Design:All faith aside.

I would estimate about 2-3 billion years. It was like an arms race. First the bacteria evolved movement, then they ate each other and defense against eating provided some advantage. Eventually, they discovered how to go on land to escape predators...

Do you see how ridiculous that is? You are saying that all on its own bacteria, which you need a microscope to see turned into (ok, it took 2-3mill years) an elephant and some turned int horses and some a zebra. WHY?:shrug:

And dont forget that some did not change at all, because they are still here performing the same EXACT function. Dont you see that it makes no sense? There needed to be, at the very least, some external direction. It is so obvious. The only thing provable is variation and just by reproducing you can show variation from one generation to another.

Evolution is qualitatively different than design. All innovations were gradual improvements. Sometimes an animal discovers a new use for an old tool. Originally, bats did not use sound to "see" in the dark, this has been confirmed in the discovery of fossil bats without complex ear parts.

How do you know it was not a different species? And you know as well as i do that fossils only show so much and i would not exactly call it complex.
 
You ever read anything by the nullists? They take adaptationists to task for telling so many just-so stories. 'Course, no one outside of science cares about them because Dawkins is such a loudmouth, and no one likes math.

No, I haven't heard of them.
 
You ever read anything by the nullists? They take adaptationists to task for telling so many just-so stories. 'Course, no one outside of science cares about them because Dawkins is such a loudmouth, and no one likes math.

:bugeye:
 
Evolution is qualitatively different than design. All innovations were gradual improvements. Sometimes an animal discovers a new use for an old tool. Originally, bats did not use sound to "see" in the dark, this has been confirmed in the discovery of fossil bats without complex ear parts.

Not all innovations were/are improvements. Some must've failed along the way. Take mutations that occurred as a result of the Chernobyl tragedy: those are failures. Mutations happen naturally as well. You could take Down's Syndrome as a "failing" mutation.
 
No, I haven't heard of them.

Here's a link to the abstract of probably one of the most important papers to come out in biology in the past decade.

I'm not sure if you can access the whole paper. It's called:
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Lynch, 2007, PNAS.

Resolving the paradox of sex and recombination. is also a pretty good one, as it looks at a non-adaptionist way sex could have evolved. That one's by Otto and Lenormand, published in Nature Review Genetics.
 
You've got it right.
Johnny and iceage don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, so it leads to a little confusion.


Yes, I dropped out of highschool because I can't stand being lied to. I have no edgemacation.

And if I'm Iceage then you're a monkey's uncle....Uh,I mean NOT a monkey's uncle (if that's more offensive).

I do enjoy getting a free lesson in biology, though.
 
Do you see hoe rediculuos that is? You are saying that all on its own bacteria, which you need a microscope to see turned into (ok, it took 2-3mill years) an elephant and some turned int horses and some a zebra. WHY?:shrug:
The most obvious and radical change was the evolution of cooperation between cells. One step is represented by the sponges, which are separate cells living in large colonies. You can put a sponge in a blender, pour the slurry into a tank, and it will reassemble into a working sponge.

The next step was greater integration into a body, where the cells cannot live on their own.

The reason this all happened is variation and iteration with natural selection. Variation, you admit, is possible. If a variation gave an animal a survival advantage, it's numbers grew. Greater numbers mean more possibilities for advantageous variations. Mobility would be a great advantage, as well as size, and the ability to sustain various chemical reactions through the use of catalysts.

Note, I said billions of years, not millions.

Creatures also evolved various schemes that assist evolution, we could call that the evolution of evolvability. They became modular. A snake just repeats the center section of it's body to become a longer animal.


And dont forget that some did not change at all, because they are still here performing the same EXACT function. Dont you see that it makes no sense? There needed to be, at the very least, some external direction. It is so obvious. The only thing provable is variation and just by reproducing you can show variation.
Yes. Just like there are still wasps, even though some became ants.


How do you know it was not a different species? And you know as well as i do that fossils only show so much and i would not exactly call it complex.
I'm sure it was. But at some point there were no bats at all. Then later, there were no bats fossils found with echolocation, and now all of them have it. It's a logical assumption.

If species die out, but there are no new ones, why are there so many species now? The species existing now have no ancient fossils, so where did they come from? Some species existing now share a resemblence to some fossils, even down to things like the number of bones present. There's no explanation for this other than that modern ones came from ancient ones.

The Origin of Species, by Darwin, can explain it better than I can.
 
Yes, I dropped out of highschool because I can't stand being lied to. I have no edgemacation.

And if I'm Iceage then you're a monkey's uncle....Uh,I mean NOT a monkey's uncle (if that's more offensive).

I do enjoy getting a free lesson in biology, though.

Check in with your local mental institution, they'll tell you all the truths you'd like to hear. :D
 
In my area education is devolving and MDs give you psych drugs for a sinus infection.

Is that because we are random organisms with no purpose?

Of course not. It's because you're designed with a specific purpose, and some people have fallen under evil influences and want to interfere with that purpose. ;o)
 
Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.
Any particular ecosystem may fail if an important component is removed, but it will just turn into a different ecosystem. It may not be as "beautiful" by our subjective standards, but it still "works." That asteroid that darkened the skies and wiped out the dinosaurs also wiped out many other species, a significant fraction of the total in existence at the time. IIRC, something like one fourth. It utterly destroyed entire ecosystems. But plenty of living things survived. Mutations that wouldn't have had a chance of survival suddenly found themselves perfectly adapted to a new world and throve. Within a few million years the earth was remade by evolution into a new kind of place. Endothermic (warm-blooded) animals and angiosperms (seed-bearing plants) became the apex species on land and similar changes took place in the sea. To use your model, many of the key components of the watch were removed. The watch was never rebuilt, but in its place a digital clock arose.
As amazing as a Swiss time piece is, with all of our intelligence , we can't come close what is done in nature.
You express a weakness that virtually all humans have: the inability to understand huge numbers. You can't grasp how the law of averages works when it has billions of years to work. Our entire civilization, starting charitably with the first farms which technically don't even count as civilization, is only twelve thousand years old. Give us two or three billion years and see what we might come up with!
Isn't design a much more logical than lightning striking a tar pond or whatever?
What is "logical" about design? Where does the designer live? What does he eat? Why don't we see him? What kinds of processes does he use to perform this design?

At the very best, if you manage to come up with answers to all of these questions, you are left with the one unanswerable question: Where did the designer come from? Who designed him? Your reasoning ends up being circular.

This is not "logic," this is one of the oldest classic bonehead fallacies.
"Overall, the criteria for scientific theories can be loosely be summarized by a few basic principles. Scientific theories are: 1.Consistent (internally and externally); 2.Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) 3.Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena 4. Empirically Testable & Falsifiable 5.Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments 6.Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered) 7.Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) 8.Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) I don't know if evolution meets all of this criteria. And this is just one overview I ran across.
This is not a correct paradigm. #5 does not belong there. Science is the logical derivation of theories from empirical observation, but experimentation is not required. Astronomy is the oldest science and no one has yet performed an experiment in astronomy. (The "experiments" that have been performed all involve only new techniques of observation.)
A give away is using the word ecosystem, we all know an ecosystem operates within specific parameters that cannot be substituted and allow for limited deviation to what would be considered optimal. But taking away one component means it collapses, IT DIES.
We just went through that. One dies but another takes its place.
OK, I'll save time by stating that even IF new species can be made by isolation and environment, with all of our fossils we have none detailing a transition from say a mouse to a bat... If it takes as long as suggested, wouldn't the land be covered with fossils of animals in ALL states of the transitional process? Yet we have none?
Either you are joking or you are being disingenuous. Surely you understand how perfect conditions must be for anything to become a fossil. Weather, lack of predators/scavengers, geology. It's amazing that there are as many fossils as there are. Some of them turned to mush, like petroleum. Some turned to vapor, like natural gas. Some turned to a solid mass of indistinguishable molecules, like coal. Most just got ground up into the soil, dissolved in the water, evaporated into the air, eaten by scavengers, or ripped asunder by tectonic activity.
Since you brought up "most people": 85% of humans believe in a higher power/God.
Of course they do. Belief in the supernatural is an archetype, an instinctive belief programmed into us by the vagaries of evolution. An instinct that was a survival trait during conditions we can't imagine, a synapse that we all inherited through a genetic bottleneck, not all archetypes have been explained yet. But many of them have to be outgrown because they are remnants of the Stone Age. Religion, for example, may have been an advantage during our tribal era because it helped tribes bond. Today it is atavistic because it continues to hold us back in the tribal era and prevents us from coming together into larger communities.
My guess is that using multiple identities to conceal yourself on this forum is not encouraged by the site administrators.
No. If this turns out to be the case he will be permanently banned.
You are trolling, as you did before when you wasted peoples' time. You have no honest interest in discussion.
I'm not quite ready to dismiss this as trolling. But I do recommend that the Moderator combine this with the Sticky on Evolution Denialism. It's just the same discredited arguments all over, taking up our bandwidth.
Thanks for your insight. The bigger question at hand is: At what point does bacteria type organism turn into a fish for instance.
Oh come on now. You make yourself out to be an intelligent, educated person, and then you say something that sounds like a not particularly precocious twelve-year-old???Did I already say "disingenous?" Fourteen-year-olds know that bacteria did not turn directly into fish but went through a couple of billion years of intermediate forms as they became slowly more complex.
Are you are saying that bacteria changed into every single life form on the planet?
There were other single-celled species besides bacteria, but basically yes.
Well, how similar is a donkey to a horse? They both evolved from the same ancestor (which was neither a donkey nor a horse). (someone correct me if my memory of bio classes betrayed me.)
Eohippus, the ancestor of all the equines including the zebra. It arose in what is now North America but ultimately no species of that line survived here.
Do you see how ridiculous that is? You are saying that all on its own bacteria, which you need a microscope to see turned into (ok, it took 2-3mill years) an elephant and some turned int horses and some a zebra. WHY?
Because there were ecological niches for both species. Mutations only survive if they have a survival advantage over their ancestral species. This often happens during times of environmental distress.
And dont forget that some did not change at all, because they are still here performing the same EXACT function. Dont you see that it makes no sense?
I'm not sure that's true. We talk about alligators and cockroaches still being here, but they're not the same species of alligators and cockroaches. But even if they are, all this shows is that there were ecological niches available for both the ancestral species and the mutation. This does happen, after all. The polar bear is a mutation of the grizzly bear, the most recent speciation we have yet discovered, yet the grizzly bear still thrives in its original environment. There was a new environment for the polar bear so it evolved to fill it.
There needed to be, at the very least, some external direction. It is so obvious.
What kind of "external direction?" The "designer" that was mentioned earlier? The hypothesis that only results in circular reasoning? This is not science. This is starting to sound suspiciously like religion, which on this board is trolling. We have ghettos for religionists with antiscientific arguments and if they don't stay there we ban them. Postulating an unobservable supernatural universe is by definition antiscientific, because the essence of science is the premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by deriving theories logically from empirical observations of its past and present behavior. This premise has been tested for about five hundred years and it has not been disproven. There is no need to give up on science and postulate supernatural phenomena like "designers."
In my area education is devolving and MDs give you psych drugs for a sinus infection. Is that because we are random organisms with no purpose?
Yes, America is getting pretty stupid. It started with the Religious Redneck Retard Revival about thirty years ago. True academia has lost all respect and "science" is being taken over by corporations who have products to sell.
 
Is it an insult if it's true?

Here are some questions you are unable to answer:
Why do seemingly dissimilar organisms share so many similarities? Why has one structure, the vertebrate limb, been adapted to fly, swim, walk, burrow, and run, rather than having unrelated, more efficient designs for say, a, ostrich vs.a mole?

Explain a whale's vestigial hip.
Explain the double membrane of mitochondria, and triple membranes of some chloroplasts. Why do organisms with as diverse metabolisms as archaea (of which some reduce with iron and produce magnetite), protists (some that photosynthesize), and humans share so much rRNA? Why conservation of core molecular machinery across such vast phyla? Why do we repeatedly see maladapted structures based on old, ancestral traits, rather than completely different and better functioning ones?

Why does each Hawaiian island have different types of flies on them, found only on those islands, and nowhere else in the world?
I surely don't have all of those answers and, I'll admit it, but In my experience with Engineering and Manuf. when you find a good design you don't change it. If you want to make a lot of something, if the parts can't be interchangeable(1st choice) you at least keep them similar enough that you don't have to retool and hire a new engineering department. It would be wrong, though to tell my customer that everything on the machine came from the same source unless that source was me.

Yes, we even design things that adapt (evolve). like 4x4s and Virus protection software. Even robots designed in our Image.
And think of our image compared to others.Even though I know you think I'm nuts, I've nothing but respect for you.
 
This is not science. This is starting to sound suspiciously like religion, which on this board is trolling. We have ghettos for religionists with antiscientific arguments and if they don't stay there we ban them..


Hey, the topic tags said "social responsibilty" and such. How can you discard religion talk?(which I'm trying to avoid )

You all would sound smarter without all the insults. I mean, the last scentence would send shivers down my spine if I were Jewish. Ha!
 
Last edited:
The Origin of Species, by Darwin, can explain it better than I can.

If you want to know how evolution really happened, read the Secret Doctrine by Helena Blavatsky.

What is "logical" about design? Where does the designer live? What does he eat? Why don't we see him? What kinds of processes does he use to perform this design?

there are several builders, but i can't say what they are because science has not seen them yet. ancient myths/science speaks of them. back in those days we could see them.

life is big and not everything that our eyes can see are real. sometimes you have to find a way to see the invisible to find the answers to some questions. we know that there are invisible things like radio waves, so it's not insane to think that there are also beings who live in invisible worlds like we live here.

At the very best, if you manage to come up with answers to all of these questions, you are left with the one unanswerable question: Where did the designer come from? Who designed him? Your reasoning ends up being circular.

it's not more unanswerable than "where did matter come from?"

Belief in the supernatural is an archetype, an instinctive belief programmed into us by the vagaries of evolution.

people often say that things created by humans are unnatural. cars and computers for example. as if we humans were not part of nature. so... intelligence is "supernatural".

speaking of archetypes: An archetype (pronounced: /ˈarkətaɪp/) is a generic, idealized model of a person, object, or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned, or emulated.

organisms are complex. before creating something complex, we make a model, a blueprint.
 
Last edited:
there are several builders, but i can't say what they are because science has not seen them yet. ancient myths/science speaks of them. back in those days we could see them.
You still haven't addressed the question of who built the builders so this is still circular reasoning, which violates the rules of science.
life is big and not everything that our eyes can see are real. sometimes you have to find a way to see the invisible to find the answers to some questions. we know that there are invisible things like radio waves, so it's not insane to think that there are also beings who live in invisible worlds like we live here.
Fine. That's a common science fiction plot and it makes fun reading. But it still does not answer the question of where did life ultimately come from. It just keeps begging the question. It's still circular reasoning and it still violates the rules of science.
it's not more unanswerable than "where did matter come from?"
You think not? A singularity which, once ever, split into matter and antimatter, which then dissipated and cooled according to the laws of physics, has a very low probability of occurring but it's not impossible beyond a reasonable doubt because it's still a remarkably simple system. What you're postulating is the same thing happening but yielding a remarkably complex system.
people often say that things created by humans are unnatural. cars and computers for example. as if we humans were not part of nature. so... intelligence is "supernatural".
We don't use layman's imprecise language on the science boards here. Cars and computers are components of the natural universe. So is human intelligence. It evolved naturally.
speaking of archetypes: An archetype (pronounced: /ˈarkətaɪp/) is a generic, idealized model of a person, object, or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned, or emulated.
That's an artist's definition. I repeat: you're posting on a science board so please confine yourself to scientific terminology. I'm using the standard Jungian definition. Psychology is at least a "soft science."
 
I surely don't have all of those answers and, I'll admit it, but In my experience with Engineering and Manuf. when you find a good design you don't change it. If you want to make a lot of something, if the parts can't be interchangeable(1st choice) you at least keep them similar enough that you don't have to retool and hire a new engineering department. It would be wrong, though to tell my customer that everything on the machine came from the same source unless that source was me.

Yes, we even design things that adapt (evolve). like 4x4s and Virus protection software. Even robots designed in our Image.
And think of our image compared to others.Even though I know you think I'm nuts, I've nothing but respect for you.

But they're not good designs. They're designs that work, but any engineer will point out the flaws and say "If I was God (ie, had access to the molecualr tool kit) I would have made that better."

Furthermore, Creationism cannot possibly answer the problem of diversity. Other than the lack of falsifiability for Creationism (wtf is your working hypothesis, and what would demonstrate it false? a whale that turns into an elephant?), it lacks ability to explain most biological phenomena. It's entirely unsatisfying.
 
Back
Top