Atheism ... Heh

[Guy Threepwood]

They are completely different things with completely different fossil records. I can't even believe you're seriously making this comparison.

Biological organisms are capable of reproducing, which is where mutations (or as you call them, "improvements") come from in the first place. There is no need to insert a meddling god into the equation. And if we do, we find that this god apparently isn't so good at improving on his designs because practically everything that has ever lived on this planet has gone extinct.

Cars do not reproduce and so cannot produce their own mutations or "improvements" so there is a need to insert an intelligent designer into the picture. Not to mention that we don't have anything close to the variation we see in the natural world.

Cars do reproduce just by a different means, they are duplicated according to specific plans (like dna) inferior designs are left behind, and superior ones survive to be copied

both sets of plans are altered during successive generations/ model years yes? We know for sure these alterations are ID in cars, for life- the jury is still out

We can certainly simulate random mutations by making random changes to specifications in the plans- what do you think the odds are of a random change accidentally producing a significantly superior vehicle?

it's not very high for life either. The overwhelming majority of changes are detrimental.

Natural selection would still operate- people would still buy the best car. But the best car is now simply the least damaged version of it's predecessor- the car with the broken seat warmer is selected over the broken engine yes?


i.e. one fallacy we discover on looking beneath the hood of evolution, is that 'survival of the fittest' necessarily equates to 'survival of the fitter' as we can see by this analogy it clearly does not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science v theism.

"Galileo taught the heliocentric system in which the Sun is the center of the solar system, the Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun, the Moon revolved around the Earth, and the stars were at incredible distances.
Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, condemned as a heretic, and spent the rest of his life in house arrest."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov1.htm

And he was no atheist: 'Nature is the executor of God's laws" Galileo

 

[ArtieE]

And he was no atheist: 'Nature is the executor of God's laws" Galileo

So? He favored the truth over what other theists and the Bible claimed and payed for it. Religion suppresses truth.

 

[ArtieE]

it's not very high for life either. The overwhelming majority of changes are detrimental.

Before you write stuff why don't you check whether what you write is true?

"Here we see that the creationists are simply wrong. I feel like I’m repeating myself, but it’s because creationists keep making mistakes. They don’t have the foggiest notion of what is actually going on in biology, evolution, or science.
http://www.skepticink.com/smilodons...evolution-part-10-most-mutations-are-harmful/

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Before you write stuff why don't you check whether what you write is true?

"Here we see that the creationists are simply wrong. I feel like I’m repeating myself, but it’s because creationists keep making mistakes. They don’t have the foggiest notion of what is actually going on in biology, evolution, or science.
http://www.skepticink.com/smilodons...evolution-part-10-most-mutations-are-harmful/

I think you'll find that link backs up what I said,

where there is a change in the design plan i.e. any relevant non neutral mutation that has some effect on something- it's most often detrimental, not beneficial.


The devil is in the details Artie!

 

[McBell]

I think you'll find that link backs up what I said,

where there is a change in the design plan i.e. any relevant non neutral mutation that has some effect on something- it's most often detrimental, not beneficial.


The devil is in the details Artie!

Define detrimental

For example, if a mutation changes the color of the skin to a shade you dislike, is that detrimental?

 

[ArtieE]

I think you'll find that link backs up what I said,

where there is a change in the design plan i.e. any relevant non neutral mutation that has some effect on something- it's most often detrimental, not beneficial.


The devil is in the details Artie!

Did you read and understand the article?

"If you allow a bit of cross-species comparison, then 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 and 1 beneficial mutation in 150, that’s about 4 non-neutral mutations out of every 150-175 mutations. The vast majority of mutations have no effect."

One in four mutations are beneficial, three out of four might be immediately deleterious but may prove beneficial later in other combinations. Even those who presently have no effect may prove beneficial later. And from this you draw the conclusion that evolution is impossible?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Did you read and understand the article?

yes and we still agree; most mutations that have an effect at all are deleterious.

Not really a controversial observation, just one piece of the puzzle that has to be considered


These are issues that can be and are debated within varying schools of evolution itself, gradualism v punctuated equilibrium etc. and even the most passionate evolutionists of all stripes acknowledge a great deal of 'luck' needed to bridge gaps left by the hypothetical mechanism.

i.e. being a believer in evolution should not preclude you from examining it critically.

 

[ArtieE]

These are issues that can be and are debated within varying schools of evolution itself, gradualism v punctuated equilibrium etc. and even the most passionate evolutionists of all stripes acknowledge a great deal of 'luck' needed to bridge gaps left by the hypothetical mechanism.

Interesting. Quote some please and link to them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Interesting. Quote some please and link to them.

it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck... the origin of the eucaryotic cell (or kind of cell with a nucleolus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was of the same order of improbability...
Richard Dawkins" The God Delusion" p.168-9

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), p. 127)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning.... 95)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. ." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, p. 189)

 

[outhouse]

it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck... the origin of the eucaryotic cell (or kind of cell with a nucleolus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was of the same order of improbability...
Richard Dawkins" The God Delusion" p.168-9

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), p. 127)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning.... 95)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. ." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, p. 189)

If your going to quote mine out of desperation, you should not do it by people that know your tactics. its weak and pathetic and refuted.

Every one of these are taken out of context.

I will only waste my time with you flushing out this one because it shows how desperate you are to cling on to mythology that you take these less then honorable methods of debate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

"Soft parts, such as skin impressions of dinosaurs, and soft-bodied animals like jellyfish are sometimes preserved, and in some localities may be common, but they give us only brief glimpses of evolutionary histories. Obviously we have no record of the origin of life, and little or no evolutionary history of the soft-bodied organisms. It is hardly surprising, then, that we have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups. The creationists, of course, just love to draw attention to these gaps, which they score as points against evolution. We saw in Chapter 6, though, that their case is without foundation, because they have ignored vital evidence from the living world."

 

[outhouse]

Interesting. Quote some please and link to them.

He has nothing credible, and he just got busted. I wonder if his religion taught him to be this slippery.

 

[outhouse]

i.e. being a believer in evolution should not preclude you from examining it critically.

And those who are not believers, should get a grade school education on the topic.

If they did they understand it is fact now. Its called biology.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And he was no atheist: 'Nature is the executor of God's laws" Galileo

The poor guy would have been scared to say anything else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

 

[Revoltingest]

And he was no atheist: 'Nature is the executor of God's laws" Galileo

This points out the great thing about science, ie, that believers can practice it too.
The scientific method is about rising above human shortcomings & prejudices.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you'll find that link backs up what I said,

where there is a change in the design plan i.e. any relevant non neutral mutation that has some effect on something- it's most often detrimental, not beneficial.


The devil is in the details Artie!

Assuming that's true, how does that support your argument for intelligent design? If some god is tinkering with genes and mutations, then it clearly doesn't have any clue what it's doing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning.... 95)

This isn't even a complete sentence. Why do you insist on continuing to quote mine?

"Soft parts, such as skin impressions of dinosaurs, and soft-bodied animals like jellyfish are sometimes preserved, and in some localities may be common, but they give us only brief glimpses of evolutionary histories. Obviously we have no record of the origin of life, and little or no evolutionary history of the soft-bodied organisms. It is hardly surprising, then, that we have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups. The creationists, of course, just love to draw attention to these gaps, which they score as points against evolution. We saw in Chapter 6, though, that their case is without foundation, because they have ignored vital evidence from the living world."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

 

[jonathan180iq]

This isn't even a complete sentence. Why do you insist on continuing to quote mine?

"Soft parts, such as skin impressions of dinosaurs, and soft-bodied animals like jellyfish are sometimes preserved, and in some localities may be common, but they give us only brief glimpses of evolutionary histories. Obviously we have no record of the origin of life, and little or no evolutionary history of the soft-bodied organisms. It is hardly surprising, then, that we have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups. The creationists, of course, just love to draw attention to these gaps, which they score as points against evolution. We saw in Chapter 6, though, that their case is without foundation, because they have ignored vital evidence from the living world."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

Like I said before, even caught quote-mining red handed, he'll still probably use this again in the future.

I mean damn son, the paragraph that the quote comes from explains the reasoning behind it... Get a clue, dude.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said before, even caught quote-mining red handed, he'll still probably use this again in the future.

I mean damn son, the paragraph that the quote comes from explains the reasoning behind it... Get a clue, dude.

Which I guess is why people have to quote mine ... because if they had to give the accurate quote they'd have nothing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This points out the great thing about science, ie, that believers can practice it too.
The scientific method is about rising above human shortcomings & prejudices.

Which is why it is so important to acknowledge our beliefs, our faith as such.