The Origin of Complex Life Forms and Their Purpose

[metis]

My faith isn't blind, that's what evolutionists like to say but it isn't true.

It obviously is since you cannot post even one simple fact to support your belief as we've seen.

Postulate 1: the Big Bang is true

Substitute "probably is based on the evidence"for "is".

Postulate 2: All macro-evolution began with a single celled organism and progressed from there (or a variant thereof)

That is a "hypothesis", not a "postulate".

Postulate 3: Men evolved from ape like beings

Probably true based on the evidence.

None of those postulates can be proven but they are all assumed to be true.

As I've indicated above, that is a false conclusion on your part.

Postulate 4: Current dating methods are absoltutely reliable

False, as dates ascertained all involve + and - numbers to indicate the probable degree of error.

Postulate 5: The universe was not created 10,000 years ago and it is not possible that a God could have done it, else we'd know

The presence or absence of God or Gods is not postulated at all since we cannot verify nor deny there's a God or Gods. It is you, not us, that's making assumptions based on no objective evidence whatsoever.

I could go on but I won't.

But notice your disingenuousness, as you demand we provide proof and yet you provide literally not one shred of objective evidence. None. Nada. Nyet (that's for the Trump camp).

In my introduction to anthropology course, I told my students at the end of the first week each semester that if they had difficulty accepting the basic ToE for religious reasons that they should stick with their religion. I explained that for most people the debate over the ToE is mainly academic that has little direct effect on their daily lives, but religious beliefs can affect us every day of the week and every waking hour of the day. Then I went on to explain that one does not dismiss the other and that most theologians do not have trouble accepting the ToE as long as God was behind it all.

On confidential surveys given at the end of each course, teaching an average of four courses per year for 30 years, I only had one student who wrote that (s)he still couldn't accept it. So, either I'm the world's greatest salesman-- apparently far better than Trump-- or the evidence speaks for itself. [hint hint-- it's the latter]

 

[gnostic]

As I stated on another thread. Creation and Evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. Seems to me most people think that the ideas are mutually exclusive.

No , it doesn’t have to be, but it is because of theism, the belief in the existence of God.

In science, two types of questions are addressed:

1. the WHAT,
2. and the HOW.

The WHAT, is self-explanatory, scientists have to figure what it is that they are investigating.

The HOW, is a lot harder to do, which is to figure HOW the “WHAT” works; in another word, which is the study of its mechanism.

Another HOW type of question, that is important after answering the two original questions to acquire the knowledge, would HOW to use it, thus the application-side of science.

The two original questions should give us the answer to WHY, but I don’t think the WHY question is important.

Even less important question, is the WHO. The WHO is only important in social science, like psychology, and in humanities, like literature, art, music.

But in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology, in geology, Earth science and astronomy, the WHO is more of hinder than helpful or useful, especially if that WHO is some divine or supernatural beings, which some would call “God”, other might called “Creator” or “Designer”, or by their names or other useless titles.

The problem is that we have evidences for nature at work, but no evidences that for any god, spirit, angel or demon being responsible for its creation or design.

You can’t have evidences for one side and unsubstantiated faith (and belief) on the other side.

That’s not how science works. Heck, that’s not how religion works.

Science required rigorous and repeated testings, to verify if the statement made in theory or hypothesis is true...or not.

Religion is based on faith in belief. If there were evidences in the belief, then faith isn’t required.

But belief in any god, do require faith, not evidence, which make Creationism an antithesis to science.

 

[Enoch07]

But belief in any god, do require faith, not evidence, which make Creationism an antithesis to science.

I disagree.

Blind faith is the antithesis of science. True but,

Belief in God does not require faith, even though some rely solely on faith.

There Is evidence of creation that I have cited on the first page of this thread. 7 pages later it has yet to be refuted.

If you wish to tackle that argument I invite you.

 

[sayak83]

As I stated on another thread. Creation and Evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. Seems to me most people think that the ideas are mutually exclusive. And I'll use the same examples of the jugular valve of the giraffe, and woodpecker tongues to provide examples.

The giraffe has long neck, which requires a large heart to push blood up the neck against gravity. But when a giraffe lowers its head to drink water the blood is now flowing downhill with gravity. Without the giraffes jugular valves to restrict blood flow to its brain, it would probably die. Now all 3 of these systems must be in place at the same time. The neck and heart naturally evolved together as needed. But the valves are not needed until the neck to heart ratio reached a certain point. How is the organism know to adapt to a condition that it is not currently experiencing. This would mean the organism would have to predict it needed the useless valve thousands or tens of thousands of years in advance so that when the neck was long enough, and the heart was large enough, that a valve would be needed to restrict the increased blood flow from lowering its head, below its body to drink.

Also:
View attachment 18943

And many other examples of possible creation. As it would take many thousands of years of evolution to develop a tongue like this. Which is not plausible because the woodpeckers tongue evolved with its beak and its nature, to drill small holes in trees to then slip its tongue into and collect bugs for food.

These are very trivial questions and hence I would invite you to think a little bit as to how an evolutionary process would have achieved them through sequential processes before providing the answer myself.

 

[Sapiens]

I disagree.

Blind faith is the antithesis of science. True but,

Belief in God does not require faith, even though some rely solely on faith.

There Is evidence of creation that I have cited on the first page of this thread. 7 pages later it has yet to be refuted.

If you wish to tackle that argument I invite you.

Tackle? That implies a degree of difficulty not found here, but none to be found ... green circle all the way.

Claim CB325:
A giraffe's heart must be quite large (it is over 24 lbs) to pump blood to the giraffe's head. A series of special one-way valves in the neck regulates blood flow, and there is a special net of elastic blood vessels at the base of the brain. Without these valves and elastic blood vessels, the blood pressure in the giraffe's head would be immense when it bends over, enough to cause brain damage. All of these features -- large heart, valves in the jugular vein, and wondernet of vessels -- must be in place simultaneously or the giraffe would die. They could not have evolved gradually.
Source:
Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (2nd ed.). Dallas, TX: Haughton, pp. 69-72.
Setterfield, Barry, 1998. Birds, beetles, and life. BIRDS, BEETLES, AND LIFE
Response:

1. Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.

References:

1. Darwin, Charles, 1868. Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, vol. 2, chpt. 20. London: John Murray. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/variation/variation20.html

Further Reading:
Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The tallest tale. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, 301-318.

Claim CB326:
The unique arrangement of the woodpecker's tongue could not have evolved. If the tongue started anchored to the back of the beak, it would require a large sudden change to get to its present configuration.
Response:

1. The woodpecker's tongue (and hyoid apparatus, a rigid cartilage and bone skeleton of the tongue) are unusually long. However, they are simply an elongation of the same basic anatomy found in all birds. Like other birds, the main attachments are to the mandible, the cartilage of the throat, and the base of the skull. All that is required for the woodpecker's tongue to evolve is for it to grow longer, which could easily happen gradually.
   
   The creationist claim stems from a mistaken understanding of the tongue anatomy. Creationists think the tongue is anchored in the nostril and grows backwards out of it. Although the back of the tongue in some species is long enough to extend to the nasal cavity, it is not anchored there.

Links:
Ryan, Rusty, 2003. Anatomy and evolution of the woodpecker's tongue. The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue

ho hum, took less than thirty seconds. Got any real arguments?

 

[Enoch07]

These are very trivial questions and hence I would invite you to think a little bit as to how an evolutionary process would have achieved them through sequential processes before providing the answer myself.

Thats not how this works. I cited evidence. It's up to you to dispute it, if you disagree with it. I am not doing your work for you.

 

[Enoch07]

Response:

1. Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.

That is a strawman. You are misrepresenting the question. The question is how does an organism know to develop something that is not needed. The valve is not needed until the neck to heart ratio reaches a critical point. Once that point is reaches the animal would die without the valve. This would mean either pure chance, or the cell predicted something it would need thousands of years in adance.

So my question is how does a cell predict it needs to take measures to restrict blood flow for conditions it is not currently facing, but will need to face in the future?

Darwin does not explain how this happens. His theory just explains that it gradually grows, and leaves it at that, not why or how.

Response:

1. The woodpecker's tongue (and hyoid apparatus, a rigid cartilage and bone skeleton of the tongue) are unusually long. However, they are simply an elongation of the same basic anatomy found in all birds. Like other birds, the main attachments are to the mandible, the cartilage of the throat, and the base of the skull. All that is required for the woodpecker's tongue to evolve is for it to grow longer, which could easily happen gradually.
   
   The creationist claim stems from a mistaken understanding of the tongue anatomy. Creationists think the tongue is anchored in the nostril and grows backwards out of it. Although the back of the tongue in some species is long enough to extend to the nasal cavity, it is not anchored there

Another misrepresentation. The question has nothing to do with where the tongue is anchored. But how or why the tongue exited through the nostril, up and over the skull, then back down and out through the mouth. How did an animal evolve This? It would take thousands of generations of "wood peckers" which would have a useless tongue. Because the beak, skull, and tongue all work in unison for the wood pecker to survive, this it how the wood pecker feeds. The beak is used to drill holes, without a tongue this is pointless, without a specialized skull to protect the brain, it couldn't survive the drilling proceeds. All 3 have to be in place at the same time or else the woodpecker cannot be. If even one is not developed the other 2 are useless.

Darwin theory doesn't explain this. How does the wood pecker know to develop a specialized skull to protect its brain from drilling? Why would it chip holes without a specialized tongue to use the holes it chips? Why would the organism evolve it's tongue that way if it could chip holes without issues, but not be able to retrieve food with it? Remember all this takes thousands of years to develop. All 3 must be in place or else the animal goes extinct and has no time to pass genetic information needed to adapt and evolve.


Try to not misrepresent the questions just so you can spout easy answers.

 

[Sapiens]

The simplest model for both is just leapfrogging. Giraffes' with a slightly longer neck have an advantage, but they can go just so far. A thickened artery and/or proto-valve gives a further advantage and opens new niche space to those now equipped to take advantage of it, and so, once the pattern is set, further and ever more intensive, selection takes over as a result of the opened niche space. You need to kiss both Platonism and on/off switch oversimplifications goodby.

 

[Enoch07]

The simplest model for both is just leapfrogging. Giraffes' with a slightly longer neck have an advantage, but they can go just so far. A thickened artery and/or proto-valve gives a further advantage and opens new niche space to those now equipped to take advantage of it, and so, once the pattern is set, further and ever more intensive, selection takes over as a result of the opened niche space. You need to kiss both Platonism and on/off switch oversimplifications goodby.

I am not familiar with the leapfrogging theory. Nor is it located anywhere on the net. Other than for business and economics Leapfrogging - Wikipedia.

You are implying that evolution is random or by chance.

Do you know how many slightly different variants of Giraffe would have to have been in order for some to have, by chance, the correct ratios? That's rhetorical, the number is astronomically large.

 

[Sapiens]

I am not familiar with the leapfrogging theory. Nor is it located anywhere on the net. Other than for business and economics Leapfrogging - Wikipedia.

This is the game of leapfrog, you need to use more skill and intelligence with google and wiki:

You are implying that evolution is random or by chance.

No I am not, you are applying a lack of evolutionary and biological background to an issue that you prefer to misunderstand.

I
Do you know how many slightly different variants of Giraffe would have to have been in order for some to have, by chance, the correct ratios? That's rhetorical, the number is astronomically large.

There's that intentional misunderstanding again.

 

[Enoch07]

Oh ok, didn't realize we were just allowed to make stuff up. /shrug it's ok to just say you don't know the answer.

 

[Sapiens]

Of course you realized that it is possible to make stuff up, that's what you've been doing all along. I, on the other hand, am applying years of undergraduate and post graduate training and even more years of professional experience. If you claim to not know the difference between expertise and making it up, well, you're clearly just making it up.

 

[Enoch07]

I have not made up anything. I am pointing out biological facts and asking questions.

Questions you can't answer with all your years of school and professional training without making up bull crap answers.

Like I said, it's ok to admit you just don't know the answer.

 

[sayak83]

I have not made up anything. I am pointing out biological facts and asking questions.

Questions you can't answer with all your years of school and professional training without making up bull crap answers.

Like I said, it's ok to admit you just don't know the answer.

Your inability to understand the answers do not imply they weren't provided. What, according to you, is the difficulty of simultaneous evolution of a longer neck and a stronger heart and valve for a giraffe for example? A 5% longer neck requires a 5% stronger valve for optimal performance, a 10% longer neck requires a 10% stronger valve and so on. Where's the difficulty here? Which biological research provides evidence that a valve can perform optimally until a critical neck length and suddenly beyond that the giraffe dies? You (or the website you get ur false ideas from) just made that up.

 

[Enoch07]

Your inability to understand the answers do not imply they weren't provided. What, according to you, is the difficulty of simultaneous evolution of a longer neck and a stronger heart and valve for a giraffe for example? A 5% longer neck requires a 5% stronger valve for optimal performance, a 10% longer neck requires a 10% stronger valve and so on. Where's the difficulty here? Which biological research provides evidence that a valve can perform optimally until a critical neck length and suddenly beyond that the giraffe dies? You (or the website you get ur false ideas from) just made that up.

Listen if you don't know the answer that is ok.

There is no need to misrepresent my question multiple times. It is intellectually dishonest, and only make you look foolish with your baseless accusations. I have not made anything up. I have only presented biological facts and asked questions. Questions no one has answered so far. Including yourself.

 

[sayak83]

Listen if you don't know the answer that is ok.

There is no need to misrepresent my question multiple times. It is intellectually dishonest, and only make you look foolish with your baseless accusations. I have not made anything up. I have only presented biological facts and asked questions. Questions no one has answered so far. Including yourself.

Listen it's OK if your beliefs forces you to reject reason and evidence. There is no need to transparently misrepresent informative answers to your questions, nor to level baseless accusations against the repliers to hide your inability to accept the answers presented in them. A deaf person cannot accuse others of not speaking merely because he is incapable of hearing them.

 

[Enoch07]

Listen it's OK if your beliefs forces you to reject reason and evidence. There is no need to transparently misrepresent informative answers to your questions, nor to level baseless accusations against the repliers to hide your inability to accept the answers presented in them. A deaf person cannot accuse others of not speaking merely because he is incapable of hearing them.

You did not answer my question.

You misrepresented my question and then answered that.

That's called a strawman.

Now you resort to derogatory comments because you got called out.

How hard is that to understand?

 

[sayak83]

You did not answer my question.

You misrepresented my question and then answered that.

That's called a strawman.

Now you resort to derogatory comments because you got called out.

How hard is that to understand?

I did answer your question. You misrepresented it and you are consistently doing so to everyone else, clearly showing that you don't want to know the answers at all.

 

[Enoch07]

I did answer your question. You misrepresented it and you are consistently doing so to everyone else, clearly showing that you don't want to know the answers at all.

No you didn't.

Saying that the neck, valve, and heart all grew at the same time does not answer my question. The fact that you think that is my question shows your inability to understand what I am talking about.

The question is how did the Giraffe' s body know to grow a valve before the valve was actually needed?

Your answer actually leans towards a mix of creationist/evolutionist explanation. Because you said,

A 5% longer neck requires a 5% stronger valve for optimal performance, a 10% longer neck requires a 10% stronger valve and so on.

That implies the neck, valve, and heart was always in place. And then they evolved all together, as the animals neck grew.

 

[sayak83]

No you didn't.

Saying that the neck, valve, and heart all grew at the same time does not answer my question. The fact that you think that is my question shows your inability to understand what I am talking about.

The question is how did the Giraffe' s body know to grow a valve before the valve was actually needed?

Your answer actually leans towards a mix of creationist/evolutionist explanation. Because you said,



That implies the neck, valve, and heart was always in place. And then they evolved all together, as the animals neck grew.

Yes, of course. The neck, heart and valve were always in place and they evolved all together. All three structures, neck, heart and valves have evolved a long time back in the first land mammals to manage blood circulation. Their positions, numbers and structures have differentiated over time as different species adapted to different ecological conditions in the various reptiles, birds and mammals. The entire circulatory system evolves as a tightly coupled group through a gene network, each of whose expressions in the developing embryo depends on the strength and timing of other gene expressions on the same network. To take a toy example, one of the valve gene network may read "For every 15cm increase in neck length, add another cell layer to thicken valve muscle." while another network may read "for every n meters of heart to brain blood vessel length add k number of valves equally spaced along the tubing." Such gene networks are widespread throughout all animal world and they automatically adjust the connected groups of organs that need to coevolve to maintain biological balance through evolutionary adaptation.