Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[leibowde84]

Well that is simply not true. You will only ever find evolutionists talking about an organism sorting out a behaviour, where the result is forced by the data to sort, and the sorting criteria. It could not have turned out any other way. This is what evolutionists call choosing, much like a chesscomputer sorting out a result by calculation.

But, evolution does not speak to the intent of organisms in any way. Natural selection is merely a way of explaining why certain organisms carry on and some are not able to. But it certainly doesn't claim to be absolute. And, the organism's intent to survive has nothing to do with it, apart from being one of many tools that help an organism to pass on its DNA.

 

[Shad]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "organisms are chosen to be the way they are"? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

It is the vain attempt to claim organisms are aware of their genes and environment to a degree that any organism can change itself to fit it environment the best. Hence sorting and choosing. However this is contradicted by the fact that organism go extinct when these can not adapt to changes in their environment. The Mammoth is a prime example of a species that could not adapt and died out.

 

[leibowde84]

It is the vain attempt to claim organisms are aware off their genes and environment to a degree that any organism can change itself to fit it environment the best.

Well, I can't think of any evidence that supports that seemingly absurd claim. That would require an amazing amount of support. It's not like organisms (apart from us) give us any reason to think that they are aware of natural selection.

 

[Shad]

Well, I can't think of any evidence that supports that seemingly absurd claim. That would require an amazing amount of support. It's not like organisms (apart from us) give us any reason to think that they are aware of natural selection.

Even we can not change our genetics to fit every environment so we are still limited.

 

[leibowde84]

Even we can not change our genetics to fit every environment so we are still limited.

I just meant that we are aware of natural selection.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Oh, what are they? Cite your sources.

Sounds like another opinion.

http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184

 

[suncowiam]

http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184

Unfortunately, I'm at work and do not have enough time to filter through a 40 minute video. I'll try to get to this if that time becomes available.

Would you have any articles summarizing the same presentation? Thanks

 

[Shad]

http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184

FYI he still support evolution, rejects creationism and ID. Read his work before posting a video and a person that disagrees with your views. He debates the mechanics, not the idea of evolution itself. You can find his views on his website which contradict your views. He argues against Neo-Darwinism, a school within evolution, not evolution itself


http://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/team/denis-noble
http://musicoflife.co.uk/Answers-common misunderstandings.html

 

[outhouse]

Unfortunately, I'm at work and do not have enough time to filter through a 40 minute video. I'll try to get to this if that time becomes available.

Would you have any articles summarizing the same presentation? Thanks

The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is amid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution,


based on randommutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.

Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism

became a mere carrier of the real objects of selection, its genes. We now know that genetic

change is far from random and often not gradual. Molecular genetics and genome sequencing

have deconstructed this unnecessarily restrictive view of evolution in a way that reintroduces

physiological function and interactions with the environment as factors influencing the speed

and nature of inherited change. Acquired characteristics can be inherited, and in a few but

growing number of cases that inheritance has nowbeen shown to be robust formany generations.

The 21st century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with

evolutionary biology.

 

[suncowiam]

http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184

Well, I went throught the following pertaining to your source:
http://musicoflife.co.uk/pdfs/Answers.pdf

I'm a layman concerning biology so I did not understand many of the terminology, however, I did not get a sense that this is proving creationism. It might disprove the idea of random mutations but I still think that is a stretch to automatically assert creationism or intellectual design as the source of the mutations. He asserts that it is not random but does not make a case for intellectual design if that is what you're jumping to. There is a pattern but I believe it is still biologically explained if I'm reading his summary correctly.

Maybe you should cite some of his work to further help here because I'm not seeing how this logically jumps to creationism.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, I went throught the following pertaining to your source:
http://musicoflife.co.uk/pdfs/Answers.pdf

I'm a layman concerning biology so I did not understand many of the terminology, however, I did not get a sense that this is proving creationism. It might disprove the idea of random mutations but I still think that is a stretch to automatically assert creationism or intellectual design as the source of the mutations. He asserts that it is not random but does not make a case for intellectual design if that is what you're jumping to. There is a pattern but I believe it is still biologically explained if I'm reading his summary correctly.

Maybe you should cite some of his work to further help here because I'm not seeing how this logically jumps to creationism.

I agree. The video does not support creationism in any way. And it doesn't disprove evolution in any way. It merely dives deeper into the inner workings of mutations. He does seem to be recognizing a pattern, like you said.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Unfortunately, I'm at work and do not have enough time to filter through a 40 minute video. I'll try to get to this if that time becomes available.

Would you have any articles summarizing the same presentation? Thanks

Uh mutations are not random. Generally the epigenetics idea undermines the idea of random mutations.

But let's face it, basically all epigeneticists don't have any clue whatsoever how choosing works like any other evolutionist. So it is more a case of findings which are predicted and consistent with intelligent design theory / creationism, rather than that evolutionists are actually positing a variation of intelligent design theory.

 

[leibowde84]

Uh mutations are not random. Generally the epigenetics idea undermines the idea of random mutations.

But let's face it, basically all epigeneticists don't have any clue whatsoever how choosing works like any other evolutionist. So it is more a case of findings which are predicted and consistent with intelligent design theory / creationism, rather than that evolutionists are actually positing a variation of intelligent design theory.

Evolution is often part of ID theory.

 

[suncowiam]

Uh mutations are not random. Generally the epigenetics idea undermines the idea of random mutations.

But let's face it, basically all epigeneticists don't have any clue whatsoever how choosing works like any other evolutionist. So it is more a case of findings which are predicted and consistent with intelligent design theory / creationism, rather than that evolutionists are actually positing a variation of intelligent design theory.

I respectfully disagree with you. You're jumping to conclusion on that. The author provided a biological reasoning for that. He made no firm assertion to creationism or ID.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you can't prove it to be 0, then there's no point to this topic. It's just as you say, just an opinion.

Plus, you can't prove it to be very bad, either. You don't know the actual probability and just assuming a very low number.

I'll respect your opinion as long as you continue to make it clear that there is no sound basis for these opinions.

No, the probability is terrible no matter what format one is using. Actuality doesn't infer a good probability, it merely means that /pink flamingos/, are possible. Even if I tried to better the probability with assumptions of repetition, in /0/, or a different definition of /flamingo/, ie a broader unit or subject, it's still horrendous probability. When one might get shall we say, 'almost believable' numbers, is when I really am skewing every variable in my direction. We wouldn't assume randomness anyway, the problem being lack of comparable ''assumed random'' comparison models, we don't really have them. That's why it is /0/, and then each equation depending on the persons bias, or whatever, affects how they deal with that. I'm perfectly ok with leaving /0/ as it is, in other words I wouldn't compound the accumulated data in order to bolster my argument, it's not necessary. Where one gets ''better /still awful/, probability is when one really generalizes the units, but then we aren't talking about something that relates to any real meaning for how one would label things, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

Uh mutations are not random. Generally the epigenetics idea undermines the idea of random mutations.

But let's face it, basically all epigeneticists don't have any clue whatsoever how choosing works like any other evolutionist. So it is more a case of findings which are predicted and consistent with intelligent design theory / creationism, rather than that evolutionists are actually positing a variation of intelligent design theory.

Assuming that mutations aren't random, it would in no way disprove evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

No, the probability is terrible no matter what format one is using. Actuality doesn't infer a good probability, it merely means that /pink flamingos/, are possible. Even if I tried to better the probability with assumptions of repetition, in /0/, or a different definition of /flamingo/, ie a broader unit or subject, it's still horrendous probability. When one might get shall we say, 'almost believable' numbers, is when I really am skewing every variable in my direction. We wouldn't assume randomness anyway, the problem being lack of comparable ''assumed random'' comparison models, we don't really have them. That's why it is /0/, and then each equation depending on the persons bias, or whatever, affects how they deal with that. I'm perfectly ok with leaving /0/ as it is, in other words I wouldn't compound the accumulated data in order to bolster my argument, it's not necessary. Where one gets ''better /still awful/, probability is when one really generalizes the units, but then we aren't talking about something that relates to any real meaning for how one would label things, etc.

All humans have a propensity to recognize and assume patterns, even if they aren't really there.

 

[outhouse]

I did not get a sense that this is proving creationism

Its not. The author is a biologist not lacking intellect.


This is a prime example of what happens when people with no knowledge on a topic debate unarmed, and quote support instead of dissent.

 

[suncowiam]

No, the probability is terrible no matter what format one is using. Actuality doesn't infer a good probability, it merely means that /pink flamingos/, are possible. Even if I tried to better the probability with assumptions of repetition, in /0/, or a different definition of /flamingo/, ie a broader unit or subject, it's still horrendous probability. When one might get shall we say, 'almost believable' numbers, is when I really am skewing every variable in my direction. We wouldn't assume randomness anyway, the problem being lack of comparable ''assumed random'' comparison models, we don't really have them. That's why it is /0/, and then each equation depending on the persons bias, or whatever, affects how they deal with that. I'm perfectly ok with leaving /0/ as it is, in other words I wouldn't compound the accumulated data in order to bolster my argument, it's not necessary. Where one gets ''better /still awful/, probability is when one really generalizes the units, but then we aren't talking about something that relates to any real meaning for how one would label things, etc.

If pink flamingos are still possible, then there's no point to this discussion.

You're making subjective assumptions, errors, and boundaries to continue your argument. Just like I did to suggest that God does not exist.

It's still a matter of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I respectfully disagree with you. You're jumping to conclusion on that. The author provided a biological reasoning for that. He made no firm assertion to creationism or ID.

Obviously he made no assertion about ID, because he doesn't understand anything about how choosing works in the first place, like all evolutionists. Still the findings are predicted and consistent with intelligent design. That the evolutionist will fit another theory to it than ID is a given.

But the reasonable thing to do given the observations would be to formulate a theory in terms of how the DNA is chosen. That is already the most reasonable course if one just looks at the integrated complexity of an organism. It is not scientific to try to avoid freedom, that is just playing games. It is siding with the cause and effect idea, the idea of things being forced, and then play for your side against the other side.

And when in stead of intelligent design, and in stead of random mutation, you provide a whole bunch of mutation mechanisms, then the coherence of the theory is lost.