Author Topic: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution  (Read 2566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« on: October 25, 2012, 10:58:56 PM »
It's not mine (wish it was though), a simple brilliant analogy ...enjoy





« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 11:06:05 PM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1797
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2012, 12:48:20 AM »
A nice one. Might make some more open-minded creationists reconsider their stance. Those committed to their dogma would of course dismiss it, as they do the physical evidence for evolution.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2012, 01:11:31 AM »
A nice one. Might make some more open-minded creationists reconsider their stance. Those committed to their dogma would of course dismiss it, as they do the physical evidence for evolution.

I hear ya.

What I like about it is the straight to the brain, no room for dodge visual.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2012, 01:29:42 AM »
The hue isn't changing, you're just intelligently inserting different kinds of colors! Unless you can refer to the exact point at which a color "changes" then clearly colors are perfectly designed by God to stay within their own kind. I mean, do you have any idea how confusing it would be to determine the color of the sky if it kept randomly changing every single day as you silly atheists believe? In order to prove that colors change you would have to prove that the sky isn't blue!

P.S. If blue comes from red, how come we still have red?

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2012, 10:05:22 AM »
So, I must've missed it; where's the crocoduck ?
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2012, 05:35:10 PM »
Exactly! If color theory is true then we should expect to see completely random never-before-seen colors in transition such as that of crocoduck skin. But, of course, that's why it's just a theory and not a scientific fact. According to a very reliable apologetic source Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the guy who wrote Theory of Colours, confessed on his deathbed that he made it all up just to spite God. This proves that atheists will believe anything to avoid the obvious conclusion that God created each kind of color. Sure, there is some variation between kinds such that light blue can become dark blue, but it will always be blue. If certain kinds could randomly turn into others then the spectrumists would've already presented these transitional colors.

Of course the greatest flaw to the theory that colors can come from others is how we got all these colors in the first place. If blue came from red then where did red come from? Did it just come from nothing? The only logical possibility is an eternal, all-powerful painter. But then spectrumists don't care about logic, they just want to deny His art so that they can color outside of the lines without consequence.

P.S. If blue comes from red, how come violets aren't pouring out of the rose gardens?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 05:40:16 PM by Aspie »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2012, 08:21:22 AM »
Which completely fails to explain why there is no evidence whatsoever of this "eternal, all-powerful painter", except for the existence of color itself.  If you have to come up with something that you have no evidence of (and the mere fact that color exists does not count; you have to have other evidence as well) in order to explain something, then your explanation is worthless, with no explanatory power at all except in your own imagination.

So, too, could you imagine mystical forces that inhabit the primary colors and causes them to be that color and no other, but unless you can show evidence of these mystical forces, or things that they can do, they're meaningless.  If you wish to advance some old bearded painter who's been around since forever and who gave color to everything to explain the reason why color exists, why, you must show real evidence of this painter.  Otherwise your explanation is circular, as your conclusion is the only proof of your premise, and your premise the only proof of your conclusion.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2012, 08:45:50 AM »
jaimehlers - Google Bob Ross.  hee hee

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2012, 09:42:08 PM »
I acknowledge the existence of evolution. However, the problem is the amount of time evolution takes.  Life on this planet has seen changes far faster than micro evolution can explain. On the contrary Dogs have become a very diverse species, this increased evolutionary speed, happened because of an intelligent entity guiding the process, instead of relying solely on random mutation.

Your analogy does a great job revealing the existence of a Intelligent higher power.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2012, 10:25:23 PM »
mhaberling, welcome.

Of course we atheists will look at what you posted rather critically. What do you mean that the problem is the amount of time evolution takes? What are your standards? Are millions of years inadequate. Billions? How long should it have taken if it were natural vs. intelligently designed? Those of us who accept the standard model of evolution don't seem to be as perplexed as you think we should be. Please explain.

By the way, dogs are one species that comes in various models. In just a few thousand years we have created everything from Bull Mastiffs to those barky little bastards only grandmothers are permitted to own. But they are just one species. A Shitzu can impregnate a Great Dane. It is recommended that the experiment not be reversed, for obvious reasons. Still. Just one species. So you really can't use that as an example.

Again, welcome. I do hope we can have to good discussion on the subjects you are interested in. Most of us are quite capable of having discussions with those who disagree with our no-god stance. And the more effort you put in to getting your point across, the better. We'll reciprocate by the dozens. And if you feel like you are being overwhelmed with responses, we have ways to make the site more comfortable while continuing the discussion.

Our method evolved, so it must be good.  ;D
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2012, 10:56:58 PM »
It's not mine (wish it was though), a simple brilliant analogy ...enjoy

http://i.imgur.com/cMvDM.jpg
Hmm... this one is very irrefutable I must commend you on your conquest for without it I could not share this.
Male + Female = Offspring
and this.
Hydrogen + Oxygen + Hydrogen = H20
now run along and surprise humanity with your next find on the interweeblez....

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2012, 02:14:02 AM »
mhaberling, welcome.

Of course we atheists will look at what you posted rather critically. What do you mean that the problem is the amount of time evolution takes? What are your standards? Are millions of years inadequate. Billions? How long should it have taken if it were natural vs. intelligently designed? Those of us who accept the standard model of evolution don't seem to be as perplexed as you think we should be. Please explain.

By the way, dogs are one species that comes in various models. In just a few thousand years we have created everything from Bull Mastiffs to those barky little bastards only grandmothers are permitted to own. But they are just one species. A Shitzu can impregnate a Great Dane. It is recommended that the experiment not be reversed, for obvious reasons. Still. Just one species. So you really can't use that as an example.

Thanks, for the welcome...
I hope you find what I say to be constructive.. I believe that shouting and hate speak don't really help advance a discussion. It is wonderful to see that you share the same views.

To defend my original comment I would first look at the Cambrian explosion... in a short period of time "by evolutionary standards"  the diversity of life increased immensely.  Next, the origin of live itself would require an organism that is able to reproduce, for it to reproduce it first needs to be singular, in other words something has to separate from its environment, Assuming that it was by random chance that life was created... The time it would take not to only create life, but also by random chance an organism that could reproduce is astronomical, then you have the likelihood that many of the first species were killed before they grew to a level of sustainable population. If liquid water appeared on the earth 4.3 billion years ago, No I can't reasonably say that life was created and evolved to sentience in that time period.  My last defense I'm going to mention is one you probably hear allot... Irreducible Complexity. Not to say that Irreducible complexity makes evolution impossible. However, it does slow it down significantly... This also brings in the idea of random chance, if a mutation does not yet create an advantage for an organism, the chance that it is passed down decreases... so if we are leaving the process of evolution up to the roll of a dice, I believe it takes much to long to happen on its own.

Onto my Dog argument, I understand that Dogs are all the same species. However, the quick change in the species's traits does suggest that when evolution is helped along by intelligent control the results can be seen much quicker... Dogs may all be the same species, however given more time of selective breeding with the goal of changing the species, a new species could be created in a much shorter time frame than natural evolution, I find that Idea at least very hard to refute.

Finally, I am not a creationist by any means, however I find myself irritated  by the blind acceptance of the theory of evolution... There are far to many unanswered questions for it to be considered as factual as it is. In my opinion there is not nearly enough evidence to believe in evolution on its own merit. So then, I guess then its believers require faith in the idea that its true.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2012, 02:35:04 AM »
Onto my Dog argument, I understand that Dogs are all the same species. However, the quick change in the species's traits does suggest that when evolution is helped along by intelligent control the results can be seen much quicker... Dogs may all be the same species, however given more time of selective breeding with the goal of changing the species, a new species could be created in a much shorter time frame than natural evolution, I find that Idea at least very hard to refute.

That's true as far as it goes.  So you're suggesting that some sort of deity is selecting our mates for us and preventing others of us from breeding?

I suggest you take this up with a couple who want children but are infertile.  They'll surely be receptive to the idea that their infertility is divine providence.

Finally, I am not a creationist by any means, however I find myself irritated  by the blind acceptance of the theory of evolution... There are far to many unanswered questions for it to be considered as factual as it is. In my opinion there is not nearly enough evidence to believe in evolution on its own merit. So then, I guess then its believers require faith in the idea that its true.

That might be true...until one gets an education on the subject.  The same is true of most branches of science.  People are accept them on faith until they know enough to accept them on their own merits.  Your posts indicate that you're in the former category still.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2012, 02:40:59 AM »
Hmm... this one is very irrefutable I must commend you on your conquest for without it I could not share this.
Male + Female = Offspring

This is actually what Darwin couldn't quite figure out. Tall father, short mother, average sized children, right? Right?! This was a massive problem for his theory. If traits evened out every generation, they'd never be selected for. If that indeed was the way sexual reproduction worked, evolution would be dead in the water.
Except ... Tall dad, short mom, gives you some tall kids ... and some short ones. And to make thing worse, the kids of the short kids ... could be tall!
Darwin got tantalizingly close to figuring it out. But he did feel confident that in the future some elements of hereditry would be discovered that could carry traits that were not expressed. In other words, he predicted recessive genes. And all of that, because he intuitively got right what you got wrong.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2012, 03:33:56 AM »

That's true as far as it goes.  So you're suggesting that some sort of deity is selecting our mates for us and preventing others of us from breeding?

Nope never suggested that. That is the means by which humans have helped the evolution of dogs. The example was not to imply a process by which a higher being does things, only to suggest that evolution is sped up by intelligent intervention. Please don't try to extrapolate claims, It forces me to answer arguments I never made.


That might be true...until one gets an education on the subject.  The same is true of most branches of science.  People are accept them on faith until they know enough to accept them on their own merits.  Your posts indicate that you're in the former category still.

Ah but in terms of evolution the opposite is true(especially in my own experience). At face value evolution makes allot of sense, however the more you learn about it and its shortcomings, the more things you have to ignore to continue to accept it as fact. The only way to do that is to research evolution on the base assumption that it is true, and with that assumption you will always conform your suspicions. If your a theist or an atheist if you look at evolution from the perspective of "why should I believe that" you will find it hard to say that it is a suitable explanation.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2012, 06:04:39 AM »
Nope never suggested that. That is the means by which humans have helped the evolution of dogs. The example was not to imply a process by which a higher being does things, only to suggest that evolution is sped up by intelligent intervention. Please don't try to extrapolate claims, It forces me to answer arguments I never made.

Evolution is sped up by selective pressures.  These can be imposed by an intelligent being, or not.  But selective pressures are the key here.  Humans have impose selective pressures on domestic animal populations in a very controlled manner.  Whatever the mechanism, another intelligence would have to do the same - that is, impose selection pressures - in order to speed up evolution.  To tamper more directly is genetic engineering, not evolution.  We've done that, too, only more recently.

Ah but in terms of evolution the opposite is true(especially in my own experience). At face value evolution makes allot of sense, however the more you learn about it and its shortcomings, the more things you have to ignore to continue to accept it as fact.

That's not been my experience, as a geologist.  Where does that leave us?  Let me guess:  With an appeal to my inescapable bias as an atheist.

The only way to do that is to research evolution on the base assumption that it is true, and with that assumption you will always conform your suspicions. If your a theist or an atheist if you look at evolution from the perspective of "why should I believe that" you will find it hard to say that it is a suitable explanation.

And this is patently untrue.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2012, 08:13:31 AM »
Hmm... this one is very irrefutable I must commend you on your conquest for without it I could not share this.
Male + Female = Offspring

This is actually what Darwin couldn't quite figure out. Tall father, short mother, average sized children, right? Right?! This was a massive problem for his theory. If traits evened out every generation, they'd never be selected for. If that indeed was the way sexual reproduction worked, evolution would be dead in the water.
Except ... Tall dad, short mom, gives you some tall kids ... and some short ones. And to make thing worse, the kids of the short kids ... could be tall!
Darwin got tantalizingly close to figuring it out. But he did feel confident that in the future some elements of hereditry would be discovered that could carry traits that were not expressed. In other words, he predicted recessive genes. And all of that, because he intuitively got right what you got wrong.
um...
the color trick was a simple analogy.
analogies don't work.
show me logic where "male + female =/= offspring"
and if it is pornographic I want links!


Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2012, 09:31:50 AM »
um...
the color trick was a simple analogy.
analogies don't work.
show me logic where "male + female =/= offspring"
and if it is pornographic I want links!

Kin Hell's analogy showed that small changes to an attribute, over time, lead to large changes.
Your analogy seemed to suggest that an attribute of one parent combined with the same attribute of the other parent produced a perfect 50/50 mix in the offspring. As Darwin assumed and Mendel first demonstrated ... this is not necessarily true. For skin color ... it sort of, kind of works as you suggest ... for eye color, for instance, it doesn't.

Kin Hell's analogy works, yours doesn't.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2012, 09:41:08 AM »
oh fuck, I admit my analogy doesn't work.
get over it.
analogies don't work.
create an analogy of reality in it's entirety, please.
I want an analogy that explains everything, everything.
not some compartmentalized bullshit.
fuck, the interior of a box is analogous to the interior of a cube.
but does it work?
is the interior of a box analogous to the interior of a cube?
show me a cube, show a me box.
show me they are exactly the same.
here:

fuck... communication is nearly impossible.
is it a cube or is it a box?
create an analogy that works comparing that which exists in the image with something else so that the relationship is identical in it's entirety.
and yeah, I'll peruse Kin Hell's analogy if you want me to get on his ass, but I don't see any reason to at this time.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2012, 04:16:00 PM »
To defend my original comment I would first look at the Cambrian explosion... in a short period of time "by evolutionary standards"  the diversity of life increased immensely. 

This is what most people have been taught about the Cambrian, but this is NOT what scientists say happened for about the last 40 years.  Isn't that weird?  How can people be taught something so outdated which is no longer believed by scientists?  Perhaps creationists are interfering with the contents of school textbooks?  Do we have evidence of that?  Well how about that, we sure do.

The Cambrian lasted about 40 million years, plenty of time for the development of any creature, let alone simple ones like molluscs and arthropods.  The diversity did NOT just spring out of no where, because we now KNOW that the era before the Cambrian was absolutely filled with life too.   The whole Cambrian Explosion is looking more and more like an illusion created by special fossilization circumstances.  In other words, right during the Cambrian, conditions were perfect for fossilization and so we see a surge in the number of fossils and think that life itself surged during this period.  But it didn't.  More fossils does not equate to more life.



Next, the origin of live itself would require an organism that is able to reproduce, for it to reproduce it first needs to be singular, in other words something has to separate from its environment, Assuming that it was by random chance that life was created... The time it would take not to only create life, but also by random chance an organism that could reproduce is astronomical,

The origin of life began with the first replicator.  Reproduction was THE event that started life, everything else followed from that. 


then you have the likelihood that many of the first species were killed before they grew to a level of sustainable population.

That first replicator faced no competition and was surrounded by nothing but more raw materials to make copies of itself.  It would have dominated the oceans in months.


Irreducible Complexity. Not to say that Irreducible complexity makes evolution impossible.

IC does not exist.  It is an illusion caused by looking at the evolutionary process backwards.  Lets say a new plague breaks out and some small percentage of humans survive because that have a mutation in their appendix that saves them.  Then the survivors breed of course and repopulate.  A thousand years later they all think "We must have been created because we can't live without an appendix" and they forget that there was a time when this was NOT the case.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 04:40:08 PM by Cyberia »
Soon we will judge angels.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1797
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2012, 05:56:13 PM »
Finally, I am not a creationist by any means, however I find myself irritated  by the blind acceptance of the theory of evolution... There are far to many unanswered questions for it to be considered as factual as it is. In my opinion there is not nearly enough evidence to believe in evolution on its own merit. So then, I guess then its believers require faith in the idea that its true.

Welcome, mhaberling. Other aspects of your posts have already been addressed, but I'll take a stab at this last one.

Could you list some of these "far too many unanswered questions" about evolution? The theory has stood the test of time, not only being the one that best answered the question of origins in Darwin's era but in the 150+ years since. For your objections to have any traction, they need to be specific and you need to propose alternatives that answer those questions better than current evolutionary theory.

If you can't do that, then your objections remain rooted in personal incredulity, no more.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2012, 08:43:00 PM »
mhaberling, you're not actually giving us much to discuss. All I'm seeing from you is an amalgamation of arguments from personal incredulity and bald assertions. You haven't explained exactly how the time progression of biodiversity proves problematic. Your claim of "irreducible complexity" (I use this in quotes due to its denotation as a showstopper rather than a speed bump) slowing the process down is completely unsupported. You offer no evidence to suggest that intelligent intervention on the part of an intelligent higher power should even be considered a factor. Your charge of inevitable confirmation bias in the study of evolutionary theory remains entirely unsubstantiated. Finally, we can only begin to guess what you would consider to be evolution's shortcomings given the closest thing to an argument you've presented against it thus far is your own unwillingness to accept that evolution could get this far without intelligent agency.

I'm hoping you could help keep this discussion as constructive as you wished by making an effort to back up your assertions with facts.

Quote
if a mutation does not yet create an advantage for an organism, the chance that it is passed down decreases... so if we are leaving the process of evolution up to the roll of a dice, I believe it takes much to long to happen on its own.

Most mutations are neutral and accumulate over time within entire populations. In that sense not only are there going to be many rolls of the die, but due to both descent with modification and selection pressures the chances of each individual die hitting a certain number can increase over generations.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2012, 02:10:32 AM »
However, the problem is the amount of time evolution takes.

What exactly do you mean by "amount of time evolution takes"? Evolution, in the simplest terms, is just a change in a gene pool from one generation to the next.  Any statistically significant change in gene frequency is evolution. In this way evolution can occur between two generations which, depending on the reproduction time and rate of the organism, can be extremely quick if there is a drastic change in environmental conditions.

That change, though possibly imperceptible to us, is evolution.


Quote
Life on this planet has seen changes far faster than micro evolution can explain.

How so?  Small, even tiny, changes can lead to massive overall change with enough time.  It takes a statistical mindset to see what evolution can build with enough time.  An example would be the "Would you take $1,000,000 now or a penny doubled for 31 days" thought project.  Evolution builds upon previous change to create more change.  And then that change is compounded by more change.  And on and on.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2012, 07:03:48 PM »
mhaberling, welcome.

Of course we atheists will look at what you posted rather critically. What do you mean that the problem is the amount of time evolution takes? What are your standards? Are millions of years inadequate. Billions? How long should it have taken if it were natural vs. intelligently designed? Those of us who accept the standard model of evolution don't seem to be as perplexed as you think we should be. Please explain.

By the way, dogs are one species that comes in various models. In just a few thousand years we have created everything from Bull Mastiffs to those barky little bastards only grandmothers are permitted to own. But they are just one species. A Shitzu can impregnate a Great Dane. It is recommended that the experiment not be reversed, for obvious reasons. Still. Just one species. So you really can't use that as an example.

Thanks, for the welcome...
I hope you find what I say to be constructive.. I believe that shouting and hate speak don't really help advance a discussion. It is wonderful to see that you share the same views.

To defend my original comment I would first look at the Cambrian explosion... in a short period of time "by evolutionary standards"  the diversity of life increased immensely.  Next, the origin of live itself would require an organism that is able to reproduce, for it to reproduce it first needs to be singular, in other words something has to separate from its environment, Assuming that it was by random chance that life was created... The time it would take not to only create life, but also by random chance an organism that could reproduce is astronomical, then you have the likelihood that many of the first species were killed before they grew to a level of sustainable population. If liquid water appeared on the earth 4.3 billion years ago, No I can't reasonably say that life was created and evolved to sentience in that time period.  My last defense I'm going to mention is one you probably hear allot... Irreducible Complexity. Not to say that Irreducible complexity makes evolution impossible. However, it does slow it down significantly... This also brings in the idea of random chance, if a mutation does not yet create an advantage for an organism, the chance that it is passed down decreases... so if we are leaving the process of evolution up to the roll of a dice, I believe it takes much to long to happen on its own.

Onto my Dog argument, I understand that Dogs are all the same species. However, the quick change in the species's traits does suggest that when evolution is helped along by intelligent control the results can be seen much quicker... Dogs may all be the same species, however given more time of selective breeding with the goal of changing the species, a new species could be created in a much shorter time frame than natural evolution, I find that Idea at least very hard to refute.

Finally, I am not a creationist by any means, however I find myself irritated  by the blind acceptance of the theory of evolution... There are far to many unanswered questions for it to be considered as factual as it is. In my opinion there is not nearly enough evidence to believe in evolution on its own merit. So then, I guess then its believers require faith in the idea that its true.

mhaberling

Sorry. I forgot to check this thread yesterday to see if you had responded. My bad.

You are mistaking your incredulity as a fact. That you can't imagine how something could have worked doesn't automatically make it impossible. People used to claim human flight was impossible. When I was a kid before we got things into orbit, some people insisted it was impossible to get a rocket to go fast enough.

Are all the answers in about evolution? Of course not. But it is a good enough theory that it can be used to predict. It predicted long ago that common genes would exist in widely varied organisms. And guess what. We have genes in our bodies that identical to genes in yeast cells, and that do the same type of thing.

The lessons of evolutionary theory are used to help deal with the drug and pesticide resistance we encounter when organisms evolve to survive currently used drugs and fertilizers. If we didn't have an understanding of the theory, biology would be a much less complete science. Your doggie stuff is yet another example. We can now very much speed up the creation and improvement of dog breeds because we know far more about how to do such things thanks to the theory of evolution and all that it taught us about inheritence.

Our knowledge of when certain types of early life forms lived, be they dinosaurs or mammals or plants, corresponds rather exactly with the order in which fossils are found in the ground. If you think it wrong, all you need to do is go out and find the fossilized remains of a Megalosaurus alongside the remains of a Tyrannosaurus and you will have disproved hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

If you think we should ignore evolutionary theory, you won't really be able to get a flu shot next year because we won't have any way of accurately predicting which variations are the most likely to show up next. And it can be used for the wrong reasons too. The company that makes Roundup, a herbicide, used their knowledge of how evolution works to create test weeds that were not killed by their product. Then they let them get out in the wild. So now there are weeds that used to be killed by their product that can't be. But don't worry. They'll come up with something to sell alongside the original product so that you can have both. Funny how selling stuff for $100 a gallon can motivate one to take advantage of that theoretical framework.

No, it doesn't matter how much sense it makes to you. The evidence says otherwise and the evidence has proven itself useful to modern science again and again. I wish it could both be sensible to you AND useful, but if I have to pick one or the other, I'll go with the useful part.

You are not a creationist, but you still need a backstory that you can sink your teeth in to. Okay. That is your right. But like most everything else in the world, there are lots of possible explanations for a lot of things. I personally prefer the ones that work.


Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2012, 07:26:08 PM »
No, it doesn't matter how much sense it makes to you. The evidence says otherwise and the evidence has proven itself useful to modern science again and again. I wish it could both be sensible to you AND useful, but if I have to pick one or the other, I'll go with the useful part.

You are not a creationist, but you still need a back story that you can sink your teeth in to. Okay. That is your right. But like most everything else in the world, there are lots of possible explanations for a lot of things. I personally prefer the ones that work.

I agree completely with evolution being valuable to academia. As a computer scientist, problem solving by natural selection is a great way to enhance design. Though a theory being useful does not make it correct ;).

I like your point about things lining up, My main problem is that as I stated in my argument, things seemed to have happened in ways that do not line up with the theory of evolution. Which means we need to dig deeper. Study more, Perhaps we shall eventually see a clear random process, or maybe we shall see evidence of purpose and design at the roots of our origin. The fact that there is a desire for knowledge and understanding of the universe is what makes our species great.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2012, 08:25:00 PM »
No, it doesn't matter how much sense it makes to you. The evidence says otherwise and the evidence has proven itself useful to modern science again and again. I wish it could both be sensible to you AND useful, but if I have to pick one or the other, I'll go with the useful part.

You are not a creationist, but you still need a back story that you can sink your teeth in to. Okay. That is your right. But like most everything else in the world, there are lots of possible explanations for a lot of things. I personally prefer the ones that work.

I agree completely with evolution being valuable to academia. As a computer scientist, problem solving by natural selection is a great way to enhance design. Though a theory being useful does not make it correct ;).

I like your point about things lining up, My main problem is that as I stated in my argument, things seemed to have happened in ways that do not line up with the theory of evolution. Which means we need to dig deeper. Study more, Perhaps we shall eventually see a clear random process, or maybe we shall see evidence of purpose and design at the roots of our origin. The fact that there is a desire for knowledge and understanding of the universe is what makes our species great.
yeah, being part of academia is ridiculous.
oh, a computer scientist.
Fun.
every use a keyboard to create? or are you just the designer?
evolution is random processes or random mutations... oops..
you won't find that roots of our origins have designed us to be anything other than human unless of course we are not.
yeah and another great fact about our species that we communicate

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2012, 08:33:47 PM »
No, it doesn't matter how much sense it makes to you. The evidence says otherwise and the evidence has proven itself useful to modern science again and again. I wish it could both be sensible to you AND useful, but if I have to pick one or the other, I'll go with the useful part.

You are not a creationist, but you still need a back story that you can sink your teeth in to. Okay. That is your right. But like most everything else in the world, there are lots of possible explanations for a lot of things. I personally prefer the ones that work.

I agree completely with evolution being valuable to academia. As a computer scientist, problem solving by natural selection is a great way to enhance design. Though a theory being useful does not make it correct ;).

I like your point about things lining up, My main problem is that as I stated in my argument, things seemed to have happened in ways that do not line up with the theory of evolution. Which means we need to dig deeper. Study more, Perhaps we shall eventually see a clear random process, or maybe we shall see evidence of purpose and design at the roots of our origin. The fact that there is a desire for knowledge and understanding of the universe is what makes our species great.

What does not line up?  Do you understand the theory of evolution - I mean, the scientific explanation of the diversity of life?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2012, 11:15:27 AM »
I like your point about things lining up, My main problem is that as I stated in my argument, things seemed to have happened in ways that do not line up with the theory of evolution. Which means we need to dig deeper. Study more, Perhaps we shall eventually see a clear random process, or maybe we shall see evidence of purpose and design at the roots of our origin. The fact that there is a desire for knowledge and understanding of the universe is what makes our species great.

I'd like to see a reply to Cyberia and Irish.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution
« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2012, 12:35:19 PM »
I agree completely with evolution being valuable to academia. As a computer scientist, problem solving by natural selection is a great way to enhance design. Though a theory being useful does not make it correct ;) .

I like your point about things lining up, My main problem is that as I stated in my argument, things seemed to have happened in ways that do not line up with the theory of evolution. Which means we need to dig deeper. Study more, Perhaps we shall eventually see a clear random process, or maybe we shall see evidence of purpose and design at the roots of our origin. The fact that there is a desire for knowledge and understanding of the universe is what makes our species great.
(My bold)


"Things seemed to have happened"? Seems! You are rejecting the most verified theory on the planet because something in it appears to have involved "SEEMS!!!"


I understand the concept. Because it seems that I need examples. It seems that I need specifics. It seems that I need the particulars.


Strike that. I don't seem to need those things. I actually need those things.


As strange as it sounds, your intuition doesn't transfer to me very well.


Make that "at all"!!!

edit: for clarity, if that's possible under the circumstances

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.