• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
I don't claim that is what occurs.
What I see is that we have is a great many organisms over great time, among some of whom some beneficial changes occur.
Given the fitness function of survival & passing on beneficial genes (ie, increasing frequency), evolution is the emergent property.

One needn't calculate anything to find evidence.
Alternatives.....
1) Observation of real time "micro-evolution"
Modern medicine depends upon this, eg, anticipating evolution of microbes under the influence of drugs.
2) Testing evolution's predictions by simulation.
This has led to very useful design tools, eg, genetic algorithms.

The real time changes point toward intelligent design, not evolution by random mutation. The mutations observed are more in line with trying something out that has a good chance, or making something that is known to work, rather than randomly changing every part of the organism in every direction without any consideration of the organisms as a whole or it's chances of survival.

And there is no shame, or anything unscientific whatsoever in finding an indication that freedom is real and that things are chosen in sophisticated ways. That is a legitemate hypothesis, and the evidence points towards it many times. It is simply the case that evolutionists put up all sorts of irrational barriers against any hypothesis in which freedom is regarded as a reality.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The real time changes point toward intelligent design, not evolution by random mutation. The mutations observed are more in line with trying something out that has a good chance, or making something that is known to work, rather than randomly changing every part of the organism in every direction without any consideration of the organisms as a whole or it's chances of survival.
You believe that stochastic processes driven by a fitness function can produce emergent properties only by divine control.
But you cannot dismiss out of hand the idea that these same emergent properties arise solely as a natural system response.
Consider other emergent properties.....
Do gases obey Boyle's law because a supreme being directs the molecules to do so?
I see this behavior as inevitable consequence of the system.
Evolution is a pretty good analogue.
And there is no shame, or anything unscientific whatsoever in finding an indication that freedom is real and that things are chosen in sophisticated ways. That is a legitemate hypothesis, and the evidence points towards it many times. It is simply the case that evolutionists put up all sorts of irrational barriers against any hypothesis in which freedom is regarded as a reality.
I don't see what you mean about "freedom".
Could you define it & state clearly the role it plays?
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
You believe that stochastic processes driven by a fitness function can produce emergent properties only by divine control.
But you cannot dismiss out of hand the idea that these same emergent properties arise solely as a natural system response.
Consider other emergent properties.....
Do gases obey Boyle's law because a supreme being directs the molecules to do so?
I see this behavior as inevitable consequence of the system.
Evolution is a pretty good analogue.

I don't see what you mean about "freedom".
Could you define it & state clearly the role it plays?

That something is chosen does not presume divine control. The agency of any decision is a subjective issue, and irrellevant for science. Science can just denote how it is chosen. The genome can be chosen as a whole, or it can be chosen in parts in consideration of the whole, or every part can be chosen independently from every other part, etc.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That something is chosen does not presume divine control. The agency of any decision is a subjective issue, and irrellevant for science. Science can just denote how it is chosen. The genome can be chosen as a whole, or it can be chosen in parts in consideration of the whole, or every part can be chosen independently from every other part, etc.
I don't see your point here.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
I don't see your point here.

The point is that one can do science about how things are chosen, and not refer to God, or any agency of any decision for that matter. And the evidence indicates that organisms are chosen as a whole in an intelligent way.

Ignorance about how choosing works is not actually an argument.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I'm not avoiding the issue. What i'm doing is not limiting the argument to a preset groups of ideas proposed as facts, by which any other evidence presented is then compared to.

No one has addressed the op in any actual manner, btw

No one can address the OP in any actual manner, because the OP just says, "Flamingos? Am I right folks? God." Imagine how I feel. I've responded to your OP, and yet you have not responded to me. Which is interesting, because I'm still curious as to what your argument about flamingos really is?
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The point is that one can do science about how things are chosen, and not refer to God, or any agency of any decision for that matter. And the evidence indicates that organisms are chosen as a whole in an intelligent way.
Ignorance about how choosing works is not actually an argument.
Perhaps the use & definition of "choosing" is problematic.
I don't see evolution as involving choice.
It simply happens because the conditions cause it.
No supernatural intervention is required.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ID vs. materialism affects evolution proposals; you can't posit that materialism is somehow out of the argument,....hence, what's your point? Of course i'm going to reference an important aspect of the debate, ie materialism.
Materialism, as I showed, is very different than evolution. It doesn't mean that they aren't related I guess, but you cannot hold evolution responsible for the shortcomings of materialism, as materialism is far more extreme.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I deal with reality, and the reality is that evolutionists are removing acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. You are making some kind of definition issue, into reality. Despite your definitions it is overwhelmingly clear to me that evolution theory is what stands in the way of creationism, and subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. Your argument that some theists combine evolution with intelligent design theory, that is just exception. The evolution theory community of scientists, and all the evolution activists, are out to destroy creationism, this is very obvious.
If it's obvious, why can't you provide evidence? You pointed to 2 examples of materialists arguing for materialism and social Darwinism (a political theory), but you have failed to provide anything pointing to evolution itself.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I like flamingos.

"A comprehensive analysis of the genes of aquatic birds has revealed a family tree dramatically different from traditional relationship groupings based on the birds' body structure, according to a research report to be published in the 7 July 2001 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society and featured on the cover of that issue.

The most startling and unexpected finding of the study is that the closest living relative of the elegant flamingo, with its long legs built for wading, is not another long-legged species of wading bird but the squat grebe, with its short legs built for diving. The two species, whose genes surprisingly are more similar to each other's than to those of any other bird, otherwise show no outward resemblance, according to Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist at Penn State.

Hedges leads one of the two research groups that collaborated on the study by separately performing two different kinds of genetic analyses using DNA samples obtained from separate sources. The other group is led by John A. W. Kirsch, professor of zoology and director of the Zoological Museum at the University of Wisconsin. "We knew people might have a hard time accepting these results so we decided to publish our two studies together in the same paper because the weight of the combined evidence is quite strong," Hedges says.

Another surprising implication of the study is that physical features like long legs and webbed feet — traditionally used to group birds of a feather into different flocks on the bird family tree — did not appear just once during the history of bird evolution, as had been the hallmark assumption of the traditional classification system. Instead, the study suggests such structures evolved repeatedly in the history of different aquatic bird species. Because many of the species in the study are located on the "twigs" at the ends of a branch of the bird family tree — not farther back in time on its "trunk" — the study also suggests that "evolutionary change in aquatic birds has proceeded at a faster pace than previously recognized," explains Marcel van Tuinen, a member of the Hedegs research team.

The scientists say they feel the conclusions of their research are strengthened by their combination of two different analysis techniques, their use of genetic material from separate sources, and the comprehensiveness of both studies. The Kirsch lab used a technique called "DNA/DNA hybridization" and the Hedges lab used a technique called "DNA sequencing."

The DNA/DNA hybridization technique is a method of gauging the degree of genetic similarity between two species by comparing all the genetic material — the entire genome — contained in the DNA molecules of each species. "In birds, the entire genome comprises about 20 to 30 thousand or more genes," Hedges says.

In contrast, the DNA sequencing technique is a more targeted comparison of the composition of individual genes — specific sections of the DNA molecule that carry the codes for specific inherited traits. The sequencing technique compares the actual order, or sequence, of the innermost pairs of molecules in the gene, known as "base pairs," which are strung side by side along the core of the DNA molecule and which hold together the molecules that make up its two sides.

The hybridization studies in the Kirsch lab included 21 species representing the major families of aquatic birds. The sequencing studies in the Hedges lab included 6 genes from each of 28 species — the largest such study ever performed for aquatic birds.

"We never imagined the flamingo and the grebe would turn out to be closest relatives, and were so surprised by this outcome that we did additional examinations using different sources of flamingo and grebe genetic material and obtained the same results," Hedges says. "A lot of people may have trouble believing the results from these genetic studies for a while, but they carry a lot of weight because we have so much data from two different techniques, and it all paints the the same picture of the evolutionary history of aquatic birds."...

Hedges predicts the genetic evidence will continue to accumulate until its weight is convincing enough to be generally accepted by most scientists. He says, "What I like about the way science works is that eventually the truth will win."

http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2001-news/Hedges7-2001.htm

Awe, isn't that sweet.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I much prefer the parmesan over the mozzarella or feta, and my wife's from Italy, so take that!

Told him.:cool:
You put Parmesan on top of Mozzarella & feta?
Ew!

Fresh tomatoes with garlic & feta on pizza is pretty good.
Anchovies are a great option too.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
When you say "creationism", which definition are you using? The very broad definition of "the Universe was created by a deity/deities" or the much more specific "the Universe was created by the Abrahamic God 6,000 years ago, God made man from dust, God made Eve from Adam, life never evolves outside of kinds, etc."?

Also, what would the pinkness of flamingos have to do with the validity of materialism?
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
If it's obvious, why can't you provide evidence? You pointed to 2 examples of materialists arguing for materialism and social Darwinism (a political theory), but you have failed to provide anything pointing to evolution itself.

...I referred to natural selection, evolutionary psychology, etc. So once and for all it is proven that Leibowde is just pretending to be reasonable.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You put Parmesan on top of Mozzarella & feta?
Ew!

Fresh tomatoes with garlic & feta on pizza is pretty good.
Anchovies are a great option too.
NO, not Parmesan on top of them-- dah! I love anchovies! Hey, you're not such a bad guy after all!

Ever have reggiano parmesan, by chance? That's the good stuff at just under $20 per pound in our area-- the east-side, where all good looking people live.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the use & definition of "choosing" is problematic.
I don't see evolution as involving choice.
It simply happens because the conditions cause it.
No supernatural intervention is required.

You are simply ignorant about how any choosing works. For people choosing it works the same way as out in nature. The science will just denote the different ways the brain can turn out and how the decision is made. There is no reference to any agency doing the choosing for people either. It is simply categorically a subjective issue.

What you say is just evidence that you reject subjectivity because of evolution theory.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
NO, not Parmesan on top of them-- dah! I love anchovies! Hey, you're not such a bad guy after all!

Ever have reggiano parmesan, by chance? That's the good stuff at just under $20 per pound in our area-- the east-side, where all good looking people live.
Have I ever had it?
Does the Pope wear a big hat.....does a bear make dookie in the woods....is a greased Scotsman fast?
The drier & stronger the better!
 
Top