Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 5  

Creationists, in their haste to prove Evolution is wrong, gloss over the concept of context.

A mutation is a mutation is a mutation.

BUT, in one context it leads to dominance, in another it leads to failure. Same mutation, different context, different outcome.

By the way,

Eskimos don't need to evolve fur, because they already have opposable thumbs and make tools and kill animals that have blubber and fur. They eat the animal, get fatter themselves, and wear the animal's fur.

Survival of the fittest.

so you have been doing some research? And you pretend you have no idea how it could happen. Cue a load of "" smilies, in which case you are deliberately deceiving, but hey don't worry, that doesn't say anything about 'Integrity' or make you a willful liar.


or someone gave you a link to a 2 minute clip to reinforce the idea that 'Science' can 'only' speak on it for 2 minutes

Ohh It "supposes" it could. I just fail to buy into the idea that over half a million years as he said that a bunch of changes/mistakes/mutations in the dna just happen to produce something valuable enough for each of those generations to keep the new found trait then re-wire that mistake into the dominent gene passed to its offspring and this savy knowing what mistakes to keep and pass in what just so happens to be the right direction to produce the end result of functioning eyes at the end of half a million years strikes me as a bit speculative and missing a tad bit of evidence to support such a claim.

How can you be serious to tell me that over half a million years that generation after generation of "mistakes" that certain mistakes are utilized to "evolve" something like an eye for example yet the rest of the creature just keeps replicating without any change. First of all if the need for eyes was so vital for the creature in its environment for survival would not have the critters gone extinct some time far before the half a million years of mistakes that just happen to create the custom tailored product that the critter needed at that juncture of time and space half a million years later? Seems a bit over the top to have this kind of faith that mistakes are made each generation for half a million years and for what ever reason the critters with the right combination of cells that progress the design process of the eye forward happen to live and pass on genes to offspring while the others are don't pass it on. It is funny how these mistakes are not one time mistakes and seem to re-flash the dna if you will with the mistake as being the norm at least until the next generational update in which case it is willing to be further changed by a further mistake in this "process"....

It is a belief. Just like a belief in anything else.

Just admit you believe in evolution.

So what evidence is there to suggest how God made an eyeball?

How firm is your grasp on the workings of the telephone? How do our voices go thousands of miles across wires (or through the air) and come out the other side of the wire sounding exactly the same?

Lack of knowledge of ability to understand is not evidence against something.


Incredulity is not an argument.

Mutations, genetic variability in general, continue to exist because 1) they are continually generated 2) life isn't always so tough that every individual of a speicies dies unless the have gene X. 3) sexual reproduction allows us to have two copies of a gene, so one can be a bit wonky and we can live with it.

Actually it is not a theory in fact it is observable fact which can be shown.

Telephone signals have many means of travel over distance. DA converters, modulation, electromagnitism, copper wire, fiber optics, etc.

It is not a belief it is a fact.

evolution I believe is a belief not a fact.

Fellows

Actually that fvery short film doesn't mention a number of things. First, the eye has developed at least twice during evolution. The cephlapod eye (squid etc) and the vertabrate eye developed independentaly and are very similar, but not identicle in function. Then there are all those other kinds of eyes. I don't know were they got that half a million years stuff from, because they eye begins with light senstive cells way way way back in evolution. That was on big step to begin with. Putting these cells together with lens etc was another series of steps.

e.g.)

Bacteria that now like to eat penicillin fro breakfast

Every AIDS patient is a study in evolution as their viral burden changes to based on what kinds of drugs they'rebeing fed.

The dog.

**pulls sock out of mouth**

The problem is that 'mutation' somehow got substituted for 'information adding device'. Yes, it's a convienent black box, but it is still just another name for primeval chaos -- the supposed mother of all order.

In scientific terms chaos is not order, it is the opposite of order. The mutation speculation is as inconsistent an approach to the physical sciences, as postmodernism is to it's approach to existence. First you release all being into an unrelated collection of particulars, and then you irrationally claim that it all can be connected through an irrational, incoherent framework.

No offense, but that is nonsense, no matter what creationists claim. You can shift the amount of order you have no from one end of the toothpaste tube to the other, you can have viruses move DNA, you can disable systems only to discover redundant systems, you can have all the speciation and extinction you wish, and you can rework existing information all you want, but in the end, you cannot account rationally how the toothpaste got into the tube in the first place.

Evolution is just another religion and it's not even a consistent one.


**puts sock back in mouth**

I swore I wouldn't get into another evolution thread but I can't let the "eye" thing go unanswered. You do have to admit (fellow in particular) that we have already talked about this in extensio.

The problem you have with the eye, I think, is that you see it as a very complex tool that could'nt have "poped-out" by itself.

Thing is, you can deconstruct the eye into earlier versions that could have been useful even at that primitive state.

Say that, in a population of organism x without an eye, that one day, one of them has, lets say, an error when his genes are transcribed onto his descendant. This error, or mutation, is linked to the creation of a small patch of tissue on it's body. That small patch of tissue happen to react to light, by sending a signal to the organism's nervous system (or brain).

Now, that signal that comes from the patch makes it so that the organism can have an idea that the environnement is different.

Could sensing that an area is different from an other be an advantage? Yes, especially if learning that being near the "light", one can find more food.

You have to also see that if this is really an advantage, the organisms that have that gene will prosper and reproduce, eventually growing in numbers and dwarf in numbers the original organisms that didn't have the gene or the patch.

If this is possible and I say it is. Then one can also see that you can add other minute gene changes that correlate with changes such as the patch being able to notice colors (which helps in finding food or recognising enemies), a lens being added to get a sharper picture, etc...

it can all be added step by step to make the complete eye millions of years later.

why isn't this possible in your eyes?

side question, why is the squid eye in particular "better" than the human eye according to I.D. ?

Interesting leftover:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#Function

Mine was not an attempt to equate the two, merely to illustrate that one needn't understand something fully for that thing to be valid.

And here is the question, asked by Matvei, that I would love an answer to:

That's the crux of this and it is what I mean but "Incredulity is not an argument." You cannot simply say "Impossible!" without providing a rationale as to why it is impossible.

We have evidence of evolution happening, we can watch it as it goes in various organisms and within various processes, so why not that?

We have no evidence of god at all, which is why we can simply dismiss "God created the eye" until evidence that it has, at the very least, happened in some other area is provided.

Do not make the mistake of saying, "I don't know therefore it can't be known."

Yes, you need to buy into it because you have to uphold the belief that God did it because if he didn't your whole world comes crashing round your feet. Even IF it were possible to provide you with a frame by frame acount of the evolution of an eye (everyone admits Science cannot do this - IF for no other reason that eyes/flesh decompose very quickly so you cannot get direct evidence), you still wouldn't buy into it. Yet you can (and expect people to take you seriously) buy into an idea formulated over 10,000 years of refinement by 'Pagan' 'Philosophers' that it happened by nothing else but 'magic' - that doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it, other than you want it to be true so bad.


He demonstrated it could be possible to do it this quickly, but its a fraction of the maximum time we have available for it to have happened


STOP RIGHT THERE. No doubt now we established you are willfully lying, that you 'know' an organism doesn't 'savy knowing' what 'mistakes' to keep hold of.



STOP RIGHT THERE. No doubt now we established you are willfully lying, that you 'know' 'just so happens' is not random or by chance or 6 zillion to 1 odds.


Tut tut. Tell me where in the Theory of Evolution that it knows what the right direction is?


No one denies it is speculation. It is Speculation based on the available facts, evidence, theory and hypothesis that is known to be observable, testable and repeatable.

As opposed to magic and witchcraft and cult membership.


How can you be serious to tell me that magic, superstition and witchcraft is the explanation?


Mistakes usually get selected against. Adaptations are 'mistakes' that favour the organism that increase its chances of survival. But you know this.


BullShit. Tell me where in the theory, that the rest of the creature keeps replicating without any change. Thats CRAP and you know it.


There is no such thing as need.


There is no such thing as Vital.


Adaptations.


Implies a purposeful designer. Incorrect.


There is no such thing as needed.


Minimum time 'speculated'. In reality there was much longer.


If you have to rigidly enforce a dogmatic worldview.


Theory.


Adaptations


Adaptation.


Who said others didn't pass it on? The Creationist books. OK.


No I won't.


I'll be generous, and tell you why I ultimately reject your little preschool understanding of Evolutiuon above. You do not have a clue what you are talking about. It would be a 'wise' thing to do the following. Shut up, research, and reclaim some integrity


Yawn....
so you are saying that 'belief structures' are invalid, wrong, and ridiculous. HEY. I AGREE.


OK, If you admit you believe in fairytales, witchcraft and magic.

Love
Marcus

The term "mistake" is misleading used in this context.

But I love fellowship anyway, of course. *hugs*

Hold on there just a sec...

Where did I say this "isn't possible"?

I said it is a belief.

I only suggested that people that buy into it admit that they believe it.

It is not a fact.

Possible? maybe maybe not. I will not pretend to have the answer until it can be proven. I do not believe it is provable today.

Fellows

Is it possible or not? no maybes please.

I never said that. I just don't share your belief. I most certainly never said that belief structures are invalid, wrong and ridiculous.

I wish you could be honest.

Don't twist what I say.

Next thing you know you will twist into a frog if you are not careful

Fellows

absolutely it is possible.

Fellows

Where? Certainly, we do this when we breed cattle or dogs or whatever, but that's not really "natural" selection.


OK.


Well, actually, it isn't tautological.


I explained this, earlier, in basic Darwinian terms: any mutation that helps a critter get food, get a mate, or defend itself.

You are trying very hard to push the idea that it is a belief. That Evolution is a religion. Dont BS me.

If that is the case, then tell me why it is so important for you to define Evolution as a belief or Religion?. Exactly for the reason I stated.


You make me laugh. You couldn't post an honest thing about Evolution IF GOD COMMANDED YOU TO. Why is it you have to lie about Evolution? Do Lies instill a trust in people that I/they should listen to you? When do lies lead to God? Did Jesus approve of Lies? Is there a Commandment that says "Thou shalt Lie for the favour of God"?


I didn't twist anything. I gave a reasonable explaination of why you need Evolution to be defined in the same context as a 'belief structure' or religion. That you try to do that is deceptive and dishonest.


And I'd still be more honest than thou


Marc.

Now, is there any evidence that would contradict this explanation?

Also, is if it is possible as you've said, then the eye's complexity can not be too important that it "requires" being created, as is, from the start, right?

OK.


Where did all of this need for prediction and explanation come from, all of a sudden?


Why should it be able to explain?


Again.

Marc silly,,, I have not lied about evolution. I said it is possible just that at the time I do not believe it as do so many.

Where is the problem?

now be nice. I am not telling lies about evolution.

Fellows

I would have to see that evidence if it is there.

As complex as the eye is it is possible that it evolved.

Fellows

Oh silly me,

for thinking that there were only two options.

1) You know and understand what the theory means, and what it does not try to explain, in which case your stupid caricature, ie Strawman, description of Evolution is an intentional lie, to deceive (yourself more than anyone)

2) You do not know or understand the theory, in which case your stupid caricature, ie Strawman, description of Evolution is formulated through willful ignorance, lack of integrity to find out (4 years Fellows???), Arrogance, and that upholding the dogma of your Cult in the selfish belief that pursuing avenues of debate which you know nothing about will make your God pleased with you. - while your stupidity will actively turn people against God, Jesus and get them sent to hell.

But either way it's all OK, because at the last moment, you claim that Evolution is possible (which I believe is just pathetic posturing), but you do not personally believe, sorry 'ACCEPT' it.

peace.

BTW, I am being Nice! because If the Bible is Correct, and I believe it is. One of us has to be a bit concerned that our actions will lead us/keep us to/in Hell. According to the Bible, lying and/or intentional ignorance is not looked upon too favourably.

Well, ultimately, that is the conclusion we are to come to. But no. Don't be so obstuse. Second, I wasn't asking anything I was stating a simple fact that variations in relative populations does not provide evidence for the emergence of new species.

They are and they must. This doesn't mean they must identify everyone...but the theory is proposed as an exaplantion for how every specie has come into existence.

Please tell me you are not using a man-made/intelligently-designed mechanism as any kind of argument for evolution?

I said it is possible.

I wonder if I could get you to say it is possible that the Universe had a supernatural creator?

Science or no science, Evidence or no evidence.

I just wonder if I could get you to say that it is possible

Fellows..

What do you think happens when a variation of a species becomes reproductively isolated?

Still waiting for an example of speciation please. These are not.

So if it is not a predictive theory...nor a descriptive (explanatory) theory...what the heck is it?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "reproductively isolated"? Can you elucidate a bit.

( Marc...I am NOT being smart ass...just trying to clarify your quesion. )

No it's not. The theory proposes and explanation of why the lifeforms roaming the planet today have been and will or will not continue to be successful, and how these lifeforms have come to possess their individual traits that have allowed to them to flourish or led to/are leading to their demise.

It makes no claims as to how everything came to be, only how life has changed and diversified throughout the millenia.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

I don't see anywhere in the definition of evolution where it suggests to provide any insight to creation. That's the entire point. Evolution does not deal with creation. It deals with diversification

You seem to think that maybe someone is proposing that for instance one day a dinosaur birthed a chicken. That is creation. It is not, however, what the theory of evolution proposes took place in any way, shape or form.

If the tip of Rhose Island broke off the wildlife on said tip would be isolated from the greater population of the US as a whole, thus their breeding population would be drastically reduced and the amount of diversity amongst that population lessened.

I have been saying that for quite a while now.

But there is no evidence for it. I believe it ultimately because I want it to be true.

Context of Truth.

Science describes the natural world and its processes and mechanisms (lets not get picky over the word 'processes' again).

Science does not describe the spiritual or supernatural.

Spirituality describes the supernatural and Soul.

Spirituality does not describe the Natural or Science.

You have to chose.

Science is a lie and Spirituality is True. The natural world, universe and everything in it, including emotions, love, hate, fear and anger are all deceptions and lies

Science is True and Spirituality is a lie. The spiritual world, your soul, God, does not Exist , and you are a pointless function in a truth you can never hope to understand.

Science is True, and Sprituality is True. Understanding the Context of Truth each description of the truth ascribes too. There is no conflict, because each Truth is True to the context of the truth it ascribes too. Science truthfully describes the natural universe, Spirituality truthfully describes your soul. This may require a bit of readjustment in your personal understanding of the truth.

All three options are 'possible' truths.

God is true, and everything created is true. Unless you accept both truths, you have effictively ruled out God altogether.

Then the complexity of the eye is not an argument against evolution, right?

I mean isolated reproductively.

( Im not trying to be a smart ass...the clue is in the definitions of the words.)

he knows that, I seem to remember he was 'educated' in force, en masse about 3 months ago. Sadly some variations of humans have (micro? macro?)evolved the skill of selectively forgetting facts that they do not like....im sure they'll go extinct one day