way around the point


we have

records of similar past (cars (or) species) no longer in existence
similarities among and across current (cars (or) species)
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past (cars (or) species)
all with a general tendency towards greater complexity and improvement in functionality of the (cars (or) species)

once again, which one do you think fits better? , I'm not sure-

and once again, what do these observations suggest about the compared objects being designed intelligently or that each design improvement occurred by chance?

anything?

 

[leibowde84]

You could argue with this guy how idiotic he is.



Prog Brain Res. 2012;195:373-90. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00018-0.
Design principles of the human brain: an evolutionary perspective.
Hofman MA1.
Author information

• 1Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected]

Likewise by design, I am referring to the totality of structure, composition, organization, layout, whatever word you prefer

But semantics aside, there is no way around the point


we have

records of similar past (cars (or) species) no longer in existence
similarities among and across current (cars (or) species)
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past (cars (or) species)
all with a general tendency towards greater complexity and improvement in functionality of the (cars (or) species)

once again, which one do you think fits better? , I'm not sure-

and once again, what do these observations suggest about the compared objects being designed intelligently or that each design improvement occurred by chance?

anything?

No, they don't suggest any similarities. And, mutations aren't design improvements. Most are either neutral or detrimental. If every noted mutation was positive, I would agree with you. But, it becomes clear with the fact that most mutations do not benefit the individual specimen, if they were designed, it would speak very ill of the designer.

The supposed designer is God, so trial and error wouldn't make sense. And, how can you account for the fact that well over 99 percent of species have gone extinct throughout the history of life?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, they don't suggest any similarities. And, mutations aren't design improvements. Most are either neutral or detrimental. If every noted mutation was positive, I would agree with you. But, it becomes clear with the fact that most mutations do not benefit the individual specimen, if they were designed, it would speak very ill of the designer.

records of similar past (cars (or) species) no longer in existence
similarities among and across current (cars (or) species)
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past (cars (or) species)
And all with a general tendency towards greater complexity and improvement in functionality of the (cars (or) species)

If they are so dissimilar, which am I referring to?

these observations apply equally as well to both, even though they are commonly used as somehow supporting evolution by chance as opposed to design.

According to evolution, each significant design improvement had to be acquired accidentally- as opposed to following any blueprint. Millions of them, to morph a single cell into a man. And like you say, this while the vast vast majority of random mutations are obviously not beneficial, just as they would not be in a car.

how can you account for the fact that well over 99 percent of species have gone extinct throughout the history of life?

And likewise again, well over 99% of all car models went 'extinct' did they not? so this observation does not support chance design improvements either does it?

So we can add that to the shared observations:

The disappearance of most (cars (or) species) over time

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why don't these OPs ever stay involved in their threads? I mean, he obviously say down in front of a computer full of pride and optimism in his rebuttal of the biological sciences, possibly hoping to change not just our hearts but maybe even the whole world... So why run away at the first sign of confrontation? Surely all of that pride and optimism hasn't been so easily squashed, right? Where did he go?

Haha... you so eloquently described exactly how I felt the original poster must have felt as he put together his thread post. And the fact that he hasn't been back does indeed seem as though he was a bit too "easily squashed" for his liking.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Haha... you so eloquently described exactly how I felt the original poster must have felt as he put together his thread post. And the fact that he hasn't been back does indeed seem as though he was a bit too "easily squashed" for his liking.

It happens all the time... They'll either disappear forever or come back with an even zanier attempt at the same thing.

I imagine he's studying up again, readying his mental facilities for another great battle against the establishment of "Uniformitarian Science"... hopeful that his words will strike just the right chord with all of the people on the internet and help to convert the whole world to the loving graces of the one true god.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

these observations apply equally as well to both, even though they are commonly used as somehow supporting evolution by chance as opposed to design.
According to evolution, each significant design improvement had to be acquired accidentally- as opposed to following any blueprint.

Why do you keep harping on "chance"? It isn't necessarily chance at all. The world gets cold, and so the wolves with the longest or most bushy hair (variations that are built into the DNA, because even this aspect of "variety" has proved its mettle, and has stuck around as a benefit to the lineage of the organism) survive the best to produce the most offspring. Within a relatively few generations of that sort of event/effect pair like that you have wolves with longer and warmer hair. A tree whose seeds can fall farthest from the tree survive best because they don't have to compete with their originator. The seed shape itself could be RANDOM - it doesn't even matter, and over millions of generations if only the seeds that catch wind, or move the furthest through the air during a fall are the ones to survive to produce more seeds then you might have something that resembles the "helicopter" seeds by the end of it all - that can literally "hover" down slowly by using a single-wing design to spin themselves silly through the air.

It's not "chance", necessarily. It's not always some positive "mutation" that is needed. The birds with the hardest beaks are the only ones able to break open the seeds of one of the only abundant food sources in their region - and so they are the only ones who eat, and this "hard beak" gene passes on, and pairings of the "hardest beaks" create even harder beaks in the most viable offspring.

Do you know the story behind modern day domestic canines? How probably 99% of canine breeds in existence today never existed in the wild. WE made them - as in humans, breeders. We "designed" them, by selecting the most docile, the most fluffy, the biggest, the most curly haired from each litter, successively, until we created "the dog" we were going for. There were literally only a handful of canine species/types in existence before that. Wolves, coyotes, hyena, dingo, to name probably the majority of them. And we cross-bred those too to see the results. WE APPLIED THE PRESSURES, rather than nature. But nature is perfectly capable of doing the same. And has done so for hundreds of millions of years. No "designer" is necessary. In the case of our poodles and collies and chihuahuas there WAS an actual "designer"- but if you can bear witness to that and then still claim/assume that the same sort of pressuring and cause/effect can't happen in nature you're... well you're plain out of your mind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

records of similar past (cars (or) species) no longer in existence
similarities among and across current (cars (or) species)
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past (cars (or) species)
all with a general tendency towards greater complexity and improvement in functionality of the (cars (or) species)

Cars are not organic and do not grow. We know they are designed because we have evidence.
Organic beings grow on their own. We do not have any evidence they are designed. It is nothing more than speculation. Not entirely outside of the realms of possibility, but the designer is not necessarily god, and even if we were designed and put here by an alien race we still have no evidence of this.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Fortunately a majority of Christian denomination now accept both Creation and Evolution and see no dichotomy.

No dichotomy exists referencing changes within species. (It does occur.) But regarding common descent, a big one! Jesus stated at Matthew 19:4-6, that the first man and woman had a beginning. Adam and Eve were created perfect, to live forever. As their offspring, we could only inherit their imperfection, which results in death. Hence, the need for Jesus' ransom sacrifice. To deny the creation of Adam and Eve, is to deny the main foundation of the Christian Faith!

 

[McBell]

No dichotomy exists referencing changes within species. (It does occur.) But regarding common descent, a big one! Jesus stated at Matthew 19:4-6, that the first man and woman had a beginning. Adam and Eve were created perfect, to live forever. As their offspring, we could only inherit their imperfection, which results in death. Hence, the need for Jesus' ransom sacrifice. To deny the creation of Adam and Eve, is to deny the main foundation of the Christian Faith!

Nice bedtime story.
What does it have to do with the thread?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No dichotomy exists referencing changes within species. (It does occur.) But regarding common descent, a big one! Jesus stated at Matthew 19:4-6, that the first man and woman had a beginning. Adam and Eve were created perfect, to live forever. As their offspring, we could only inherit their imperfection, which results in death. Hence, the need for Jesus' ransom sacrifice. To deny the creation of Adam and Eve, is to deny the main foundation of the Christian Faith!

Why would enyone believe that Adam and Eve are anything else than part of the creation fable as outlined in Genesis.
The fact that the story comes ot of the pre history of the Middle Eastern bronze age, and written down some time after the death of Moses. Gives it no credibility as a factual narrative of the start of the world. But does show some evidence of their religious thinking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Adam and Eve were created perfect, to live forever. As their offspring, we could only inherit their imperfection, which results in death.

The Bible also says the son will not pay for the sins of the father, yet here we are paying for their sins and inheriting this imperfection. It seems as though to accept the story of Adam and Eve as literal you also have to accept your god, or at the very minimum one of his prophets writing on his behalf, is a liar.

 

[McBell]

The Bible also says the son will not pay for the sins of the father, yet here we are paying for their sins and inheriting this imperfection. It seems as though to accept the story of Adam and Eve as literal you also have to accept your god, or at the very minimum one of his prophets writing on his behalf, is a liar.

And that is not the only example of the Bible showing God punishing the children for the sins of the parents.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

And that is not the only example of the Bible showing God punishing the children for the sins of the parents.

1. Committing infanticide in Egypt
2. Making the Israelites wander aimlessly in the desert for forty-odd years
3. Poisoning all of Israel via snakes and refusing to cure people if they didn't look at a brass snake on a pole.

That's the first 3 I can think of.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No dichotomy exists referencing changes within species. (It does occur.) But regarding common descent, a big one! Jesus stated at Matthew 19:4-6, that the first man and woman had a beginning. Adam and Eve were created perfect, to live forever. As their offspring, we could only inherit their imperfection, which results in death. Hence, the need for Jesus' ransom sacrifice. To deny the creation of Adam and Eve, is to deny the main foundation of the Christian Faith!

To admit 'original sin' is to deny that the Christian god is a just god.

 

[Milton Platt]

No dichotomy exists referencing changes within species. (It does occur.) But regarding common descent, a big one! Jesus stated at Matthew 19:4-6, that the first man and woman had a beginning. Adam and Eve were created perfect, to live forever. As their offspring, we could only inherit their imperfection, which results in death. Hence, the need for Jesus' ransom sacrifice. To deny the creation of Adam and Eve, is to deny the main foundation of the Christian Faith!

The build up of small genetic changes that causes variation within a species is the same one which causes speciation over a longer period. If you are proposing some sort of barrier beyond which these changes can't occur, please describe that barrier and provide evidence to support it's existence.

As to your quote from your holy book, it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[McBell]

1. Committing infanticide in Egypt
2. Making the Israelites wander aimlessly in the desert for forty-odd years
3. Poisoning all of Israel via snakes and refusing to cure people if they didn't look at a brass snake on a pole.

That's the first 3 I can think of.

A ******* may not enter into the congregation for (seven or ten depending upon which version) generations...

 

[Midnight Rain]

records of similar past (cars (or) species) no longer in existence
similarities among and across current (cars (or) species)
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past (cars (or) species)
And all with a general tendency towards greater complexity and improvement in functionality of the (cars (or) species)

If they are so dissimilar, which am I referring to?

these observations apply equally as well to both, even though they are commonly used as somehow supporting evolution by chance as opposed to design.

According to evolution, each significant design improvement had to be acquired accidentally- as opposed to following any blueprint. Millions of them, to morph a single cell into a man. And like you say, this while the vast vast majority of random mutations are obviously not beneficial, just as they would not be in a car.




And likewise again, well over 99% of all car models went 'extinct' did they not? so this observation does not support chance design improvements either does it?

So we can add that to the shared observations:

The disappearance of most (cars (or) species) over time

The issue that makes them incomparable is the mechanism in which they come to be. The "traits" of a cars are not passed down sexually from each car. Rather there is a design made and then it is mass produced. The next "generation" of cars have no direct link to the past generation of cars. They are all new in their own way. So the mechanism in which they are created are incredibly different. Its like trying to explain photosynthesis with rocks.

However I find it funny that despite being totally different from biological evolution in its mechanisms it still requires itself to follow some of the basic principles of evolution.
1) Traits that are ineffective at selling cards are removed or the company goes bankrupt
2) new traits of cars are often spread throughout the car "gene pool" so to speak
3) Diversity arises after multiple attempts at semi-random changes across makeshift generations.

All of this continues to support evolution. The exact opposite of what it was that you were trying to do.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The build up of small genetic changes that causes variation within a species is the same one which causes speciation over a longer period. If you are proposing some sort of barrier beyond which these changes can't occur, please describe that barrier and provide evidence to support it's existence.

As to your quote from your holy book, it adds nothing to the discussion.

The 'proposed barrier' is the impossibility of meiosis between even (taxonomically) closely-related species. Where does the fossil record show "small genetic changes" occurring in the Cambrian Explosion? With untold extinct species, coupled with the 1.5 million living species already discovered, surely the fossil record is rife with evidence of these genetic changes supporting macro evolution?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To admit 'original sin' is to deny that the Christian god is a just god.

Only when one doesn't understand the concept.

 

[McBell]

The 'proposed barrier' is the impossibility of meiosis between even (taxonomically) closely-related species. Where does the fossil record show "small genetic changes" occurring in the Cambrian Explosion? With untold extinct species, coupled with the 1.5 million living species already discovered, surely the fossil record is rife with evidence of these genetic changes supporting macro evolution?

ROTFLMAO

Please spare the "Kinds" sermon.