Just Accidental?

[ArtieE]

He left us a manual to tell us all we need to know about him.

Do you mean The Urantia Book? It is much more detailed and comprehensive than the Bible. The Urantia Book | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

 

[Polymath257]

"but the basic mechanisms are the same"
^ an entirely untestable assumption as you concede

And there's your trouble, the whole theory is a speculation based on extrapolation rather than empirical evidence. Ever a great temptation, but also a notoriously unreliable method which has given us countless flawed 'undeniable' assumptions

The basic assumption is that the physical laws that work now also worked the same in the past. Without that assumption, no historical science is possible.

Scales matter, things DO work differently, by necessity, at different scales. A system with capacity for adaption ≠ a creative mechanism for that system. Not in physics, not in information systems of any kind, life is not granted a waiver on this

Actaullly, the 'adaptation' that involves genetic change *is* a creative mechanism when coupled with natural selection. We know this because of a wide variety of models, including genetic algorithms, where mutation and selection *are* shown to create new patterns and structures.

The point is that 'new' structures are always changes to old ones. Amphibian limbs are adaptations of the bones in the fish preceding them. Mammal ear bones are adaptations of jaw bones from the reptiles preceding them (and we have the fossil progressions here). The 'new' structures are elaborations of old ones.

And this is how the fossil record differs from the junk yard of cars. In cars, new structures appear that are not present *even in different form* in previous generations. In evolution, the new structures do appear in the immediately previous generations.

 

[Polymath257]

A little like punctuated equilibrium, in that's it's at least an acknowledgment of a problem, - always a key first step though!

That there are many distinct fundamental leaps in design that life had to take, not just slow gradual morphing within similar frameworks.

Again analogous to cars, we don't see certain intermediates in design, this is not an artifact of an incomplete record, but because they could never have existed as functional designs

And that is false. For example, in the transition between reptile and mammal, the bones of the jaw migrated to the inner ear. This is a remarkable change, but one for which we have fossils of the transition. There *were* functional 'designs' (actually animals).

New structures are produced by modification of old structures in evolution. This is NOT required for car design.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@ metis. Because we all know that 'the best form of defense is attack'...perhaps you should count how many personal attacks you have made on me in your most recent replies......

"Again, just another disingenuous song & dance whereas you simply have not, and apparently will not, answer the question I asked you"

"It is just so bizarre how disingenuous you are acting here, refusing to answer a simple question by deflecting back to me"

"Have you no shame whatsoever, Deeje?"

"Maybe act like a moral adult and admit when you don't know something instead of deflecting, and also stop making dishonest accusations"

"But, again, notice your utterly disingenuous tactic, namely to not answer the question asked but simply deflecting it back to the person asking the question."

"Again, another pathetic lie from you"

The last time I looked, it was against forum rules to personally insult another poster. Do you think insulting me is gaining any credence for your case? Or is it an act of desperation because the arguments for macro-evolution are being invalidated?

And this one...
"It's more that she refuses to even acknowledge the possibility that the creation accounts can be taken as allegory. IOW, it's the old "my way or the highway" approach that the JW's are well known for."

It is also against forum rules to talk about another poster in the third person. Attack the ideas not the poster.....where did I ever personally insult you? Or call you a liar? I did not expect this from you.

So you claim that it is against forum rules to criticize your debating methods both directly to you or in third person? I doubt it. What you are calling attacking is a legitimate objection to those habits, and pointing them out is part of the meta-argument against your position. Noting that your command of the science you criticize is wanting, that you keep making the same mistakes however many times you are corrected, and that you either answer posts without addressing their specific elements or just disappear for two weeks and return repeating yourself with there being no evidence that you even read the rebuttal - all of this comprises what I call bad faith disputation, and I've already explained to you how it is received by your target audience, people that prefer academic methods and standards. It completely undermines you and any support for creationist claims that you might be trying to generate.

I just saw a similar discussion about Guy's debating habits. I don't see how that isn't legitimate criticism, or why RF would forbid such observations.

I personally think that the evolutionists posting here are threatened by the defenses made for ID in this thread. How else can you account for the traffic and how long this argument is continuing? The descent into vitriol is telling.

If you are all so confident of your position, why do you need to defend it so vigorously? Are you afraid that people with a little insight might actually discover the truth? That macro-evolution is a manufactured fiction dressed up to look like fact?
If they need to change the definition of the word "theory" to further their case, doesn't that seem odd? When is a theory not a theory? When it pertains to evolution of course!

The more evolutionists argue, and the more desperate and invalid they show their arguments to be, and the more transparent the truth becomes.....but only to those who are not sucked into the "science is the intelligent person's replacement for God" argument.....or "only ignorant and uneducated people will believe in creation"......Oh brother! How's the altitude up there in the land of academia?

Your position just died. Here you are criticizing people rather than ideas. You just called us all threatened and insecure, suckered, and implied elitism or snobbery for holding academic standards and values.

Incidentally, if any moderators are reading along and planning to discipline Deeje for what she calls violations of forum rules when others do it, please know that I am not in the least offended by any of that, nor do I consider such mild criticism an attack.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

People ignore you when they have already stated their case and you ignore what they have said to rehash the very thing they just exposed as false.

This is hilarious.

Or it is an admission of

So is this. Got any more pretty pictures?

You can think whatever you like....you are just not permitted to write personal insults it any forum ... I am of the honest opinion that your command of English makes you appear to be a 7 year old child.

You're on a roll.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'll give you an even simpler example of the same principle then. you can make small changes to a guitar by adjusting the tuning. So you tell me, what mechanism stops these small changes, from accruing and changing the guitar into a piano eventually?

That's not where I thought you were going with the guitar string tuning. There are natural barriers to how high or low the pitch can go before the string snaps or is too slack to vibrate.

There is no known barrier between what creationists call microevolution and macroevolution. Your comment about nested hierarchies in information systems offered no such barrier, just a phrase.

It's not so much a mechanism stopping this, as no mechanism supporting it

Correct, there is no mechanism supporting a guitar morphing into a piano, including tuning the guitar.

Darwin gave us the mechanism by which an ancient, unicellular common ancestor to all life on earth transformed into the tree of life we see before us. The analogy is as inapt as the automobile analogy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If God did show up tomorrow we would have to first detain him, put him in a maximum security facility and charge him with all kinds of crimes against humanity. Scientists all over the planet would be ecstatic over getting the chance of studying an extra terrestrial life form.

How about if we put up a dome and make the angels pay for it?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Good luck with that.

It's okay. We'll bring iron.

 

[Deeje]

Time to get this thread back on track and rescue it from the children.....

I was reading recently about sea shell.....we all seem to like them...their shapes, colors and use as the home of the creatures who made them.....

What is remarkable about their shape?

"SEASHELLS enable mollusks to live in harsh conditions, resisting tremendous pressures on the seabed. This ability to provide optimum protection inspired engineers to study the shape and structure of seashells with a view to designing vehicles and buildings that will protect their occupants.

Consider: Engineers analyzed two seashell forms—bivalve (clamshell-style) and spiral (screw-shaped).

In the case of the bivalve, it was found that the ribbing on the exterior of a shell directed stresses toward its hinge and outer edges. In contrast, the curving exterior of a spiral shell directed pressure toward its core and wide top. In both cases, the seashells’ shapes channeled pressure to their strongest areas, meaning that in the event of damage, harm to the mollusk would be less likely.

Researchers also ran comparative stress tests on real shells and on simple hemispheres and cones (produced on a 3-D printer) that mimicked shells’ shapes and composition. The results showed that natural seashells’ complex surfaces nearly doubled their ability to withstand pressure when compared to the simple shapes.

Commenting on the applications of this research, Scientific American says: “If you wind up driving a shell-shaped car someday, it’ll be both stylish and designed to protect the soft bodies inside.”

Did the shape of seashells evolve? Or was it designed?"

The Shape of Seashells | Was It Designed?

 

[Sapiens]

Time to get this thread back on track and rescue it from the children.....

I was reading recently about sea shell.....we all seem to like them...their shapes, colors and use as the home of the creatures who made them.....

What is remarkable about their shape?

"SEASHELLS enable mollusks to live in harsh conditions, resisting tremendous pressures on the seabed. This ability to provide optimum protection inspired engineers to study the shape and structure of seashells with a view to designing vehicles and buildings that will protect their occupants.

Consider: Engineers analyzed two seashell forms—bivalve (clamshell-style) and spiral (screw-shaped).

In the case of the bivalve, it was found that the ribbing on the exterior of a shell directed stresses toward its hinge and outer edges. In contrast, the curving exterior of a spiral shell directed pressure toward its core and wide top. In both cases, the seashells’ shapes channeled pressure to their strongest areas, meaning that in the event of damage, harm to the mollusk would be less likely.

Researchers also ran comparative stress tests on real shells and on simple hemispheres and cones (produced on a 3-D printer) that mimicked shells’ shapes and composition. The results showed that natural seashells’ complex surfaces nearly doubled their ability to withstand pressure when compared to the simple shapes.

Commenting on the applications of this research, Scientific American says: “If you wind up driving a shell-shaped car someday, it’ll be both stylish and designed to protect the soft bodies inside.”

Did the shape of seashells evolve? Or was it designed?"

The Shape of Seashells | Was It Designed?

I need read no further than, "SEASHELLS enable mollusks to live in harsh conditions, resisting tremendous pressures on the seabed." to know that the author is a moron. The shells of both bivalves and spiral shells have no pressure gradient across the shell ... sorry.

In point of fact the strengthening of the shell appears to have evolved for protection against predation.

 

[Deeje]

I need read no further than, "SEASHELLS enable mollusks to live in harsh conditions, resisting tremendous pressures on the seabed." to know that the author is a moron. The shells of both bivalves and spiral shells have no pressure gradient across the shell ... sorry.

In point of fact the strengthening of the shell appears to have evolved for protection against predation.

Perhaps you should have read on

.....the engineers' analysis was very interesting.

 

[Sapiens]

I did read the whole thing, it was not very long, but after the first few words I knew that the author was a mental midget, he started off a moron and did nothing to improve his standing. He fails to grasp that mollusc shells are not submersibles that protect the occupant from the pressure. All molluscs have soft tissues (gills, digestive tract, food, etc.) in contact with the ambient pressure. When you get the right phenomena (e.g., ridges for strength), but posit the wrong cause since you lack any knowledge of the organisms' biology or environment, you are an ignorant moron. So unkown author of the article in Awake! magazine ... you have proven yourself to not know what you are talking about, so have your editors and your readers (at least those who uncritically quote you),

 

[Olinda]

Perhaps you should have read on

.....the engineers' analysis was very interesting.

Perhaps a link to the source article of the engineer's analysis might help? Does the magazine provide sources?
(abe) Not that it would affect @Sapiens valid point.

 

[Deeje]

Commenting on the applications of this research, Scientific American says: “If you wind up driving a shell-shaped car someday, it’ll be both stylish and designed to protect the soft bodies inside.”

I need read no further than, "SEASHELLS enable mollusks to live in harsh conditions, resisting tremendous pressures on the seabed." to know that the author is a moron. The shells of both bivalves and spiral shells have no pressure gradient across the shell ... sorry.

In point of fact the strengthening of the shell appears to have evolved for protection against predation.

There is that very distinct scientific language of perhaps...maybe....."appears to have"......I guess Scientific American should have consulted you sapiens....why do you think they didn't?

I knew that the author was a mental midget, he started off a moron and did nothing to improve his standing.......

When you get the right phenomena (e.g., ridges for strength), but posit the wrong cause since you lack any knowledge of the organisms' biology or environment, you are an ignorant moron.

Could it be your way with words?

 

[Sapiens]

There is that very distinct scientific language of perhaps...maybe....."appears to have"......I guess Scientific American should have consulted you sapiens....why do you think they didn't?

Could it be your way with words?

1. That is the way all scientist write. We cannot state, with absolute surety, what is; but we can state with absolute certainty what is not.

2. SA does not consult me on matters of molluscs because that is not my area of specialty, they would go to a malacologist. But there is no need for a specialist here, even a moderately well educated Junior High student would recognize y'all's face planting error.

 

[Deeje]

1. That is the way all scientist write. We cannot state, with absolute surety, what is; but we can state with absolute certainty what is not.

No you can't. You can state with absolute certainty what you believe. "Appears to be" is not a statement of fact and neither is "might have" or "could have"......there are no facts in science as you all keep telling me. If they are not 'facts' they are 'assumptions'...educated guesses, at best....pure supposition at worst.

2. SA does not consult me on matters of molluscs because that is not my area of specialty, they would go to a malacologist. But there is no need for a specialist here, even a moderately well educated Junior High student would recognize y'all's face planting error.

I will let SA know immediately of your correction.....They are bound to ask you all about whatever it is that you specialize in

......was that vitriol?

 

[Olinda]

I will let SA know immediately of your correction.....They are bound to ask you all about whatever it is that you specialize in

......was that vitriol?

No, @Deeje, Sapiens did not contest anything from Scientific American. The problem was with the first sentence of the article you quoted, namely
"SEASHELLS enable mollusks to live in harsh conditions, resisting tremendous pressures on the seabed."
That is not correct. Seashells are not like diving suits and do not protect against deep sea pressure.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not where I thought you were going with the guitar string tuning. There are natural barriers to how high or low the pitch can go before the string snaps or is too slack to vibrate.

There is no known barrier between what creationists call microevolution and macroevolution. Your comment about nested hierarchies in information systems offered no such barrier, just a phrase.

Maybe your use of the analogy is better yes, not only can the dog never be bred into a bird, it runs into strict limitations- severe, fatal health problems very quickly, while still being very much a dog

Darwin gave us the mechanism by which an ancient, unicellular common ancestor to all life on earth transformed into the tree of life we see before us. The analogy is as inapt as the automobile analogy.

And it was a very good idea. It was a perfectly logical, intuitive, elegant extension of physics as understood at the time, whereby a handful of similarly simple laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in, would be bound to create all the wonders of physical reality eventually- no mysterious underlying forces, guiding instructions, all that 'pseudoscience' needed!

But this ran into the exact same paradox we are discussing, you can never explain gravity using classical physics, it had to be underwritten, by necessity, by another hierarchy of information. Information which very precisely determined exactly how gravity /matter/energy would work, and precisely what physical structures would result from it. Including great fusion reactors needed to manufacture a vast array of more complex elements necessary for life to exist and thrive.

I merely believe that life continues by the same general mechanism, according to predetermined instructions at the subatomic/quantum level like everything else, rather than suddenly reverting to a classical Victorian age model at the first replicator, there is no evidence of this fundamental switch ever occurring.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Time to get this thread back on track and rescue it from the children.....

Time for more pretty pictures and the infantile claims attending them?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you can never explain gravity using classical physics, it had to be underwritten, by necessity, by another hierarchy of information. Information which very precisely determined exactly how gravity /matter/energy would work, and precisely what physical structures would result from it. Including great fusion reactors needed to manufacture a vast array of more complex elements necessary for life to exist and thrive.

I merely believe that life continues by the same general mechanism, according to predetermined instructions at the subatomic/quantum level like everything else, rather than suddenly reverting to a classical Victorian age model at the first replicator, there is no evidence of this fundamental switch ever occurring.

I hope you don't mind that I call and consider such answer Guy's snowstorms. You drop a phrase or two and behave as if it is an argument, as when you attempted to call nested hierarchies in information systems a barrier between smaller degrees of evolution and larger ones over longer durations. Why not just say irreversible entropies in self-selecting systems? Those could be barriers just as well.

Or semi-syntheitc proxies of irresolvable algorithms.

Maybe it's self-contradictory dualisms of hemi-anarchic proclivities preventing macroevolution.

Or self-selecting archetypes of demigods in dishabille. Who can prove it isn't? Maybe they're all in play acting as barriers preventing the evolution of new "kinds."