What does the fossil record say?

[Dirty Penguin]

Evolution should be challenged.
But it should be done in accordance with the scientific method, rather than with religious arguments.

RF member - Revoltingest

 

[camanintx]

So you are saying that God didn't make/design everything?

Bingo!

Then I guess your God isn't omniscient.

 

[wilsoncole]

Dude, you plagiarized. You're a plagiarizer.

and you try to hide your failure to effectively refute my points by mounting accusations.

Don't try to come on all victimy.

Is that a legal term?

You broke a rule, and the mods had to delete your post, because you plagiarized. There's nothing nasty about pointing out the truth. If you don't want to be accused of plagiarizing, then don't do it.

Truth? You have learned how to twist that so that it is unrecognizable. Lawyers are not known as paragons of truth.
You have got to be kidding! What kind of lawyer are you? You should know that many innocent people have been accused of doing wrong things and been punished for them. Isn't that the kind of people you are supposed to champion?
How would you go about it if I hired you to clear my name, even if you believe I'm guilty?
I don't know how you did it, but that seems to be your nasty way of getting back at me.
I plagiarized nothing! Due credit was given to the writer and the website was included. I can still see them in the posts.
You could have someone in a position to mess with my posts and delete the inclusions. Maybe you and the mod don't see them. I don't know.

In any case:
The Drosophilia experiments failed to produce any noticeable improvements and, after ever so many generations, the flies remained flies.
After experimenting for nearly 30 years with plant genetics and mutations, W.E. Lonnig wrote:
“Literally billions of mutations were induced by different mutagenic agents in many plant species. However, relatively few useful mutants were obtained, mostly loss-of-function-mutants losing undesirable features like toxic constituents, shattering of fruits, spininess and so on. Due to the limits summarized by the law of recurrent variation (also pertinent to the processes in nature, i.e. for natural selection), these efforts ended in a worldwide collapse of mutation breeding some forty years later. It is self-evident that selection, whether artificial or natural, cannot select structures and capabilities which were hoped or believed to arise, but never did (Lönnig, 1993, 1998). Thus, qualitative limits in generating positive mutations point to the limits of natural selection.”
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

This information shows that, contrary to your beliefs, mutations are of very limited value in advancing any organism and the worldwide project to grow food products from utilizing “beneficial” mutations were abandoned after 40 years of effort.

Do you doubt that these experiments of which Lonnig speaks actually took place? If you don't, what do you think accounts for such massive failure?

In the meantime why don't you try and help Waitasec? He's having a hard time understanding complexity and "purpose."



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Then I guess your God isn't omniscient.

It is your right.
EVERYTHING would include WMDs, pornographic pictures and faulty nuclear plants - right?
He didn't do those.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Autodidact]

YOU FAILED TO SHOW ME ANY QUOTE WHERE I CLAIMED THAT EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED!

So God only designed SOME of the universe? Which part? And who or what designed the rest?

 

[Autodidact]

and you try to hide your failure to effectively refute my points by mounting accusations.
Is that a legal term?
Truth? You have learned how to twist that so that it is unrecognizable. Lawyers are not known as paragons of truth.
You have got to be kidding! What kind of lawyer are you? You should know that many innocent people have been accused of doing wrong things and been punished for them. Isn't that the kind of people you are supposed to champion?
How would you go about it if I hired you to clear my name, even if you believe I'm guilty?
I don't know how you did it, but that seems to be your nasty way of getting back at me.
I plagiarized nothing! Due credit was given to the writer and the website was included. I can still see them in the posts.
You could have someone in a position to mess with my posts and delete the inclusions. Maybe you and the mod don't see them. I don't know.

In any case:
The Drosophilia experiments failed to produce any noticeable improvements and, after ever so many generations, the flies remained flies.
After experimenting for nearly 30 years with plant genetics and mutations, W.E. Lonnig wrote:
“Literally billions of mutations were induced by different mutagenic agents in many plant species. However, relatively few useful mutants were obtained, mostly loss-of-function-mutants losing undesirable features like toxic constituents, shattering of fruits, spininess and so on. Due to the limits summarized by the law of recurrent variation (also pertinent to the processes in nature, i.e. for natural selection), these efforts ended in a worldwide collapse of mutation breeding some forty years later. It is self-evident that selection, whether artificial or natural, cannot select structures and capabilities which were hoped or believed to arise, but never did (Lönnig, 1993, 1998). Thus, qualitative limits in generating positive mutations point to the limits of natural selection.”
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

This information shows that, contrary to your beliefs, mutations are of very limited value in advancing any organism and the worldwide project to grow food products from utilizing “beneficial” mutations were abandoned after 40 years of effort.

Do you doubt that these experiments of which Lonnig speaks actually took place? If you don't, what do you think accounts for such massive failure?

In the meantime why don't you try and help Waitasec? He's having a hard time understanding complexity and "purpose."



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Can we just let the evidence stand and move on? We've all read the thread, and drawn our conclusions--I know I have. Now can we return to the subject at hand?

 

[painted wolf]

It is your right.
EVERYTHING would include WMDs, pornographic pictures and faulty nuclear plants - right?
He didn't do those.

What about the plagues, famines, parasites, tornadoes and tsunamis?

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Actually the thread topic is about the fossil record.

Then why do you contribute to the straying by spouting Behe?

Originally posted by wilsoncole:
You should be responding to the things I say and not try to put words in my mouth.
I will say it again: Please note: I never said "complexity equals design."

Ok but this is what you said.....
If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

Are you saying it doesn’t?

Is this not you saying you believe that which is complex has a purpose therefore it must be designed?

No! It is a hypothetical statement, not a statement of belief. Sorry you couldn’t tell the difference.

If not can you clarify the statement then?

Purpose has to do with intention. Ask yourself: Why is it here? What does it do? Scientists have been asking those questions throughout their investigations of the cell. They were not inventing the cell - just discovering it.
Its complexity boggles the mind! Now they know what nucleus, ribosomes, chromosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, centrioles, etc, are and their functions. Each part serves a specific purpose and purpose has to do with intention.
To argue otherwise would be saying that these components were NOT intended to function the way they do. Then you have to figure out and explain just why else they are there, how they got their specific locations, shapes and sizes.
Since purpose has to do with intention, what purpose does complexity serve?
Can purpose be detected and explained in co-ordinated relationships?
Will you answer these questions, please?

Where did I ever disagree that cells (are complex)? I agree that there are cells that are complex. There are cells that are more complex and others that aren't as complex than others. I don't take their complexity and presume they were designed.

That would be saying that complexity serves no purpose.

A lot of things at that creationist website are textbook (high school textbook really). There is other information at the site as well as cleverly slipped in that are purely creationist assumptions.

Yet you fail select even one and to answer the questions, so I will repeat them:
Are you willing to dispute the statements in the website? Where is this guy going wrong?

No one is ducking anything. I answered it. It's been answered in a few threads already. The key word in your statement is ("IF"). You have not shown "complexity of anything to have been designed".

Originally posted by wilsoncole:
That's only because I did not say that. What, exactly, are you quoting?

Actually you did unless you can clarify what you mean by the following.

You insist that I did, so - what, exactly are you quoting? Where do you find those words?

I'm saying complexity does not denote design regardless of the cells function.

OK! Were they intended to function they way they do?

You haven't shown that complexity means it's obviously designed. Saying it doesn't make it so.

I think I have! But I really don’t have to, since it was a hypothetical statement.

So now you're comparing biological systems to non-biological systems and because you can't understand the complexity you then deem the system as being designed. This is what I've been saying you have have been doing all along. We know you car was designed because we can go to the source. Most parts of a car are labeled with name(s) of the designers.....So how can we test your hypothesis that cells are designed and have a designer?

Don’t be daft! I was simply ILLUSTRATING the development of complexity in industry, not making any comparison. Sorry you missed that.

What does that prove? Are you saying that those fewer parts have no purpose? How did the complex ones get that way?

I'm illustrating that you presume design in what man has termed and described "complex".....You have no way to validate the existence of a designer let alone any evidence that complex cells are designed.

Are you now denying complexity?
The nature and quality of the work validates its designer.
Anyway……..
This statement emanates from weakness and amounts to nothing more than a blatant denial - that’s all.
So, let me see you deal with the first part of this post.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

What about the plagues, famines, parasites, tornadoes and tsunamis?

wa:do

People can be blamed for the damage in most cases. Famines are usually caused by men, plagues by vermin.
They often mishandle their resources, like stripping the forests, draining the wetlands, damming the rivers, inordinate use of concrete and blacktop, misuse pesticides and other chemicals, live in unclean situations, cause widespread desertification, poison the water and air, alter weather patterns, spread disease by immoral living and knowingly build in dangerous places.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

So God only designed SOME of the universe? Which part? And who or what designed the rest?

Draw your own conclusions.
There is such a thing as chaos, you know.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Noaidi]

People can be blamed for the damage in most cases. Famines are usually caused by men, plagues by vermin.
They often mishandle their resources, like stripping the forests, draining the wetlands, damming the rivers, inordinate use of concrete and blacktop, misuse pesticides and other chemicals, live in unclean situations, cause widespread desertification, poison the water and air, alter weather patterns, spread disease by immoral living and knowingly build in dangerous places.

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

What about purely natural events, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and such like? Take human activity out of the equation for the moment (because we aren't responsible for all natural disasters, as your post seems to imply).

 

[camanintx]

Purpose has to do with intention. Ask yourself: Why is it here? What does it do? Scientists have been asking those questions throughout their investigations of the cell.

What makes you think that purpose is a static property? If something is designed, then yes, there is intent and purpose behind the design. But it does not follow that just because something performs a given function that it was intended to perform only that function. Why cells exist and are structured the way they are can be explained as a simple response to the changing conditions within which they found themselves. There is no need to posit a designer to give them purpose and function.

 

[painted wolf]

People can be blamed for the damage in most cases. Famines are usually caused by men,

Men prevent the rain from falling? Men created the diseases that kill crops?

plagues by vermin.

Men created the vermin? They created the bacteria and viruses that the vermin carry?

They often mishandle their resources, like stripping the forests, draining the wetlands, damming the rivers, inordinate use of concrete and blacktop, misuse pesticides and other chemicals, live in unclean situations, cause widespread desertification, poison the water and air, alter weather patterns, spread disease by immoral living and knowingly build in dangerous places.

Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes.... How does man make these?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Then why do you contribute to the straying by spouting Behe?

Because you're going on about cells having a "purpose" thus obvious they're designed when NO ONE but you here in this thread supports this notion. If you don't believe that the cell is designed then there's no need to speculate that it is.

Ok but this is what you said.....
If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

Are you saying it doesn&#8217;t?

What I'm saying is there is no need to speculate that it is considering you can't present any evidence that cells have "purpose (using YOUR definition of purpose)" or that they have been designed.

No! It is a hypothetical statement, not a statement of belief. Sorry you couldn&#8217;t tell the difference.

You didn't seem to present it as a hypothesis. There's no need to considering the next requirement from the rest of us here is to ask you to now support your hypothesis with evidence. You are unable to do this. You have not shown cells to have purpose which would ultimately lead us to the conclusion they were designed. NO ONE in this thread but you supports such a notion (maybe newhope does...not sure).

Purpose has to do with intention. Ask yourself: Why is it here? What does it do?

We know that some cells have specific *functions* and we know that others can have multiple functions. We know what multifunctional cells do specifically but in the case of certain types of stem cells research shows they have a myriad applications. Saying cells have (purpose and that purpose has to do with intention) is a gross misunderstanding as to how cells function.

Its complexity boggles the mind! Now they know what nucleus, ribosomes, chromosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, centrioles, etc, are and their functions.

Mind boggling is to be expected and it's understandable but they eventually discover what the function of said cell(s) do. This is how science works. At no point do they reach the conclusion that because said cell is so complex it must have been designed.

Since purpose has to do with intention, what purpose does complexity serve?

None. Cancer cells are complex cells so what are their purpose? If complexity lends itself to purpose then why did your designer design them?

Can purpose be detected and explained in co-ordinated relationships?
Will you answer these questions, please?

I would if the question made sense. Can you clarify?

That would be saying that complexity serves no purpose.

No, what I'm saying is that complexity does not mean design. Design would denote a "designer". It has not been established with evidence that cells are designed.

Yet you fail select even one and to answer the questions, so I will repeat them:
Are you willing to dispute the statements in the website? Where is this guy going wrong?

The points you listed (3, 4, 5, 6) I don't really have a problem with. They are what we can find in any high school science book. You highlighted certain words and I get a different understanding when I go to the site and read them. What I do disagree with is...

Chapter 11 CELLULAR EVOLUTION
it is obvious that a single, powerful Intelligence designed and made all this.

This is a faith based claim and has nothing to do with science. Like I said. There are some things at the site I agree with but there are others I don't.

I think I have! But I really don&#8217;t have to, since it was a hypothetical statement.

I must have missed the thread where you displayed evidence that cells were designed. Maybe you can post that post number. But if it was a hypothetical statement then why the need to state it here when no one agrees with the statement?

I was simply ILLUSTRATING the development of complexity in industry, not making any comparison. Sorry you missed that.

But that's just it. Comparing complex biological systems to non biological systems are not the same and not a good analogy or to be more specific it's an (ad hominem).

Are you now denying complexity?

Nope.

The nature and quality of the work validates its designer.

How so....?

Anyway&#8230;&#8230;..
This statement emanates from weakness and amounts to nothing more than a blatant denial - that&#8217;s all.

Why the attack? Is this truly necessary?

So, let me see you deal with the first part of this post.

Done...

 

[wilsoncole]

Men prevent the rain from falling?

We were talking about famine - right? That is not always the result of lack of rain. Men often cause the problem:
“A wise and competent government saves out of the production of the good years in anticipation of bad years that are sure to come. This is not a new idea. The Bible tells us that Joseph taught this policy to Pharaoh in Egypt more than 2,000 years ago. Yet it is literally true that the vast majority of the governments of the world today have no such policy. They lack either the wisdom or the competence, or both.”........
"But it isn't their fault! How can we blame the poor people who are caught in an emergency? Why must we punish them?" The concepts of blame and punishment are irrelevant. The question is, what are the operational consequences of establishing a world food bank? If it is open to every country every time a need develops, slovenly rulers will not be motivated to take Joseph's advice. Why should they? Others will bail them out whenever they are in trouble."
Living on a Lifeboat* Garrett Hardin 1974

Some years ago I watched in amazement as tens of thousands of live chickens were bulldozed into a trench and then covered over. Why? To keep prices and profits up.

"Evidence is, that “advanced” nations often do not really want food to reach the point of abundance. Why not? Because then prices would drop and profits would be cut. Production is geared to keep prices high on the world market. Food is even used to gain political advantage." (Watchtower 75 4/1 p. 196 "Will We Feed Our Neighbors —Or Let Them Starve?")


"The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimates that if all the food the world produces was evenly distributed, every person on earth would receive the equivalent of 3,000 calories per day, more than what most people actually need. In fact, in some countries, governments are even paying farmers to reduce their output so as to hold down the stockpile of surplus food and to stabilize prices."
(AWAKE! '85 5/22 pp. 3-10)
Bad for the economy!

Men created the diseases that kill crops?

No! But, like the common cold, they often cause them to spread and harm more people.

Men created the vermin? They created the bacteria and viruses that the vermin carry?

No! But by keeping their environment clean, they can control the ill effects.
Ancient Israel was given detailed instructions on how to avoid the spread of diseases.
(See Leviticus, chapters 14 and 15) If followed today, the results would be amazing!

Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes.... How does man make these?

He doesn't! But by knowingly building in risky places he maximizes the damage.
There would be no damage nor calamity if men did not get in the way of these things.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[waitasec]

He doesn't! But by knowingly building in risky places he maximizes the damage.
There would be no damage nor calamity if men did not get in the way of these things.

like where?

 

[wilsoncole]

What makes you think that purpose is a static property? If something is designed, then yes, there is intent and purpose behind the design. But it does not follow that just because something performs a given function that it was intended to perform only that function. Why cells exist and are structured the way they are can be explained as a simple response to the changing conditions within which they found themselves. There is no need to posit a designer to give them purpose and function.

And how did they acquire the ability to respond?
From dead chemicals?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

like where?

Like, up till now, along the northern coast of South America - Suriname, Guyana, Cayene, where they never experienced, to any major extent, any of those things.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Jose Fly]

If current function = purpose, then we must conclude that the pathogens that cause smallpox, ebola, botulism, cholera, tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, etc. were all intentionally designed to do so.

If that's the case, then this "designer" (god) is the worst bio-terrorist in history. It must be opposed and eventually stopped at all costs.

 

[waitasec]

Like, up till now, along the northern coast of South America - Suriname, Guyana, Cayene, where they never experienced, to any major extent, any of those things.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

and you think the people who crossed over to the americas knew they would be subjected to hurricane's, tornados, earthquakes
your god did say to be fruitful and multiply...so where does the population go?
are we to understand that we were only to stay with in those regions?

Suriname has problems with drought
Effects of El nino-related drought on freshwater and brackish-water fishes in suriname, South America | Mendeley

Guyana experienced earthquake event
by GINA News

Posted: Nov 30, 2007 18:34 UTC

GEORGETOWN (GINA) - Reports from the United States Geological Survey have confirmed that the 7.3 magnitude earthquake experienced shortly after 15:00 h on November 29 occurred off Martinique, Windward Islands.

Caribseek Guyana News | Guyana experienced earthquake event - GINA News

Damage in Jerusalem's Old City following a July 11, 1927, earthquake. One of the first earthquakes on the Dead Sea Fault to be recorded by modern seismographic techniques, it reached 6.2 on the Richter scale. The epicenter was in the northern part of the Dead Sea.
Devastating Earthquake May Threaten Middle East's Near Future, Geologist Predicts