Author Topic: Why Creation Science Isn’t  (Read 1034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Why Creation Science Isn’t
« on: January 16, 2012, 04:28:48 PM »
“If birds developed wings to fly away from predators, then why didn’t cats develop wings to catch birds?”

Most conversations about the subject of evolution versus creation “science” or “intelligent design“ begin with questions or statements from a creationist that reflect their ignorance on the subject, being based upon false premises.

This  happens, not only because  one does not understand what evolution says, but also because of a general misunderstanding about science, the scientific method, and the difference between facts, proof, hypothesis, theory and laws.
 
Let’s look at what scientists say, and what creationists say to see if we can answer the question about winged birds.

Science is a way of compiling, categorizing and testing our knowledge. Science is an explanation of things. Science asks is there another explanation? Science is a way of viewing the material world. Science tests itself against the world.

The Scientific method is how we do this. Scientific method is observation, logic, reason, and experimentation. One makes an observation, reasons about that observation (hypothesis) and experiments to see if the reason, logic and observation lines up with the results of the experimentation. Then there is more observation, logic, reason, and experimentation. If there is a convergence of data then the hypothesis (plus experimental data) is submitted to the peer process. Now repeat again and again building a better and better explanation. The ideas, like species evolve slowly over a great deal of time into accepted theory. Scientific method requires that a theory be falsifiable.

Theory is better described as an explanation. Nothing in science is ever really “proven.” There is always the searching for a better, or alternative explanation. Science rewards anyone that disproves a theory, and is therefore self-correcting.

Evolution is the fact that species gradually change over time and explains the history of life on earth more completely than anything else. Evolution is an inference that descent with modification occurred and there is a common ancestry. It is so well supported scientifically, it is considered fact. Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection described the mechanisms by which species change.  It boils down to heritability, adaptability (natural selection) and mutation plus time….a lot of time.

A good theory explains how it may be disproved. Darwin listed five ways to disprove his theory of evolution in Origins. Here are three of them: the origin of complexity, the source of variability, and the lack of mixing. No one, including creationists have disproved any of  them. However, evolution by common descent has been clearly seen through geological, fossil, behavioral,
and genetic evidence.  Evolution is the foundation of all biology.

Evidence for evolution is found in comparative genomics, the fossil record, phylogenic reconstruction, and in comparative anatomy. Evolution can be observed in antibiotic and pesticide resistance, speciation, and hybrids.

Evolution theory(s) make accurate predictions which are seen in all of the biological sciences.

Creation Science or Intelligent Design offers no testable method. It offers no theory or way to disprove the theory. There are multiple creation scenarios. There are flat Earth creationists, geocentrists, galactocentrists, young Earth and old Earth (gap-theorists or progressive theorists) creationists, theistic evolutionists, and material evolutionists. So it is not a dichotomy as suggested by creation proponents, but a progression of ideas that evolved as science revealed more and more about the material world we live in.

Many statements by creationists are fallacious. Arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, begging the question,  and appeals to emotion, to name a few. Often a question or statement is a strawman and simply irrelevant. We’ll cover just a few examples.

Creationism asks, “How can something come from nothing?” implying the necessity of a creator. This is an argument from incredulity. It also has nothing to do with evolution. It falls in the domain of cosmogony. Besides, science doesn’t say the universe came from “nothing“ but even if it did, a legitimate response might be, “Who created the creator.” This leads to the problem of infinite regress.

Creationism asks, “How did life (on earth) begin?” This is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with abiogenesis, a different scientific discipline, altogether.

Creationists ask, “Where are the transitional fossils?” Science answers in general, “They are all transitional.” As one looks at the fossil record one sees a progression from older, simpler organisms to newer, more complex ones. The younger the strata they are found in, the more complex the fossil. There are specific examples such as that seen in the horse, reptile to mammal, ape to human and thousands more “transitional“ fossils.

Creationists may say how they see such beauty and order in the universe, and to them that shows an intelligent design, and therefore an intelligent designer. What they fail to understand is that the majority of species had a flawed “design“ were unable to adapt, and became extinct. Successful or not, all are a product of heritability, natural selection and mutation.

How can randomness result in successful species? While mutations are random they are guided by natural selection, which is the opposite of random.

How can order arise from disorder? This is a reference a the law of thermodynamics, and indicates a misunderstanding about both the law and about evolution. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say that things progress from order to disorder. It says, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."  The earth is not a closed system (think sun), therefore life is not a closed system and life is irrelevant to the second law. Besides, non living things also progress from disorder to order requiring no intelligence.

Where is the evidence for macroevolution? Microevolution is change in gene frequency within a population and macroevolution deals with separate gene pools (above species level). The creationist’s argument may come in the form of, “You might see big dogs become small dogs, but a dog never becomes a cat.” Interesting this, as animal breeding is a great example of how evolution works, but with man’s assistance. However, one does not see a dat or a cog. Why is that? Dog and cat DNA sequences differ substantially, however, dogs and cats both descended from a common ancestor.

Microevolution implies macroevolution. Look at pictures of a child taken every day for a year. The differences are barely noticeable on a day to day basis, but look at the first and last picture, it is difficult to see how that change took place. In other words, it is difficult to imagine millions and millions of years going by and then to visualize the changes that can take place within that time. Consider heritability, natural selection and mutation and a long, long time, that is about 3.8 billion years, then the bigger picture of earth history will begin to come into focus.

Now, might be a good time to look up the phylogenic tree, The Tree of Life.

Scientists look at general patterns on the phylogenic tree of life, because these are easier to see. They observe stasis which means no change in a particular lineage for a long time; Character changes, which can happen slowly or quickly, in one lineage or across several lineages; Speciation or lineage splitting, happening slowly, or rapidly, or multiple lineages splitting concurrently; and Extinction, which can be frequent or infrequent along a particular lineage or may occur across many lineages (mass extinction). 99% of all species have gone extinct. All these things give scientists important information to reconstruct the history of life on our planet.

Oxygen levels, ocean chemistry changes,  predation, meteor strikes, weather changes, genetic factors, ecological niches and habitat changes all contributed to the direction a lineage follows along the tree of life. Sometimes it was safer to live in the sea and other times on land. Some times and or some places it was advantageous to be a reptile and other times and or places more advantageous to be a mammal. Other times or places it was advantageous to be a large animal and still other times and places a small one.

So why didn’t cats develop wings?

The answer is found within the information contained in this post. With a little effort and independent research, I am confident that anyone can answer this for themselves.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 04:36:43 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2012, 04:56:45 PM »
Cats did not develop wings because they did not want to be endangered by a restaurant called "Pussy Cat Wild Wings"
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2012, 11:11:52 AM »
My Sources:
Common creationist questions gleaned from WWGHA

Evidence of evolution

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,6317.0.html


Eugenia Scott's continuum

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum


Thermodynamics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html


Definitions of evolution, theory, etc from my own blog:
http://evolutioncreation-yoder.blogspot.com/


Phylogenic tree descussion:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02


Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2012, 01:21:56 PM »
http://fora.tv/2011/10/01/Richard_Dawkins_talks_with_Henry_Finder#Richard_Dawkins_There_Never_Was_a_First_Homo_Sapien
Richard Dawkins talking with Henry Finder about his book The Magic of Reality.

A four minute explanation (of transition) from a chapter "There Never Was A First Homo-Sapiens."
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline zorch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2012, 03:58:05 PM »
Recently read a novel perspective on evolution from a mate. Sleep and dreaming are completely contrary to survival. The very process of sleep in which the unconscious mind takes over renders us totally prone. Surely the trajectory of evolution would be away from humans who sleep with the eyes closed and the mind set to trip mode?
    I would have thought that all such humans would be at a distinct disadvantage in such a position - why would sleep evolve in such a fashion as to encourage experience rather than regeneration? Dreams are wholly unecessary for sub-conscious creatures too since they have a purely experiential role.
   Sleep is essential to help energy dependent beings conserve and replenish but if natural selection is the official means by which humanity emerged from the primordial soup sleep would involve the eyes being open thus allowing the brain to process visual stimulus with some part of the brain. Dreams too take up valuable processor space  - while the dreamer gets his rocks off with his pneumatic anatomically correct virtual girlfriend he is in the worst possible position to defend his/herself
    This has probably been addressed already since its a fairly facile point but anyhoo. Ah yes first post glad to be here im an agnostic so expect plenty of devil advocating lol
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 04:02:40 PM by zorch »

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12217
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2012, 04:00:12 PM »
How is it not condusive to regeneration?  And what state would accomplish it better, for organisms like us?  Biological specifics, please.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2012, 04:04:02 PM »
    I would have thought that all such humans would be at a distinct disadvantage in such a position - why would sleep evolve in such a fashion as to encourage experience rather than regeneration? Dreams are wholly unecessary for sub-conscious creatures too since they have a purely experiential role.

Dreams are a requirement for sanity. If you don't dream, you literally go insane.

Ah yes first post glad to be here im an agnostic so expect plenty of devil advocating lol

I'm guessing you're an agnostic atheist and not an agnostic theist, based on the "devil's advocate" bit. You should know that agnosticism is not a middle-ground between atheism and theism. It's on a completely different level.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline zorch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2012, 04:05:55 PM »
Edited the post after you posted, but for a start taking the mindspace taken up by dreaming and diverting it to keeping the senses tuned in to the outside world far more than they are. Microsleeps would be more conducive too rather than switiching off for half our mortal lives.
The main point is though that sleep and dreams wouldnt have evolved out of natural selection because organisms that need to sleep 6-7 hours a day are at a profound survival disadvantage.

Well rem sleep only persists for a very short time. We dont need 7 hours sleep every evening. And still it doesnt explain why we have such elaborate dreamscapes - completely unecessary and more in keeping with a species which evolved to experience rather than to survive.Consciousness sexual experience desire etc seem to point in this direction too.
 
I know what you mean about agnosticism not being a middle ground. I cant call myself an atheist because I still have residual faith, so agnosticism is the only category that applies. I am drawn equally to deism and agnosticism.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 04:10:16 PM by zorch »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2012, 04:10:10 PM »
The main point is though that sleep and dreams wouldnt have evolved out of natural selection because organisms that need to sleep 6-7 hours a day are at a profound survival disadvantage

8 hours, actually. And we're not at a profound disadvantage. We can sleep when it's safe and wake up a few hours later, as long as we sleep for 8 hours in total. Considering that all organisms need to sleep (the brain is not a magic machine; it needs rest), nobody is at a disadvantage compared to the others.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2012, 04:13:08 PM »
Well, whenever I dream I'm standing in front of a urinal, I know I need to wake up and go to the bathroom. :)
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline zorch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2012, 04:14:54 PM »
When its safe? You can only judge immediate safety. Back in the days when we slept in dark caves without fire during those 8 hours death could come by beast by neighbouring tribe etc. The main point is dreaming though - you havent answered that. Dreaming seems like a fairly complex process, that is its not simply random neuronal firing, dreams have order structure purpose plot direction. Why do we need all that? Why doesnt the brain divert that useless energy towards keeping "one eye open" so to speak. Under what conditions would dreaming develop?

Haha true there is some measure of awareness during sleep but that actually proves my point even more. Humans evolved to have some awareness but for some reason the extra energy which should have gone to awareness went to dreaming.

The only thing I can think of is something similar to the orgasm. That is the orgasm is one of the greatest incentive for sex there is, sex is essential for the perpetuation of the species. Similarly dreaming could be seen as an inducement to sleep and recover. Then again nightmares are the opposite and there isnt really an equivalent for sex. Isnt there a rebuttal for this point? I would have thought it one of the ancient creationist standbys
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 04:18:48 PM by zorch »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2012, 04:18:16 PM »
When I am falling to sleep, I am usually thinking about how the day went. Often I go to sleep thinking about problems and wake up with the solutions.

As an an inventor and woodworker, some of my best creations come to me in my dreams.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2012, 04:18:58 PM »
When its safe? You can only judge immediate safety. Back in the days when we slept in dark caves without fire during those 8 hours death could come by beast by neighbouring tribe etc.

As I explained, we need to sleep for 8 hours TOTAL. We can sleep for 1 hour, stay awake for 3 hours, sleep for one more hour and so on. We can also take shifts to protect our tribe.

The main point is dreaming though - you havent answered that. Dreaming seems like a fairly complex process, that is its not simply random neuronal firing, dreams have order structure purpose plot direction. Why do we need all that? Why doesnt the brain divert that useless energy towards keeping "one eye open" so to speak. Under what conditions would dreaming develop?

It (the brain) needs to rest. I explained this already. Without dreaming, you'll go insane.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline zorch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2012, 04:24:54 PM »
Im aware that insanity follows not dreaming. However why are dreams so elaborate? Even if ideas and problems are solved during dreams these are of the abstract or purely intellectual variety on the whole - nothing to do with survival. The brain would recover far more efficiently if it just switched off completely. Basically REM sleep and dreams dont need to be interdependent but they are.  If the process of dreaming itself is necessary then that could be satisfied without being comatose

Shifting is impractical too since its quite possible that the humans on watch could fall asleep themselves. In addition that kind of sleep is not conducive to rest, and correct me if im wrong but its fairly difficult to achieve rem sleep if you are constantly being disturbed.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 04:26:51 PM by zorch »

Offline zorch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2012, 04:31:46 PM »
Its also a complete fallacy that we go insane without dreaming. Insanity follows from not sleeping but dreams serve only an abstract hedonistic purpose.
   Other species experience hemispheric sleep too which is in keeping with natural selection. Human beings however who are ill equipped for survival lacking the lower body strength of kangaroos or the raw power of the ape seem to have evolved along the lines of creatures with a physical advantage that is to say our survival advantage is purely intellectual and dreaming deprives us of that advantage
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 04:44:39 PM by zorch »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2012, 04:38:07 PM »
Even if ideas and problems are solved during dreams these are of the abstract or purely intellectual variety on the whole - nothing to do with survival.

"That *insert animal name here* was so quick... I wonder how I could devise a weapon to injure it enough so that it can't run away next time..."

The brain would recover far more efficiently if it just switched off completely.

How do you know? Do you know how long it would take to "reboot" all the functions the brain needs to coordinate at all times if it were turned down to the most essential functions?

Basically REM sleep and dreams dont need to be interdependent but they are.

Dreams occur during REM, but REM itself is not responsible for dreams, AFAIK. I don't know what you mean by "interdependent".

If the process of dreaming itself is necessary then that could be satisfied without being comatose

"Comatose" would be what you describe when you say "switched off completely". Even when dreaming you still have some level of perception. You can still feel, hear, smell and taste. You just can't see.

Its also a complete fallacy that we go insane without dreaming. Insanity follows from not sleeping but dreams serve only an abstract hedonistic purpose

I didn't save the links, but I've seen various websites where it is stated (and explained) that the brain needs dreams, and that you WILL go insane without them.
Also, you should know what a fallacy is. It's an error in logic, not an incorrect statement.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline zorch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2012, 04:46:50 PM »
Quote
How do you know? Do you know how long it would take to "reboot" all the functions the brain needs to coordinate at all times if it were turned down to the most essential functions?

Simple logic no activity is more restful than activity - this is the entire point of sleep

Quote
Dreams occur during REM, but REM itself is not responsible for dreams, AFAIK. I don't know what you mean by "interdependent".

By interdependent I mean occuring simultaneously

Quote
"Comatose" would be what you describe when you say "switched off completely". Even when dreaming you still have some level of perception. You can still feel, hear, smell and taste. You just can't see.

But we dont have much awareness of these sensations. REM sleep without dreams would solve that

Quote
I didn't save the links, but I've seen various websites where it is stated (and explained) that the brain needs dreams, and that you WILL go insane without them.
Also, you should know what a fallacy is. It's an error in logic, not an incorrect statement.

Haha yeh you're right cheers. Scientists have no idea why we dream and if insanity was a consequence of not dreaming this would not be the case
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 04:49:27 PM by zorch »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2012, 04:47:28 PM »
Well, there doesn't seem to be a concensus on why we sleep or dream, but I found this interesting article which offers this:

Sleep is evolutionary favored because it is a way for individuals to conserve their energy.

Newborns are at a greater risk of being eaten, thus they spend most of their time sleeping in a secure hiding space supported by their caretakers.

One can see evolution at work in the ocean.  Natural selection will select newborns that sleep a lot because it limits them to be wary of incoming attacks and ambushes.

Sleep is a beneficial trait because it makes an individual immobile and quiet at fortunate times when it is hazardous to move around and there is nothing else important to do that will enhance the individual’s survival.

From the studies of sleep deprivation and the studies of tiredness, it can be concluded that D-sleep may have a restorative function with respect to systems of focus attention (especially the ability to focus on one item while ignoring others); systems involving the ability to maintain an optimistic mood, energy, and self-confidence.  Also, systems involving processes of emotional adaptation to the physical and social environment are dependant upon D-sleep.

Evolutionary logic would make one wonder if it would be more efficient and less energy costly to simply shut down the mental apparatus.  But does the presence of an active brain indicate that mental activity is more than an insignificant by-product of a state of sleep, in some sense, as essential to the individual as the beat of its heart.  One extreme hypothesis is that the experience of dreaming may itself be the major function of sleep and that the role of sleep may be merely to allow a state such that dreams may emerge.  Although Sigmund Freud never made such a statement, some have interpreted Freud in this light.  This suggesting leads to the idea for an adaptive function for dreams and it implies that sleep may exists chiefly to allow dreams to occur. 

Although sleep may seem like a mistake because natural selection did not eliminate it due to its maladaptive trait, it is a beneficial characteristic that successful individuals acquire through evolution.  The need for sleep is an undoubted fact.  The effects of prolonged sleep deprivation are well known: a lost of efficiency in mental and physical functioning, irritability, and tendencies toward perceptual distortion and ideational confusion.[10]

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/515


Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2012, 07:25:42 PM »
Here is what dreaming is.  I present that as an absolute fact because it is my speculation.

A couple years ago someone studying rat brains found that they do produce new nerve cells.  Then checking humans, so do we!   But we don't produce all over the brain.  They are stem cells that move to the olefactory lobe and then mature into brain cells.  From there they circulate thru vascular passages of brain fluid.

This explains a lot.  People kill millions of brain cells in a good bender but after a week of being a bit muzzy, recover.

Now here is my theory, WHICH IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT.

When a new brain cell moves into place, memory has to be transferred over.   Dreams are watching your brain grow, watching this backup and housekeeping procedure.  For your own safety you have to be immobilized during this process.

And since I don't know anyone else who has said that to back me up, I need to state that THIS IS IRREFUTABLE so you won't notice that it is my opinion.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1252
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2012, 09:25:13 AM »
http://fora.tv/2011/10/01/Richard_Dawkins_talks_with_Henry_Finder#Richard_Dawkins_There_Never_Was_a_First_Homo_Sapien
Richard Dawkins talking with Henry Finder about his book The Magic of Reality.

A four minute explanation (of transition) from a chapter "There Never Was A First Homo-Sapiens."

I *love* this video!!  I never thought of evolution in this light before, but it makes perfect sense now that it's been brought to light.  We humans love to compartmentalize and categorize.  Nature, no the other hand, doesn't give a crap about that.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline inveni0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Darwins +11/-1
    • iMAGINARY god
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2012, 11:39:59 AM »
On the topic of sleeping and dreaming and evolution, we're forgetting one thing...  We need to sleep.  Micro sleeping wouldn't help.  The brain gets tired.  Our muscles do a lot of work.  We're busy (especially lower mammals).  Does this provide a disadvantage?  Try going a few days without sleep and tell me who is better disadvantaged...

Instead of evolving the sleep process, we evolved the process of finding/making shelter.  Shelter serves us even when not sleeping.  It protects us from the elements and predators.  And it's a much easier function to evolve.

We also have to remember that we (humans) are not the pinnacle of evolution.  In a million years, we will be very different (if we tarry that long).  Who knows what sleep will be in a million years?  Life began without sleep...maybe it will end without it also.  Or maybe we'll sleep even longer?
http://www.imaginarygod.com

My book designed to ease kids into healthy skepticism is available for pre-order. http://www.peterskeeter.com

Offline jss

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2012, 02:04:26 PM »
On the topic of sleeping and dreaming and evolution, we're forgetting one thing...  We need to sleep.  Micro sleeping wouldn't help.  The brain gets tired.  Our muscles do a lot of work.  We're busy (especially lower mammals).  Does this provide a disadvantage?  Try going a few days without sleep and tell me who is better disadvantaged…

Evidence indicates that early humans probably slept for longer periods of time than modern humans, but much more lightly.  Going to slumber when it gets dark would make the most sense from a survival perspective; conserve energy while still maintaining some alertness in case of predators.

Offline inveni0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Darwins +11/-1
    • iMAGINARY god
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2012, 11:26:26 AM »
On the topic of sleeping and dreaming and evolution, we're forgetting one thing...  We need to sleep.  Micro sleeping wouldn't help.  The brain gets tired.  Our muscles do a lot of work.  We're busy (especially lower mammals).  Does this provide a disadvantage?  Try going a few days without sleep and tell me who is better disadvantaged…

Evidence indicates that early humans probably slept for longer periods of time than modern humans, but much more lightly.  Going to slumber when it gets dark would make the most sense from a survival perspective; conserve energy while still maintaining some alertness in case of predators.

We can see that evidence in animals.  How many people have a pet that is hard to wake up?  They are ever alert.  (True, indoor pets get lazy, but put them outside for a few weeks and they'll revert back to their natural instincts.)

So here we are, sleeping heavier than the rest of the animal kingdom (barring hibernation), and we're the smartest of all.  So perhaps sleeping is an important part of evolution?
http://www.imaginarygod.com

My book designed to ease kids into healthy skepticism is available for pre-order. http://www.peterskeeter.com

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Creation Science Isn’t
« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2012, 12:07:03 PM »
Reminds of story a few years back. A man that never slept. He had several jobs just to keep himself busy. They studied his brain and discovered that he was actually sleeping all the time.....and awake all the time. His brain changed from sleep cycle to awake cycle every microsecond. Sorry no reference for this. It might be a lie, as I don't remember checking out my source.

Quote
In the late 1940s, Al Herpin's claim attracted the attention of several medical professionals, who marched to his door one day. They found no bed, or other sleep-related furniture, but only a rocking chair. Herpin claimed that after a long day's work, he would rest in his rocking chair reading the newspaper until dawn, then return to work. He was in good health, and had a constant level of high awareness, defying all scientific understanding of the necessity for sleep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Herpin

Here are some more stories about those who never sleep:
Quote
The Man Who Never Slept may sound like an urban legend - but it's actually the title of a BBC television documentary about Fatal Familial Insomnia (FFI). This is a tragic genetic disease that kills its victims through total sleep deprivation. It affects only a few dozen families around the world and often strikes after the child-bearing years are over. It is a cruel disease, but the study of total insomnia has taught us a lot about the human brain and the need to sleep.

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/the-man-who-never-slept.html
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.