Happy Atheist Forum

Evolution is a scientific theory that can be true or false

-Evolutionists claim it is proved by facts
-Creationists claim it is a myth
Both are wrong  

Even that most of what evolutionists claim are indeed facts, they don't prove evolution, they are just clues not proofs
On the other side, there are many facts that can be used to disprove (parts) of the theory

My conclusion is
If Evolution happened then it is an intelligent evolution (Excluding human due to religious beliefs)
i.e. The part about change due to mutation (or any other unintelligent cause) is definitely wrong

So I'll only debate 2 issues
1-Can any one prove that Mutation is the cause of evolution/change?
2-I'll Prove that intelligent is the only possible cause of change (if it ever happened)

Quote from: "Messenger"Evolution is a scientific theory that can be true or false

-Evolutionists claim it is proved by facts
-Creationists claim it is a myth
Both are wrong  

Even that most of what evolutionists claim are indeed facts, they don't prove evolution, they are just clues not proofs
On the other side, there are many facts that can be used to disprove (parts) of the theory

My conclusion is
If Evolution happened then it is an intelligent evolution (Excluding human due to religious beliefs)
i.e. The part about change due to mutation (or any other unintelligent cause) is definitely wrong

So I'll only debate 2 issues
1-Can any one prove that Mutation is the cause of evolution/change?
2-I'll Prove that intelligent is the only possible cause of change (if it ever happened)

The cabbage white butterfly showed signs of rapid evolution to combat the climbing pollution in the UK in the early 1900's. There was a forest outside sheffield which had lots of silver birch trees (all of this is from memory so i may have got the species of tree incorrect - they were white anyway). The cabbage white used to sit on these trees because it afforded them a decent level of camoflage. When Sheffield became industrialised, the local pollution turned the bark of the silver birch trees a dark brown. Lots of cabbage whites started to get picked off by the birds as they were now highly visible on the brown trees. Within a couple of generations 90% of the cabbage white population was now brown.

This is a perfect example of evolution happening in our own lifetimes.

Please provide scientific proof of intelligent design.

Quote from: "karadan"The cabbage white butterfly showed signs of rapid evolution to combat the climbing pollution in the UK in the early 1900's. There was a forest outside sheffield which had lots of silver birch trees (all of this is from memory so i may have got the species of tree incorrect - they were white anyway). The cabbage white used to sit on these trees because it afforded them a decent level of camoflage. When Sheffield became industrialised, the local pollution turned the bark of the silver birch trees a dark brown. Lots of cabbage whites started to get picked off by the birds as they were now highly visible on the brown trees. Within a couple of generations 90% of the cabbage white population was now brown.

This is a perfect example of evolution happening in our own lifetimes.

Please provide scientific proof of intelligent design.

None, this is a fact of change not evolution
Species change but don't evolve

It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  

Quote from: "Messenger"None, this is a fact of change not evolution,
Species change but don't evolve

If something adapts far enough it changes. Small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus small change ((and many more) ultimately results in big change ... it really isn't rocket science. And if that simple concept is not true then there must be something that prevents it so the question you have to answer is what is that mechanism?

Quote from: "Messenger"It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  

It's nothing like it at all.

When are you going to answer my post?

Kyu

Eels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eel)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F57%2FAnguillarostratakils.jpg%2F260px-Anguillarostratakils.jpg&hash=f99e1516c0603040df93da78cdd451a1a359a42f)

Some of Eels grew then migrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eel_life_history) through open ocean journey back to their spawning grounds for over 6,000 km in the sea, crossing even wet grasslands, swamps, rivers, etc.

How they know their way back to the exact spot? ....................Don't bother answering it, it is not the real question

The question is: Regardless of the method they use,  From where they get the information to do so?

The only possible answer is an external intelligent source must feed them that information after/before birth

You can not find an answer, ok, just find an explanation, NO, Ok, just imagine an alternate way?
Maybe I can help,
1- Eels have a university that teach young eels how to navigate
2- They are born equipped (by total coincidence) with an advanced GPS
3- Eels are not animals, they are robots created by theists to disprove evolution
4- Eels don't exist  

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"If something adapts far enough it changes. Small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus small change ((and many more) ultimately results in big change ... it really isn't rocket science. And if that simple concept is not true then there must be something that prevents it so the question you have to answer is what is that mechanism?

Yes, what you say is true, but it is not a proof at all it is a clue

It is like seeing BMW cars models over 100 years, it is only a small change from model 1982 to 1983 (Maybe just an extra flash light)
Does that means that 1-BMW car evolved and that  2-that flash light is there by an accident
1 is only possible, but 2 is ridiculous

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "karadan"The cabbage white butterfly showed signs of rapid evolution to combat the climbing pollution in the UK in the early 1900's. There was a forest outside sheffield which had lots of silver birch trees (all of this is from memory so i may have got the species of tree incorrect - they were white anyway). The cabbage white used to sit on these trees because it afforded them a decent level of camoflage. When Sheffield became industrialised, the local pollution turned the bark of the silver birch trees a dark brown. Lots of cabbage whites started to get picked off by the birds as they were now highly visible on the brown trees. Within a couple of generations 90% of the cabbage white population was now brown.

This is a perfect example of evolution happening in our own lifetimes.

Please provide scientific proof of intelligent design.

None, this is a fact of change not evolution
Species change but don't evolve

It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  

No, this IS evolution. It is the survival of the fittest priciple inducing the wide-spread change in a species due to the genetic traits favouring one genotype over the other.

Classic Darwinism which proves you incorrect i'm afraid.

And yes, you saying all cars being made of apples is crazy. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"If something adapts far enough it changes. Small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus small change ((and many more) ultimately results in big change ... it really isn't rocket science. And if that simple concept is not true then there must be something that prevents it so the question you have to answer is what is that mechanism?

Yes, what you say is true, but it is not a proof at all it is a clue

No, it is not a clue, it is serious problem for anyone (like you) claiming that speciation does not occur.

Quote from: "Messenger"It is like seeing BMW cars models over 100 years, it is only a small change from model 1982 to 1983 (Maybe just an extra flash light)
Does that means that 1-BMW car evolved and that  2-that flash light is there by an accident
1 is only possible, but 2 is ridiculous

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with cars, that is a strawman argument.

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"Some of Eels grew then migrate through open ocean journey back to their spawning grounds for over 6,000 km in the sea, crossing even wet grasslands, swamps, rivers, etc.

How they know their way back to the exact spot? ....................Don't bother answering it, it is not the real question.

The question is: Regardless of the method they use, From where they get the information to do so?

That's your evidence why evolution is wrong? All you have there is an argument from personal incredulity, just because you're not capable of envisaging how this might occur is irrelevant to science, just because science doesn't happen to know the answer right this moment does not and never will mean you are right ... ultimately this is nothing more than an unanswered question and nothing in science or evolutionary theory dictates that we have to have an answer for every dumb question know-nothings like you pose.

I have a better "proof" that evolution is wrong ... you haven't evolved there evolution is wrong! Oh no ... wait ... it's not that you haven't evolved ... it's because you're so wrapped up in your stupid religious belief system, you cannot objectively handle the facts!  

Quote from: "Messenger"The only possible answer is an external intelligent source must feed them that information after/before birth

Another explanation is you might be an idiot ... oh don't bother, I already know the answer to that one. .

Quote from: "Messenger"You can not find an answer, ok, just find an explanation, NO, Ok, just imagine an alternate way?
Maybe I can help,
1- Eels have a university that teach young eels how to navigate
2- They are born equipped (by total coincidence) with an advanced GPS
3- Eels are not animals, they are robots created by theists to disprove evolution
4- Eels don't exist  

Alternatively one might consider that science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to explore the observable universe ... the fact that it is self-correcting means that nothing can be held as absolute, the fact that it is ongoing means it isn't done yet and therefore does not claim to have an answer to every dumb question.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I have a better "proof" that evolution is wrong ... you haven't evolved there evolution is wrong! Oh no ... wait ... it's not that you haven't evolved ... it's because you're so wrapped up in your stupid religious belief system, you cannot objectively handle the facts!

Let's try to stay on track.

Messenger, Kyuuketsuki posted a rather perfect response right off the bat which you didn't seem to respond to. Did you read the article, "Is Evolution Science?"? Are you familiar with the scientific method and how that method has been used to test evolution?

Quote from: "Messenger"It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  

Seriously? I mean, seriously? That had absolutely nothing to do with what karadan was saying, and it was one of the most ridiculous "arguments" I've ever heard.

Karadan is correct, the changing of the cabbage white butterfly was a very good example of rapid evolution. She dealt you a deathblow, get over it. On to the next argument, if you have one that is not as ridiculous as your "eels" argument. Are you really trying to say that god tells the eels where to go? Like Kyu said, it's not rocket science.

Simply because we don't know the answer to a question it does not mean that the answer is magic.  And because we don't know the answer it does not mean we are stupid or following incorrect paths of inquiry.  If a five year old cannot explain the exact means by which a man can land on the moon it neither means that he is stupid, nor that he will never discover the correct explanation.  What is stupid is giving up on finding the correct answer and saying of every fascinating mystery - "god did it".

"God did it" is not an answer, it is a cop out.  It's the same cop out that causes you to say with a straight face that God has always existed after requiring that everything complex must have a creator.

Quote from: "Willravel"Let's try to stay on track.

Will, conversations flex, give them some breathing room will you?

Quote from: "Willravel"Messenger, Kyuuketsuki posted a rather perfect response right off the bat which you didn't seem to respond to. Did you read the article, "Is Evolution Science?"? Are you familiar with the scientific method and how that method has been used to test evolution?

Thank you for that at least.

Kyu

Hi Messenger, why don't you have a look at the excellent interview with a real Christian scientist in this thread viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2347 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2347)
From that scientist you can learn for example why a literal interpretation of the Bible is absolutely wrong; why creationism is not scientific and why evolution offers the best scientific explanation (and not just a theory) for life on Earth.

I would love to chime in here but I don't have the time right now, I'll return (hopefully soon) with something of substance to contribute.

Hmmm, mutation doesn't lead to evolution?  First, you must understand mutation's role in the evolutionary process.  Mutation provides the raw material, so to speak, for natural selection to work upon - the different alleles in a population give natural selection something to work with.  If there were no variation the population wouldn't last very long.  An example is the Irish potato blight since most of the potatoes were effectively clones of one another - all susceptible to the same blight.

Secondly, the literature is loaded with genetic information relating to evolution.  The sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes gave us an insight into our differences and similarities (genetically) to our closest living cousins - the same for the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome (which helped settled the interbreeding hypothesis).

Mutation is just part of the process.

You also mention that you fail to see how small changes can infer above species level evolution (macroevolution).  It is not simply inferred from observed changes between two generations - that is what we call a strawman argument.

For the eels it is a much better bet logically and scientifically that they make use of the Earth's magnetic fields much the way migrating birds do.  This was proposed and tested experimentally as far back as the early 1970's (Rommel & McCleave, 1973).  Research on migrating birds has produced evidence for the role of electromagnetism in their migration patterns along with wind currents, food resources and so forth (Wiltschko, Munro, Ford & Wiltschko, 2006; Heyers, Manns, Luksch, Gunturkun & Mouritsen, 2007).  Subsequent research on eels has provided evidence that this may indeed be the case (van Ginneken, Muusze, Breteler, Jansma, van den Thillart, 2005; Westerberg & Lagenfelt, 2008).  Some "intelligence" guiding them is not supported by any evidence and also makes the argument an argument from personal incredulity.

What you may want to do is learn more about evolutionary biology before rejecting it so quickly as I think you may have a distorted idea of what it is and what the theory explains:

Evolution101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml)

References:

Heyers, D., Manns, M., Luksch, H., Gunturkun, O., & Mouritsen, H. (2007). A Visual Pathway Links Brain Structures Active during Magnetic Compass Orientation in Migratory Birds.  PLoS, 2(9), e937.

Rommel, S. & McCleave, J. (1973). Prediction of oceanic electric fields in relation to fish migration.  ICES Journal of Marine Science, 35, 27-31.

Westerberg, H & Lagenfelt, I. (2008). Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel.  Fisheries Management & Ecology, 15, 369-375.

Wiltschko, W., Munro, U., Ford, H. & Wiltschko, R. (2006). Bird navigation: what type of information does the magnetite-based receiver provide? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 2815-20.

van Ginneken, V., Muusze, B., Breteler, J., Jansma, D., & van den Thillart, G. (2005). Microelectronic detection of activity level and magnetic orientation of yellow European eel, Anguilla anguilla L., in a pond.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 72, 313-320.

Quote from: "Squid"Hmmm, mutation doesn't lead to evolution?  First, you must understand mutation's role in the evolutionary process.  Mutation provides the raw material, so to speak, for natural selection to work upon - the different alleles in a population give natural selection something to work with.  If there were no variation the population wouldn't last very long.  An example is the Irish potato blight since most of the potatoes were effectively clones of one another - all susceptible to the same blight.

Secondly, the literature is loaded with genetic information relating to evolution.  The sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes gave us an insight into our differences and similarities (genetically) to our closest living cousins - the same for the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome (which helped settled the interbreeding hypothesis).

Mutation is just part of the process.

You also mention that you fail to see how small changes can infer above species level evolution (macroevolution).  It is not simply inferred from observed changes between two generations - that is what we call a strawman argument.

For the eels it is a much better bet logically and scientifically that they make use of the Earth's magnetic fields much the way migrating birds do.  This was proposed and tested experimentally as far back as the early 1970's (Rommel & McCleave, 1973).  Research on migrating birds has produced evidence for the role of electromagnetism in their migration patterns along with wind currents, food resources and so forth (Wiltschko, Munro, Ford & Wiltschko, 2006; Heyers, Manns, Luksch, Gunturkun & Mouritsen, 2007).  Subsequent research on eels has provided evidence that this may indeed be the case (van Ginneken, Muusze, Breteler, Jansma, van den Thillart, 2005; Westerberg & Lagenfelt, 2008).  Some "intelligence" guiding them is not supported by any evidence and also makes the argument an argument from personal incredulity.

What you may want to do is learn more about evolutionary biology before rejecting it so quickly as I think you may have a distorted idea of what it is and what the theory explains:

Evolution101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml)

References:

Heyers, D., Manns, M., Luksch, H., Gunturkun, O., & Mouritsen, H. (2007). A Visual Pathway Links Brain Structures Active during Magnetic Compass Orientation in Migratory Birds.  PLoS, 2(9), e937.

Rommel, S. & McCleave, J. (1973). Prediction of oceanic electric fields in relation to fish migration.  ICES Journal of Marine Science, 35, 27-31.

Westerberg, H & Lagenfelt, I. (2008). Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel.  Fisheries Management & Ecology, 15, 369-375.

Wiltschko, W., Munro, U., Ford, H. & Wiltschko, R. (2006). Bird navigation: what type of information does the magnetite-based receiver provide? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 2815-20.

van Ginneken, V., Muusze, B., Breteler, J., Jansma, D., & van den Thillart, G. (2005). Microelectronic detection of activity level and magnetic orientation of yellow European eel, Anguilla anguilla L., in a pond.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 72, 313-320.

Thank you Squid! Messenger, if you're half the rational thinker you purport to be, you'll take this to heart:
 Don't ever take the sole word of one person on the internet, but look into the sources Squid posted. Do your own research, look into the works of those who are leaders in evolutionary biology (or any field of study that you're interested in debating, or just want to learn more about) and see what you learn. I'm not saying you should necessarily change your faith, only that you should come to your own conclusions based on the most accurate information available. I definitely know how hard it can be for any of us to challenge our views of the universe, especially if we've held the same view for a significant amount of time... but look at all of the good that's come of people challenging what they were previously told about the universe: Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Alfred Wegener (Wegener put forward the continental drift hypothesis which later resulted in the contemporary theory of plate tectonics <-- for those of us not overly familiar with geology) were all champions of the pursuit of knowledge. Do you have that sort of courage?

Messenger, do you possess the ability to think 'outside of the box' just as those I mentioned (and many others) were able to? Or will you continue to live a life of ridiculous irrationality and belief in things without evidence? Will you continue to debate on a losing side of an argument that you truly do not yet understand, or will you educate yourself, and with humility reexamine the beliefs you currently see as untouchable?

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Alternatively one might consider that science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to explore the observable universe ... the fact that it is self-correcting means that nothing can be held as absolute, the fact that it is ongoing means it isn't done yet and therefore does not claim to have an answer to every dumb question.

I'm sure that science will discover some day how they do it (I guess it is related to Earth magnetic field)
But this is not the subject, regardless of the way they do it, information must be fed externally

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"Seriously? I mean, seriously? That had absolutely nothing to do with what karadan was saying, and it was one of the most ridiculous "arguments" I've ever heard.

BMW factory can really be altering old models to make new one; but seeing the differences does not prove that
It is obvious but you are trying to protect your blind belief!

QuoteKaradan is correct, the changing of the cabbage white butterfly was a very good example of rapid evolution. She dealt you a deathblow, get over it. On to the next argument, if you have one that is not as ridiculous as your "eels" argument. Are you really trying to say that god tells the eels where to go? Like Kyu said, it's not rocket science.

Does color change prove fins growing into legs  

Quote from: "Squid"Hmmm, mutation doesn't lead to evolution?  First, you must understand mutation's role in the evolutionary process.  Mutation provides the raw material, so to speak, for natural selection to work upon - the different alleles in a population give natural selection something to work with.  If there were no variation the population wouldn't last very long.  An example is the Irish potato blight since most of the potatoes were effectively clones of one another - all susceptible to the same blight.

Secondly, the literature is loaded with genetic information relating to evolution.  The sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes gave us an insight into our differences and similarities (genetically) to our closest living cousins - the same for the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome (which helped settled the interbreeding hypothesis).

Mutation is just part of the process.

You also mention that you fail to see how small changes can infer above species level evolution (macroevolution).  It is not simply inferred from observed changes between two generations - that is what we call a strawman argument.

You must note that I don't deny evolution completely, It is possible but "Intelligently"
So you must concentrate on proving that Mutation do the change, not proving that the change occurs

QuoteFor the eels it is a much better bet logically and scientifically that they make use of the Earth's magnetic fields much the way migrating birds do.

I agree but how they get the information about the location?
Earth magnetic field is like a compass, from where they get the map (it can not be from inside, this is my point)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Alternatively one might consider that science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to explore the observable universe ... the fact that it is self-correcting means that nothing can be held as absolute, the fact that it is ongoing means it isn't done yet and therefore does not claim to have an answer to every dumb question.

I'm sure that science will discover some day how they do it (I guess it is related to Earth magnetic field)
But this is not the subject, regardless of the way they do it, information must be fed externally

They can achieve this without being fed external information, by merely acting out the behavioral patterns they got through their instincts. Tied in with the possibility of following the Earth's magnetic field, this would make a possible explanation.

Quote from: "bowmore"They can achieve this without being fed external information, by merely acting out the behavioral patterns they got through their instincts. Tied in with the possibility of following the Earth's magnetic field, this would make a possible explanation.

Instinct itself is another disprove of non-intelligent evolution

Can you explain/imagine the logical sequence that the first eel did that till now?

Quote from: "Messenger"Instinct itself is another disprove of non-intelligent evolution

Why? What about instincts contradicts what in evolution theory?

Quote from: "Messenger"Can you explain/imagine the logical sequence that the first eel did that till now?

That's a loaded question, we don't know whether eels have always done this.

Quote from: "bowmore"Why? What about instincts contradicts what in evolution theory?

I'll make a post about that

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"Can you explain/imagine the logical sequence that the first eel did that till now?

That's a loaded question, we don't know whether eels have always done this.

That is the point, according to Evolution nothing have always been the same (it evolved)
So an evolutionist must explain how it started

A typical answer will be something like this:
Eels did not breed good in their living areas (according to predators or other reasons)
So they travel (randomly) and the ones that traveled back (by accident) to their birth places survived better
over millions of years, only those ones survived and breed
Now we have only those ones

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Why? What about instincts contradicts what in evolution theory?

I'll make a post about that

Looking forward to it.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteThat's a loaded question, we don't know whether eels have always done this.

That is the point, according to Evolution nothing have always been the same (it evolved)
So an evolutionist must explain how it started

A typical answer will be something like this:
Eels did not breed good in their living areas (according to predators or other reasons)
So they travel (randomly) and the ones that traveled back (by accident) to their birth places survived better
over millions of years, only those ones survived and breed
Now we have only those ones

Ok I get what you were asking for now.
Personally I can't answer this. I'm no biologist or anything, so I'm out of my depth here. All I can offer is that the instincts to return to the breeding grounds emerged through mutation, and they offered some advantage over those eels that didn't have this mutation. I can't give you specifics though, and from a quick google, I gather science itself would need more research into eels to conclusively answer this.

Quote from: "bowmore"Personally I can't answer this. I'm no biologist or anything, so I'm out of my depth here. All I can offer is that the instincts to return to the breeding grounds emerged through mutation, and they offered some advantage over those eels that didn't have this mutation. I can't give you specifics though, and from a quick google, I gather science itself would need more research into eels to conclusively answer this.

Try to think abstract not specific
Regardless of the method they use or any explanation
The information about the location (both current and origin) must be fed externally (and intelligently)

For example a sailor maybe know how to navigate
but to go from place x to y
some external information about x and y must be known prior to navigation (Lat. Alt., satellite image, etc.)

Second
It is not just a static behavior, like smelling blood for example
It varies depending on the origin place and the current one, so if you through an eel any where in the world, it will manage to go back
You can not say that the current location is hard wired inside its brain  

Quote from: "Messenger"Try to think abstract not specific
Regardless of the method they use or any explanation
The information about the location (both current and origin) must be fed externally (and intelligently)

Why can that information not be passed internally and why do you insist it must be passed intelligently?

Eels may simply remember the magnetic field signature of their birth place, and have the ability to navigate to any signature.
It's not that difficult to achieve really.
It's just that I can't answer you how it actually works, just how it may work. But as I said, that's because I'm no specialist in the field.

Quote from: "bowmore"Why can that information not be passed internally and why do you insist it must be passed intelligently?

Because it can not come from nothing

QuoteEels may simply remember the magnetic field signature of their birth place, and have the ability to navigate to any signature.
It's not that difficult to achieve really.
It's just that I can't answer you how it actually works, just how it may work. But as I said, that's because I'm no specialist in the field.

There is nothing called magnetic signature and even if it exists, they must know what to remember before they remember it
Then the more difficult part is the current location (even a magnetic signature of the current location has no benefits without something like a map)

Quote from: "Messenger"I'm sure that science will discover some day how they do it (I guess it is related to Earth magnetic field)

Maybe, maybe not but ...

Quote from: "Messenger"But this is not the subject, regardless of the way they do it, information must be fed externally

... no it must not "have to", there could be an entirely different explanation.

That, and this is what you don't seem to get, is the beauty of science ... nothing in science demands we MUST know everything now, that we must have an answer to every dumb question asked. Not that I am saying that your question is specifically dumb but your insistence that it is an external information source (presumed ID) is incredibly so.

Quote from: "Messenger"You must note that I don't deny evolution completely, It is possible but "Intelligently"

Guided evolution? Prove there is an intelligent force directing evolution! Provide some reasonable evidence that this intelligent force exists.

Quote from: "Messenger"So you must concentrate on proving that Mutation do the change, not proving that the change occurs

Mutation doesn't "do the change" it is simply one of a number of factors providing resources to the evolutionary process.

Quote from: "Messenger"I agree but how they get the information about the location?

It is not known.

Quote from: "Messenger"Earth magnetic field is like a compass, from where they get the map (it can not be from inside, this is my point)

As I say it is a good question, entirely valid but it is equally valid to say that as yet we do not know.

Quote from: "Messenger"Instinct itself is another disprove of non-intelligent evolution

Why?

Quote from: "Messenger"Can you explain/imagine the logical sequence that the first eel did that till now?

No, again that is an unanswered question at present ... perhaps it will be something similar to the mechanisms that guide cod to their breeding grounds or the migration of birds (currently believed to be based on a variety of senses including the use of the sun as a compass, an innate ability to detect magnetic fields and sufficient cognitive ability to form, store and recall mental maps) but the key point is that science is working on it and one day we may just know why it is and how it came to be.

Quote from: "Messenger"That is the point, according to Evolution nothing have always been the same (it evolved)
So an evolutionist must explain how it started

Agreed ... eventually but in the absence of an answer now it is entirely acceptable to not know.

Quote from: "Messenger"Eels did not breed good in their living areas (according to predators or other reasons)
So they travel (randomly) and the ones that traveled back (by accident) to their birth places survived better over millions of years, only those ones survived and breed Now we have only those ones

Will it? Where did you get that from?

Quote from: "Messenger"Try to think abstract not specific

Why? So you can get us to say things we don't know, be shown to be wrong and be made to look fools? Looking foolish is part of your job description not ours! The fact is that at present there is no complete explanation for this phenomenon but science is working on it and one day there may be.

Quote from: "Messenger"The information about the location (both current and origin) must be fed externally (and intelligently)

No, as stated above there may be another explanation ... nothing about the migration of eels necessarily requests or requires intelligent external action.

Quote from: "Messenger"For example a sailor maybe know how to navigate
but to go from place x to y
some external information about x and y must be known prior to navigation (Lat. Alt., satellite image, etc.)

Non sequitur ... sailors are not eels.

Quote from: "Messenger"It is not just a static behavior, like smelling blood for example
It varies depending on the origin place and the current one, so if you through an eel any where in the world, it will manage to go back
You can not say that the current location is hard wired inside its brain

So what? It's an unanswered question ... science is working on it and one day it may no longer be.

Why have you not dealt with my earlier post, "Is Evolution Science" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=1) and associated remarks? Are you too scared to deal with it?

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"Because it can not come from nothing

Agreed it must be explainable but it is possible not to know as yet.

Quote from: "Messenger"There is nothing called magnetic signature and even if it exists, they must know what to remember before they remember it

There are lots of things called "magnetic signature" including in animals and it is posited that this plays a role in migrating animals.

 

Quote from: "Messenger"Then the more difficult part is the current location (even a magnetic signature of the current location has no benefits without something like a map)

Animals do not read maps but there are other explanations such as those for migrating birds believed to be based on a variety of senses including the use of the sun as a compass, an innate ability to detect magnetic fields and sufficient cognitive ability to form, store and recall mental maps but, as I keep reiterating, the key point is that science is working on it and one day we may just know why it is and how it came to be.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"That, and this is what you don't seem to get, is the beauty of science ... nothing in science demands we MUST know everything now, that we must have an answer to every dumb question asked. Not that I am saying that your question is specifically dumb but your insistence that it is an external information source (presumed ID) is incredibly so.

It is not science; it is logic
The cause nature can be discovered by science, the existence of the cause and being external is a must by logic

QuoteNo, again that is an unanswered question at present ... perhaps it will be something similar to the mechanisms that guide cod to their breeding grounds or the migration of birds (currently believed to be based on a variety of senses including the use of the sun as a compass, an innate ability to detect magnetic fields and sufficient cognitive ability to form, store and recall mental maps) but the key point is that science is working on it and one day we may just know why it is and how it came to be.

Even those examples disprove evolution, it is like assuming that computer are built with exploding bombs in desert, then not only a computer is built by a coincidence, it comes with all working software as well

QuoteWhere did you get that from?

Just guessing

QuoteWhy have you not dealt with my earlier post, "Is Evolution Science" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=1) and associated remarks? Are you too scared to deal with it?

Out of topic!
Evolution is indeed science (but an unproved one)

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"There are lots of things called "magnetic signature" including in animals and it is posited that this plays a role in migrating animals.

Please bring a reference?

QuoteAnimals do not read maps but there are other explanations such as those for migrating birds believed to be based on a variety of senses including the use of the sun as a compass, an innate ability to detect magnetic fields and sufficient cognitive ability to form, store and recall mental maps but, as I keep reiterating, the key point is that science is working on it and one day we may just know why it is and how it came to be.

Regardless of it is known or not, it must start from outside
For example when evolutionists discuss organ evolution they claim that mutation is the cause
but regarding information, sorry mutation does not work here  

Quote from: "Messenger"It is not science; it is logic

It is illogical to demand an answer that is not yet known.

Quote from: "Messenger"The cause nature can be discovered by science, the existence of the cause and being external is a must by logic

Only inasmuch as the animal must be responding to external factors, nothing in that requests or requires external intelligence.

Quote from: "Messenger"Even those examples disprove evolution, it is like assuming that computer are built with exploding bombs in desert, then not only a computer is built by a coincidence, it comes with all working software as well

Only in what passes for your brain.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteWhere did you get that from?

Just guessing

Then it is irrelevant.

Quote from: "Messenger"Out of topic! Evolution is indeed science (but an unproved one)

No it isn't, the thread is entitled "Why Evolution is not true?" therefore an explanation of why "Evolution Is Science" is ABSOLUTELY & COMPLETELY on topic!

So I repeat, why have you not dealt with my earlier post, "Is Evolution Science" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=1) and associated remarks? I strongly suspect you are ignoring it because you are inherently incapable of answering it, that you simply lack the intelligence or specific knowledge to deal with it. Are you a coward?[/quote]

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"It is not science; it is logic

It is illogical to demand an answer that is not yet known.

You are confused, the answer is there "An external feeder must exist", science can only find How

QuoteOnly inasmuch as the animal must be responding to external factors, nothing in that requests or requires external intelligence.

Then explain how did instinct about any external object came to be inside an animal brain?

QuoteNo it isn't, the thread is entitled "Why Evolution is not true?" therefore an explanation of why "Evolution Is Science" is ABSOLUTELY & COMPLETELY on topic!

fine, I agree with you Evolution is science, still not true one

Quote from: "Messenger"You are confused, the answer is there "An external feeder must exist", science can only find How

The how can be the why ... just because YOU believe there must be an external intelligent reason DOES NOT mean there is one! You're making the claim, YOU have to provide supporting evidence.

Quote from: "Messenger"Then explain how did instinct about any external object came to be inside an animal brain?

What external object? You mean the terrain? Presumably it has senses, presumably it is able to remember where it has been and therefore trace its way back. Like I have repeatedly said science may not have an answer at present but someone is likely working on one and if they find one it will be published in one or more of a number of reputable journals of science.

Quote from: "Messenger"fine, I agree with you Evolution is science, still not true one

There is no such thing as non-true science ... it either is science or it is not.

Now, not only have you NOT answered the post, you've effectively attempted to partially agree and dismiss it which is not an answer, you have entirely failed to deal with the following point made in that post so I'll repeat it.

The scientific community accepts the theory of evolution as science, there are a few (very few) who don't but no relevant scientist or group doubts evolution, not one. Evolution is a major scientific theory and, as a scientific theory, is now no more doubted than the theory that the Earth goes round the sun or that things fall towards the strongest attracting gravitational field ... there are no scientists or groups of scientists that works any longer on whether evolution occurs, they all study the mechanisms by which it proceeds.

You (poor li'l ol' you) disagree, you say it's not a true science, you think that it is some kind of pseudoscience, a joke perhaps ... but what you are really saying is that 99% of the scientific community (and 100% of all relevant experts) are either so stupid they have been fooled by this "evolution nonsense" or they are engaged in some kind of global conspiracy (that they are frauds). If there is any other option I am not aware of it ... so which is it? How do you explain how virtually the entire scientific community, arguably the most advanced thinkers on this planet, have been fooled into believing and promoting what you refer to as "not true science"?

Explain this.

You know you really seem to rate yourself as some kind of radical thinker but what's really interesting is that few, if any, of us are stupid and not one of us thinks you're the mega brain you seem to believe you are ... in fact most of us probably think you're a bit of a t*ss*r (though the other's are far too polite to say so).

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"Seriously? I mean, seriously? That had absolutely nothing to do with what karadan was saying, and it was one of the most ridiculous "arguments" I've ever heard.

BMW factory can really be altering old models to make new one; but seeing the differences does not prove that
It is obvious but you are trying to protect your blind belief!

QuoteKaradan is correct, the changing of the cabbage white butterfly was a very good example of rapid evolution. She dealt you a deathblow, get over it. On to the next argument, if you have one that is not as ridiculous as your "eels" argument. Are you really trying to say that god tells the eels where to go? Like Kyu said, it's not rocket science.

Does color change prove fins growing into legs

My blind belief? You are calling decades of research and scientific finding blind? Is it not you that believes in that which he can not see, touch, smell, or hear? That makes your belief blind, deaf and utterly senseless.

A BMW factory has nothing to do with it, cars are inanimate objects that are not subject to Darwinian evolution, get that through your head  :brick:  

The color change of the cabbage white butterfly is a minute example of evolution, rapid evolution at that. Fins turning into legs is very conceivable if you take the time to think about it without your blinders on.

I don't have the time to spell out an example, but maybe Kyu or Squid will see this and lend a hand.

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"Seriously? I mean, seriously? That had absolutely nothing to do with what karadan was saying, and it was one of the most ridiculous "arguments" I've ever heard.

BMW factory can really be altering old models to make new one; but seeing the differences does not prove that
It is obvious but you are trying to protect your blind belief!

QuoteKaradan is correct, the changing of the cabbage white butterfly was a very good example of rapid evolution. She dealt you a deathblow, get over it. On to the next argument, if you have one that is not as ridiculous as your "eels" argument. Are you really trying to say that god tells the eels where to go? Like Kyu said, it's not rocket science.

Does color change prove fins growing into legs

My blind belief? You are calling decades of research and scientific finding blind? Is it not you that believes in that which he can not see, touch, smell, or hear? That makes your belief blind, deaf and utterly senseless.

A BMW factory has nothing to do with it, cars are inanimate objects that are not subject to Darwinian evolution, get that through your head  :brick:  

The color change of the cabbage white butterfly is a minute example of evolution, rapid evolution at that. Fins turning into legs is very conceivable if you take the time to think about it without your blinders on.

I don't have the time to spell out an example, but maybe Kyu or Squid will see this and lend a hand.

Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

Quote from: "McQ"Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

I disagree ... if he is allowed to post such drivel then he must be opposed. It's important.

If you want to end it then ban him.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "McQ"Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

I disagree ... if he is allowed to post such drivel then he must be opposed. It's important.

If you want to end it then ban him.

Kyu

I agree. I keep replying to him out of pride. I know pride isn't always a good thing, but in this case it is frustrating me. I don't want to give him the satisfaction of having the last word, mainly because then the last word would be nonsensical bullshit.

McQ, I just saw your warning to him on the other thread, so I will just stop responding to him.

About the bird migration and it coming from some external intelligence, there is NO evidence for such a conclusion and to say it is “logical” is a bit silly.  If you noticed one of my citations from my previous post about bird migrations, this article sheds light upon the migration ability.  The research done by Heyers et al. (2007) shows that, in migratory birds, the proposed pathway in question is the thalamofugal pathway â€" composed of retinal ganglia expressing cryptochrome and an area in the forebrain called Cluster N.  Crytpochrome just denote the receptors which are specialized to detect blue which also play a role in the circadian cycles of some animals.  Cluster N is a collection of forebrain areas in migratory birds which play a role in night-vision and as Heyers et al. propose, their internal “compass”.  In Anguilla Anguilla, among the physiological changes which take place before migration is the shift in their retina pigments from green-sensitive to blue-sensitive (Wood, P. and Partridge, 1993).

The authors also note that within cluster N, there is “high, sensory driven neuronal activity as indicated by the expression of the Immediate Early Gene ZENK during magnetic orientation”.  This is supported previously by independent evidence is several migratory bird species (Mouritsen, Feenders, Liedvogel, Wada,  & Jarvis, 2005; Liedvogel, Feenders, Wada, Troje, Jarvis & Mouritsen, 2007).

ZENK expression was utilized as a measure of neuronal activity.  The specific genes in question would be the cryptochrome CRY genes which are also involved in circadian cycles as well as the regulation of PRL (prolactin) which is involved in avian reproductive cycles (Yasuo, Watanabe, Tsukada, Takagi, Iigo, Shimada et al., 2004) as well as reproductive cycles in coral (Levy, Appelbaum, Leggat, Gothlif, Hayward, Miller et al., 2007) and involved in time-place learning in mice (Van der Zee, Havekes, Barf, Hut, Nijholt, Jacobs et al., 2008).

Electromagnetic orientation is not restricted to birds, a study of eels showed that there is a definite, seasonal dependent change in orientation in accordance with Earth’s magnetic field which I posted previously (van Ginneken, Muusze, Breteler, Jansma, van den Thillart, 2005; Westerberg & Lagenfelt, 2008).  Specifically, Westerberg & Lagenfelt showed that underground electrical power cables (which generate their own EMFs) disrupted the travel of the eels.

In birds, migration has been shown to be a genetically controlled process.  For instance, such behavior can be produced or changed to sedentary behavior within several generational breedings by intermixing migratory and sedentary birds (Berthold, 1999).  Also Moller (2001) notes that arrive time is dependent upon genetics and such can be linked directly to reproduction, stating:

Quote…competition for early arrival among males may lead to condition-dependent migration associated with fitness benefits of early arrival achieved by individuals in prime condition.

As for migration in marine species, it does seem to be evolutionarily advantageous, as Roff (1988) notes:

QuoteMigration both influences the evolution of other traits and is contigent upon the evolution of other behavioural and demographic characters. The interaction between such factors is illustrated by considering the relationship between the cost of migration in relation to fecundity and the advantages and disadvantages of schooling, a phenomenon hypothesized to favour the evolution of migration.

The development of migration itself may seem like it may take a heavy toll, however, this is not the case as Alerstam, Hedenstrom and Akesson (2003) show.  They also indicate that migration should not be seen as an isolated behavior or mechanism but migration is “an extension of general seasonal adaptations in movement, homing, metabolism etc”.   It is also noted that migratory behavior is not a conserved behavior either and is linked to resource exploitation, breeding, disparity between survival and breeding grounds,  and so forth.   These similarties are seen across taxa with variation (which the article includes eels in their consideration of migration).  Alerstam et al. also note that the eel migration is aided by currents although the energetic cost of the travel is fairly low.  This was previously shown by Castonguay and McCleave  (1987) which showed that Anguilla anguilla stay in the Gulf Stream on their travel to Europe.

The misconception that the eels travel from the same exact spot from their spawning grounds to some exact spot close to Europe and back to the same exact spot is elementary and inaccurate.  Here is the variation in their journey:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi86.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk86%2Fsolidsquid%2Feelmigration.jpg&hash=d8fafac0ced1ac348e2c0c45dcfc3386bf957584)

The long-distance trek of Anguilla Anguilla is quite amazing and it may not be know exactly why their spawning grounds are so far away â€" however, as research has shown it may have built up distance over a period of time and is directly to their reproduction.  Takaomi, Limbong, Otake & Tsukamoto (2001) conclude that this is this may indeed be the case, stating:

Quote…ancestral eels most probably underwent diadromous migration from local short-distance movements in complex currents in tropical coastal waters to the long-distant migrations characteristic of present-day temperate eels, which has been well-established as occurring in subtropical gyres in both hemispheres.

Which is later expounded upon in another article the following year by Tsukamoto, Aoyama & Miller (2002) stating:

Quote…the large-scale migration of temperate eels probably evolved from local migrations of tropical eels as a result of long-distance dispersal of leptocephali from spawning sites in tropical waters of low latitude to temperate growth habitats at higher latitudes.

Specifically, Tsukamoto & Aoyama (1998) conclude that the tropical origins of the eels were somewhere around the Western Pacific, close to modern-day Indonesia and their clade originating around 10 million years ago.

Now, the problem with wanting to show mutation is responsible for a particular behavior is (as you should know) very difficult since behaviors are not governed by the dynamic of one gene, one trait/state.  Genetic roles can be shown and have been in the migration of animals including the eels along with environmental cues to imprinting (Westin, 2003). And the alternative idea which you propose is lacking in any substantiation or refutation of the currently presented data.  It is known, however, that no mutation is a requirement for the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and therefore makes it an integral part of the evolutionary process as I’ve stated before.  Mutations lead to genetic variants  --> natural selection acts upon these variants --> the selected traits grow throughout the population and may become indicative of that organism.  It also must be kept in mind that most mutations are effective neutral to the organism â€" that is they do not confer any real selective advantage or disadvantage.

There is definitive evidence for a major role for genetics in migratory behavior, along with environmental cues (electromagnetic fields in this case) and learning (imprinting â€" which can be shown to be disrupted as in the article from Westin).

As for “instinct” this too is the product of variation and selection.  Did anyone teach you how to suck on a nipple when you were a baby? No, that fixed action pattern already existed and has even been observed in vivo prenatally  â€" obviously a beneficial trait to have.  Another example is the innate drive to procreate or at least engage in the activity thereof.  However, these instincts can be modified by experiential learning (conditioning) or found in variation in which a particular genotype may not exhibit the usual innate behavior â€" in such an instance without some intervention this would be bad for that particular individual.

There is ample evidence for a completely naturalistic and evolutionary explanation for migration behavior in the example of the eels.

NOW, where is the evidence of for the “intelligence” alternative?  Outside of empirical evidence all you have is conjecture as the claim of sound logic doesn’t not float with your proposition at all as the argument you have presented, as I showed previously, is fallacious.

You have no evidence and only flawed logic for an argument â€" so why is it you cling to this idea so?

References:

Alerstam, T., Hedenstrom, A. &  Akesson, S. (2003). Long-distance migration: evolution and determinants.  Oikos, 103, 247-260.

Berthold, P. (1999). A comprehensive theory for the evolution, control and adaptability of avian migration.  Ostrich, 70, 1-11.

Castonguay, M.& McCleave, J. (1987). Vertical distributions, diel and ontogenetic  vertical migrations and net avoidance of leptocephali of Anguilla and other common species in the Sargasso Sea.  Journal of Plankton Research 9, 195-214.

Heyers, D., Manns, M., Luksch, H., Gunturkun, O., & Mouritsen, H. (2007). A Visual Pathway Links Brain Structures Active during Magnetic Compass Orientation in Migratory Birds. PLoS, 2(9), e937.

Levy, O., Appelbaum, L., Leggat, W., Gothlif, Y., Hayward, D., Miller, D. et al. (2007). Light-Responsive Cryptochromes from a Simple Multicellular Animal, the Coral Acropora millepora.  Science, 318, 467-470.

Liedvogel, M., Feenders, G., Wada, K., Troje, N., Jarvis, E. & Mouritsen, H. (2007). Lateralized activation of cluster N in the brains of migratory songbirds.  European Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 1166-1173.

Moller, A. (2001). Heritability of arrival date in a migratory bird.  Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 203-206.

Mouritsen, H., Feenders, G., Liedvogel, M., Wada, K., & Jarvis, E. (2005) Night-vision brain area in migratory songbirds. Proceedings of the  National Academy of Sciences,  102, 8339â€"8344.

Roff, D. (1988). The evolution of migration and some life history parameters in marine fishes.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 22, 133-146.

Takaomi, A., Limbong, D., Otake, T. & Tsukamoto, K. (2001). Recruitment mechanisms of tropical eels Anguilla spp. and implications for the evolution of oceanic migration in the genus Anguilla.  Marine Ecology Progress Series, 216, 253-264.

Tsukamoto, K. & Aoyama, J. (1998). Evolution of freshwater eels of the genus Anguilla: a probable scenario.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 52, 139-148.

Tsukamoto, K., Aoyama, J. & Miller, M. (2002). Migration, speciation, and the evolution of diadromy in anguillid eels.   Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1989-1998.

Van der Zee, E., Havekes, R., Barf, R., Hut, R., Nijholt, I., Jacobs, E. et al. (2008). Circadian time-place learning in mice depends on Cry genes.  Current Biology, 18, 844-848.

van Ginneken, V., Muusze, B., Breteler, J., Jansma, D., & van den Thillart, G. (2005). Microelectronic detection of activity level and magnetic orientation of yellow European eel, Anguilla Anguilla L., in a pond.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 72, 313-320.
Westerberg, H & Lagenfelt, I. (2008). Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel.  Fisheries Management & Ecology, 15, 369-375.

Westin, L. (2003). Migration failure in stocked eels Anguilla Anguilla.  Marine Ecology Progress Series, 254, 307-311.
Wood, P. and Partridge, J. C. (1993) Opsin substitution induced in retinal rods of the eel (Anguilla anguilla (L.)): a model for G-protein-linked receptors.  Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 254, 227-232.

Yasuo, S., Watanabe, M., Tsukada, A., Takagi, T., Iigo, M., Shimada, K. et al. (2004). Photoinducible Phase-Specific Light Induction of Cry1 Gene in the Pars Tuberalis of Japanese Quail.  Endocrinology, 145, 1612-1616.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "McQ"Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

I disagree ... if he is allowed to post such drivel then he must be opposed. It's important.

If you want to end it then ban him.

Kyu

Well, if I thought that he believed the stuff he was posting, I'd agree completely with you, Kyu. After reading all of his posts, I'm beginning to see a pattern that indicates he's just trolling, and doesn't merit serious time or consideration. He's been warned, and if he shapes up, then I'll be happy to change my opinion of him. I was simply suggesting to oldschool that he not bother to go to all the effort, especially since it was frustrating to him.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "McQ"Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

I disagree ... if he is allowed to post such drivel then he must be opposed. It's important.

If you want to end it then ban him.

Kyu

Well, if I thought that he believed the stuff he was posting, I'd agree completely with you, Kyu. After reading all of his posts, I'm beginning to see a pattern that indicates he's just trolling, and doesn't merit serious time or consideration. He's been warned, and if he shapes up, then I'll be happy to change my opinion of him. I was simply suggesting to oldschool that he not bother to go to all the effort, especially since it was frustrating to him.

Thanks McQ. He is very frustrating, I have patience, but some people can really get make want to... I won't go there.

Kyu, I do see your point on why he needs to be opposed and I would really enjoy seeing you do so. If anyone can eloquently, and with the patience in light of Messenger, put into words how fin-to-feet evolution is possible it is you.

Dear messenger

you say that evolution ( or parts there of ) can be dissproved with facts, please, post these facts ina  complete and unabridged manner.

Also, you say evolution is guided, can you show us who/what is guiding with objective evidence of its existance? can you suggest a mechanism for this guidance? By putting forward the hypothesis that god guides evolution, you have saddled yourself with the burden of proof. Your current arguments have amounted to " I dont know how eels navigate, therefore, something must be guiding them, therefor its god guiding them". For someone who claims to be a logician, you really have a long way to go. Interecpting the communications between god and an eel would be sufficent proof for me to beleive that gods guides them. until then, it could be zeus, odin or the flying spaghetti monster.

Or, if you are really wacky, it could be the eel remembering the direction and strength of the magnetic field on its journey from the spawning ground, then simply tracing that back when it feels randy enough to breed. Your assertion that an eel places anywhere, in any ocean will find its way back to its home spawning point is false, eels from one spawn travel out of it together, live in the same area through adolesence and then return to spawn. Taking an eel from the coast of africa to the coast of south america in a jet would not allow it to find its way back to africa.

Quote from: "SSY"Dear messenger

you say that evolution ( or parts there of ) can be dissproved with facts, please, post these facts ina  complete and unabridged manner.

Also, you say evolution is guided, can you show us who/what is guiding with objective evidence of its existance? can you suggest a mechanism for this guidance? By putting forward the hypothesis that god guides evolution, you have saddled yourself with the burden of proof. Your current arguments have amounted to " I dont know how eels navigate, therefore, something must be guiding them, therefor its god guiding them". For someone who claims to be a logician, you really have a long way to go. Interecpting the communications between god and an eel would be sufficent proof for me to beleive that gods guides them. until then, it could be zeus, odin or the flying spaghetti monster.

Or, if you are really wacky, it could be the eel remembering the direction and strength of the magnetic field on its journey from the spawning ground, then simply tracing that back when it feels randy enough to breed. Your assertion that an eel places anywhere, in any ocean will find its way back to its home spawning point is false, eels from one spawn travel out of it together, live in the same area through adolesence and then return to spawn. Taking an eel from the coast of africa to the coast of south america in a jet would not allow it to find its way back to africa.

He's a troll. Don't worry yourself.  

Quote from: "McQ"Well, if I thought that he believed the stuff he was posting, I'd agree completely with you, Kyu. After reading all of his posts, I'm beginning to see a pattern that indicates he's just trolling, and doesn't merit serious time or consideration. He's been warned, and if he shapes up, then I'll be happy to change my opinion of him. I was simply suggesting to oldschool that he not bother to go to all the effort, especially since it was frustrating to him.

It's a fair point though I don't think he was merely doing it for jollies, I think he believed some (if not all) of that rubbish and the fact that his spelling and grammar were so bad seems to fall in line with many of the theists I've "met" online ... not that we atheists are completely clear in that respect but I tend to be a bit pedantic sometimes.

Whether he was a troll or not though is almost academic ... I still feel he has to be opposed my usual reason being because of the lurkers.

Kyu

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"My blind belief? You are calling decades of research and scientific finding blind? Is it not you that believes in that which he can not see, touch, smell, or hear? That makes your belief blind, deaf and utterly senseless.

A BMW factory has nothing to do with it, cars are inanimate objects that are not subject to Darwinian evolution, get that through your head  :brick:   :P

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"Because it can not come from nothing

Agreed it must be explainable but it is possible not to know as yet.

Yes, but it must be external source

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"There is nothing called magnetic signature and even if it exists, they must know what to remember before they remember it

There are lots of things called "magnetic signature" including in animals and it is posited that this plays a role in migrating animals.

Can you give a ref?

QuoteAnimals do not read maps but there are other explanations such as those for migrating birds believed to be based on a variety of senses including the use of the sun as a compass, an innate ability to detect magnetic fields and sufficient cognitive ability to form, store and recall mental maps but, as I keep reiterating, the key point is that science is working on it and one day we may just know why it is and how it came to be.

I have no problem with that, the point is how does something like this start? it must start from outside
It can not be a coincidence or from inside

Quote from: "SSY"Dear messenger
you say that evolution ( or parts there of ) can be dissproved with facts, please, post these facts ina  complete and unabridged manner.

I'm doing it

QuoteAlso, you say evolution is guided, can you show us who/what is guiding with objective evidence of its existance? can you suggest a mechanism for this guidance?

If (some) species evolved from each other, then God did this change
Because construction requires intelligence (and planning)

QuoteBy putting forward the hypothesis that god guides evolution, you have saddled yourself with the burden of proof. Your current arguments have amounted to " I dont know how eels navigate, therefore, something must be guiding them, therefor its god guiding them". For someone who claims to be a logician, you really have a long way to go. Interecpting the communications between god and an eel would be sufficent proof for me to beleive that gods guides them. until then, it could be zeus, odin or the flying spaghetti monster.

This proof is very logical, I did not say that it proves god; it proves that an external (intelligent) source must feed this information to the eels.

QuoteOr, if you are really wacky, it could be the eel remembering the direction and strength of the magnetic field on its journey from the spawning ground, then simply tracing that back when it feels randy enough to breed. Your assertion that an eel places anywhere, in any ocean will find its way back to its home spawning point is false

Yes, it will

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"Because it can not come from nothing

Agreed it must be explainable but it is possible not to know as yet.

Yes, but it must be external source

And I keep telling you this ... maybe it is but it's far from certain and if you want to claim it is external then YOU Have to prove it. It is NOT enough to claim it is true and assume everyone must prove your claim wrong.

I am still waiting for you to deal with the points I made earlier.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"And I keep telling you this ... maybe it is but it's far from certain and if you want to claim it is external then YOU Have to prove it. It is NOT enough to claim it is true and assume everyone must prove your claim wrong.  

If you claim that information about external object can come from inside, then you are making history, you should get a Nobel prize for that

As inside means not outside
and as the birth & current location of an eel is outside the eel's brain
Something must take this information and put it inside the eel's brain

QuoteI am still waiting for you to deal with the points I made earlier.

What point?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"And I keep telling you this ... maybe it is but it's far from certain and if you want to claim it is external then YOU Have to prove it. It is NOT enough to claim it is true and assume everyone must prove your claim wrong.  

If you claim that information about external object can come from inside, then you are making history, you should get a Nobel prize for that

As inside means not outside
and as the birth & current location of an eel is outside the eel's brain
Something must take this information and put it inside the eel's brain

And that's where you keep (repeatedly  and apparently wilfully) getting it wrong... I'm not, I am QUITE CLEARLY saying WE DON'T KNOW and that that is fine.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I am still waiting for you to deal with the points I made earlier.

What point?

Points (plural) not point (singular)!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=35 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=35)

Kyu

The eel's knowing how to travel to their birth place and how to get there is clearly magic. Anyone who doesn't see this as magic is stupid. It's so obvious, how can you not see that magic exists? I just want every atheist to admit that magic is real!! This is clearly the only logical solution.

Ahem..

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=30#p30053

Quote from: "Squid"Ahem..

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=30#p30053

Apparently, you've used too much science in making your point about science. Therefore, it must be ignored in hopes that it will go away.  

Quote from: "BadPoison"The eel's knowing how to travel to their birth place and how to get there is clearly magic. Anyone who doesn't see this as magic is stupid. It's so obvious, how can you not see that magic exists? I just want every atheist to admit that magic is real!! This is clearly the only logical solution.

It is not magic and for sure it is not a coincidence  

It is like a child born knowing how to play chess very well, even though the intelligence could be an internal attribute, knowing how to deal with chess must be external

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "BadPoison"The eel's knowing how to travel to their birth place and how to get there is clearly magic. Anyone who doesn't see this as magic is stupid. It's so obvious, how can you not see that magic exists? I just want every atheist to admit that magic is real!! This is clearly the only logical solution.

It is not magic and for sure it is not a coincidence  

It is like a child born knowing how to play chess very well, even though the intelligence could be an internal attribute, knowing how to deal with chess must be external

I'm still waiting for you to deal with the points I raised earlier.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"What external object? You mean the terrain? Presumably it has senses, presumably it is able to remember where it has been and therefore trace its way back. Like I have repeatedly said science may not have an answer at present but someone is likely working on one and if they find one it will be published in one or more of a number of reputable journals of science.

What science can know in the future is how they are doing it, not from where they get the information

Quote from: "Messenger"There is no such thing as non-true science ... it either is science or it is not.

Wrong
You can use scientific methods but the result could be wrong (Actually wrong proved theories are much more than true ones)

QuoteBut what you are really saying is that 99% of the scientific community (and 100% of all relevant experts) are either so stupid they have been fooled by this "evolution nonsense" or they are engaged in some kind of global conspiracy (that they are frauds).

Wrong statistics!
Before,  Darwinism thought that species evolve by behaviors, for example a deers trying to reach high leaves evolved into giraffes  
Now they found that it is wrong and silly as well
Are you saying that what was proved wrong before can not happen on the current theory?

That won't be science (science can make mistakes), it will be a RELIGION

Darwin and Wallace's ideas have seen been substantiated by genetic inquiry and if you want to get technical some heritable changes in gene expression aren't necessarily from DNA sequences  - epigenetics.  So, in a partial way, Lamarck wasn't totally wrong.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"What external object? You mean the terrain? Presumably it has senses, presumably it is able to remember where it has been and therefore trace its way back. Like I have repeatedly said science may not have an answer at present but someone is likely working on one and if they find one it will be published in one or more of a number of reputable journals of science.

What science can know in the future is how they are doing it, not from where they get the information

So you say but you have yet to justify that beyond anything other than wishful thinking.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"There is no such thing as non-true science ... it either is science or it is not.

Wrong
You can use scientific methods but the result could be wrong (Actually wrong proved theories are much more than true ones).

The only person here trying to say that science claims to always be right is you! No one else is saying that science is always right, what I'm saying is that current scientific explanation represent our best current understanding of the universe we observe around us. Truth (with the exception of math) is a variable concept ... there's your truth, my truth, their truth and then there's the facts. "Truth" as you use it is the domain of religious idiots.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"But what you are really saying is that 99% of the scientific community (and 100% of all relevant experts) are either so stupid they have been fooled by this "evolution nonsense" or they are engaged in some kind of global conspiracy (that they are frauds).

Wrong statistics!

Right statistics ... see Project Steve (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve).

Quote from: "Messenger"Before,  Darwinism thought that species evolve by behaviors, for example a deers trying to reach high leaves evolved into giraffes

Now they found that it is wrong and silly as well

So Lamarckism was wrong? It's not a problem for science. What's your point?

Quote from: "Messenger"Are you saying that what was proved wrong before can not happen on the current theory?

Let's see if I can get some real science through that thick #%@&ing skull of yours! I'm not holding my breath.

Science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to explain the universe we observe around us. Nothing about that statement implies that science is absolute, beyond challenge or beyond making mistakes indeed science is characterised by the fact that it can change, that it is flexible in the face of new evidence. Because of this science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us.

Now I know you'll try to find holes in that, I know you'll say it's wrong but the simple fact is that that is the way science is and like it or not evolution DOES represent our best current understanding and explanation for the diversity of life around us And just because YOU, poor little ignorant you) cannot deal with that fact is neither here nor there. That you are a scientific ignoramus means nothing whatsoever to science or to me.

Quote from: "Messenger"That won't be science (science can make mistakes), it will be a RELIGION

No you idiot, it won't.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"What science can know in the future is how they are doing it, not from where they get the information

So you say but you have yet to justify that beyond anything other than wishful thinking. [/quote]
This is by default as the information (Location) is outside
Then it must come from outside to inside
Do you know the diffirence between in and out  :raised:

QuoteBecause of this science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us.
Now I know you'll try to find holes in that, I know you'll say it's wrong but the simple fact is that that is the way science is and like it or not evolution DOES represent our best current understanding and explanation

I don't have a problem with that
Your problem is that you assume Evolution (or the part about mutation) as science, even that it is not supported by facts or statistics or even logic

Quote from: "Messenger"I don't have a problem with that
Your problem is that you assume Evolution (or the part about mutation) as science, even that it is not supported by facts or statistics or even logic

Yawn! Wrong again and if you'd actually bothered at all to answer my very first response in this thread you will see that I have COMPLETELY justified why evolution is science and you just saying it isn't is just you being an uneducated idiot (and if the Mods smack me down for that, so be it)!

Go away and learn some science!

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Yawn! Wrong again and if you'd actually bothered at all to answer my very first response in this thread you will see that I have COMPLETELY justified why evolution is science and you just saying it isn't is just you being an uneducated idiot (and if the Mods smack me down for that, so be it)!

Considering the fossil record, Mutation is not the cause of anything (except destructing some individuals)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Yawn! Wrong again and if you'd actually bothered at all to answer my very first response in this thread you will see that I have COMPLETELY justified why evolution is science and you just saying it isn't is just you being an uneducated idiot (and if the Mods smack me down for that, so be it)!

Considering the fossil record, Mutation is not the cause of anything (except destructing some individuals)

Wrong! Mutation is a source of variation. Go and learn some science!

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Mutation is a source of variation. Go and learn some science!

That is exactly your problem
Yes, it is a cause of variation
but it is
Destructive
Non-Evolving
Does not accumulate over generations

i.e. does not develop or evolve anything

Quote from: "Messenger"but it is
Destructive
Non-Evolving
Does not accumulate over generations

So you say...  

Topic title: "Why Evolution is not true?"

Answer: Trick question; it is.

[/thread]

Messenger, I refer you here:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2427
Check out the link posted in that thread. It's an excellent example of quantifiable research showing mutation as being directly responsible for a new beneficial trait.


Read it, and let me know what you think.

-Badpoison

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Topic title: "Why Evolution is not true?"

Answer: Trick question; it is.

[/thread]

This.

Oh, and Messenger, it appears your views do not permit beneficial mutation.   To classify something as a beneficial mutation we would need two chronologically-close, proximally close fossils where one of them and only the one clearly led to further descent apart or without the unmutated group.  I cannot easily express how tall of an order that is.  We may have unearthed dozens of beneficially mutated fossils, but we will not know it unless the mutation is something that could not be produced by selective pressure and/or is very subtle without anything to compare it against.  We hardly have a perfect record of every organism that ever lived, but we certainly have enough to clearly draw evolutionary lines.   Put simply, the success stories blend in, whereas the failures are obvious.  Beneficial mutations are not likely to ever be gross changes in form, but something like a slightly thicker collar bone, which is damn hard to distinguish from either selective pressuring on a group or a previously-isolated dominant gene surfacing in a population (cousins come from 100 miles over and get busy).  Morphology isn't equipped to deal with mutations if they're suitably small, especially if they're beneficial.  If we could sample DNA from the majority of fossils, we'd have a crapton more evidence by now.

[strike:10vsvdpc]I could be wrong and there be a plethora of evidence no one has sourced for you yet, though, so I'll have a look around.[/strike:10vsvdpc]  Nevermind, it's already been sourced, and it's pretty solid evidence, in a very controlled environment.  Much easier to keep track of mutations in the lab than the fossil record, eh?  But what I said stands.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Mutation is a source of variation. Go and learn some science!

That is exactly your problem
Yes, it is a cause of variation
but it is
Destructive
Non-Evolving
Does not accumulate over generations

i.e. does not develop or evolve anything

No it isn't ... most mutations are simply a source of variation, Some are good, some are bad, many are in what is referred to as Junk DNA and as such are irrelevant at that time. Most relevant ones are probably bad but since mutation is NOT the only factor in evolution beneficial mutations tend to get carried forward and non-beneficial do not. But again, if you actually knew any science, actually bothered to find out what evolution was about you'd know this.

In the meantime here's another of my pre-prepared essays for you to ignore as you always do.

QuoteHarmful Mutations
Introduction
Young Earth creationists, as always attempting to disprove any theory that disputes their belief that life on Earth has evolved rather than be divinely created, fall like vultures on the supposition that all (or the majority of) mutations are harmful and thus, they claim, life must have been intelligently designed or guided.

However the very fact that we are here today and are not identical to our parents is a very simple refutation of this claim.

Discussion
Creationists declare that all mutations are harmful and that beneficial mutations are at best rare. They further note that all mutations are random. In their favour are examples of mutation such as sickle cell anaemia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and cancer, and cancer syndromes and claim that no examples of beneficial human mutation have ever been described.

It is worth, briefly, describing the major mechanisms of evolution.

Natural selection does not create species but operates on already present variation within a population. It is mutation that is the primary agent that creates the variation though genetic recombination is also a significant factor.

Genes code how to construct proteins and the proteins produced act to carry out a specific function which can confer diversity of cell and/or organism type within a population, species or set of related species. From this it can be seen that mutation (a change in the genetic code) can cause organisms to change in terms of both their function and their form.

Creationists say that mutations can only be harmful but they are wrong. Mutations occur all the time (mainly during meiosis) where not only tiny changes occur but whole multi-protein producing genes sequences can be inserted forcing the rapid creation of new proteins with very different character. Most mutations are not harmful, they are neutral non-coding DNA and harmful changes (the majority outside of neutral ones) are discarded long before birth.

Mutational rate varies from 0.1% to 0.0000001% (Ridley 1993) so the average is approx. 0.0001%. If 1% are beneficial then the chance of them being beneficial is  0.000001% (1 in 100,000,000).  A given beneficial mutation will therefore arise only once per 100,000,000 individuals whilst detrimental or neutral mutation will arise only once per 1,000,000 individuals (Condor, 1998)

So how can such an adverse rate produce adaptations particularly when most of the changes are either harmful or have no effect? According to Condor (1998) the process is not completely random ... there are several mechanisms at work such as mutation, gene recombination, sexual selection, natural selection etc. and secondly selection is cumulative.

Whilst creationists are correct in stating that the vast majority of mutations are in fact harmful they fail to note that natural selection operates AGAINST harmful mutations immediately and discards them. Some however are beneficial and natural selection operates in favour of them and includes them into future generations as the raw material of future evolution.

Without mutation there would be no variability and no evolution.

Conclusion
Creationists, likening established life to a well-running complex biological machine, state that if it is subject to random alterations improvements could not occur and harm will almost certainly be caused to the organism.

However most mutations are not harmful, they are neutral non-coding DNA and those changes that are harmful are discarded long before birth ... as such these "mutational failures" are not evident in the fossil record. But rare mutations will confer advantage and such rare advantages occurring in massively parallel fashion across millions and millions of individuals in millions of millions of species is the force that provides evolution with its basic material.

Evolution discards the flawed mutations and accumulates the beneficial ones due to mechanisms like sex and natural selection.

References
"How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution", Boyce Rensberger (1997)
"Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution", Robyn Conder (1998)
"Biology 111: Evolution", Richard Fox (1998)
"The Evolution of Improved Fitness by random mutation plus selection", Edward E. Max (1999)
"Cell Biology" Ambrose & Easty, 2nd Ed. (1978)

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"most mutations are simply a source of variation, Some are good, some are bad, many are in what is referred to as Junk DNA and as such are irrelevant at that time. Most relevant ones are probably bad but since mutation is NOT the only factor in evolution beneficial mutations tend to get carried forward and non-beneficial do not.

This not the subject of this thread
Actually I agree that mutation can be good (but with very low probability)
My argument that mutation being the/a source of evolution is not proved at all, it is even against statistics

Remember that, I don't deny that Evolution happened (so don't bother to bring facts about changes)
I'm saying that iff it happened then it is intelligent and mutation has nothing to do with it

Can you prove me wrong  

Quote from: "PipeBox"it appears your views do not permit beneficial mutation.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe it is possible

QuoteTo classify something as a beneficial mutation we would need two chronologically-close, proximally close fossils where one of them and only the one clearly led to further descent apart or without the unmutated group.  I cannot easily express how tall of an order that is.  We may have unearthed dozens of beneficially mutated fossils, but we will not know it unless the mutation is something that could not be produced by selective pressure and/or is very subtle without anything to compare it against.

If we find this, it will be a clue about changes, not an evidence of mutation
Actually it has nothing to do/prove about mutation at all

Okay, let's try it this way.  What process gives rise to novel traits?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"most mutations are simply a source of variation, Some are good, some are bad, many are in what is referred to as Junk DNA and as such are irrelevant at that time. Most relevant ones are probably bad but since mutation is NOT the only factor in evolution beneficial mutations tend to get carried forward and non-beneficial do not.

This not the subject of this thread
Actually I agree that mutation can be good (but with very low probability)
My argument that mutation being the/a source of evolution is not proved at all, it is even against statistics

Remember that, I don't deny that Evolution happened (so don't bother to bring facts about changes)
I'm saying that iff it happened then it is intelligent and mutation has nothing to do with it

Can you prove me wrong  

What?  In what way is mutation being beneficial against statistics? How else would new traits in the gene pool develop?

Quote from: "Squid"Okay, let's try it this way.  What process gives rise to novel traits?

Excellent point.  That was what I was trying to express in my description of temperature-sensitive albinism in the other thread but I didn't phrase it this succinctly.  It's a novel trait, neither beneficial nor detrimental, which is caused by a mutation.  It's also something which would never be found in a fossil record due to the subtle nature of the difference.

Please resize that wall-to-wall hanging of a signature to at least resemble a standard banner size.

Quote from: "Squid"Okay, let's try it this way.  What process gives rise to novel traits?

You again talking about changes, You should ask yourself this question!

I know that novel traits are created or developed by God for each species to fit its environment

You suggest that it
1-un-intelligently
2-developed
over time

I don't refute totally 2, but I'm saying that uncontrolled, un-intelligent is impossible
I proved my claim by the non-existence of the un-intelligent fossils,
and non existence of any evidence to support mutation, not even statistics

How to you explain that ?Get back to the main subject!

Quote from: "SSY"What?  In what way is mutation being beneficial against statistics? How else would new traits in the gene pool develop?

That is the problem
You eliminated the option of intelligent developing before the discussion
Then claim that mutation is the only option, this is circular logic (i.e. false)

Then you want even to go further and use this as a refutation of God  

Is anyone else getting bored with this thread?

Quote from: "Messenger"I proved my claim by the non-existence of the un-intelligent fossils,
and non existence of any evidence to support mutation, not even statistics

Proving your claim to you is a far cry from proving it someone like, oh, an evolutionary biologist who has quite literally thousands, if not millions, of reasons why evolution can produce complex lifeforms, whereas you have only one reason why it cannot: you just can't believe it does.

You're missing the point of science: it enters with a question, looks at the evidence, and forms a conclusion. Wash, rinse, repeat. You are going into this with the conclusion, looking at the evidence, and rejecting that which does not mesh with your preconceived concept.

I'm officially done with this nonsense. I'm off to do something more productive, like clean my shower curtain rings.

Quote from: "Messenger"

None, this is a fact of change not evolution
Species change but don't evolve

It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  [/quote]

Is this a argument over terminology?  Change but not evolve?  The definition of evolution can be: evolution - development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer" (according to wordnet.princeton.edu) so change occuring over time is evolution.  

So your statement above "Species change but don't evolve" means.....? what?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Squid"Okay, let's try it this way.  What process gives rise to novel traits?

You again talking about changes, You should ask yourself this question!

I know that novel traits are created or developed by God for each species to fit its environment

You suggest that it
1-un-intelligently
2-developed
over time

I don't refute totally 2, but I'm saying that uncontrolled, un-intelligent is impossible
I proved my claim by the non-existence of the un-intelligent fossils,
and non existence of any evidence to support mutation, not even statistics

How to you explain that ?Get back to the main subject!

Negative Ghostrider.  Attempting to disprove what you think does not work does not support your idea by default - this is fallacious reasoning.  Your idea of "unintelligent fossils" is a bit silly.  I've explained earlier that why what you are asking for does not show up in the fossil record with the exception of pathological instances which I provided.  Here's how it works whether you like it or not:

Mutation provides the raw material for selection - mutation is well known (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297), substantiated (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v40/n12/abs/ng.258.html) and supported empirically (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/4/1667).  I also provided you with evidence showing that most mutations are NOT deleterious but NEUTRAL and not all mutations lead to a change in phenotype (this is a point I think you seem to neglect).  With the different alleles available in a population, natural selection works on the individuals of that population through the interaction of those organisms with their environment - selective pressures.  Also, as I've mentioned before, species and their environments are not static constructs (another point you seem to neglect in your proposal) and therefore what may have been "fit" at one point in time may not be as the environment changes or the population migrates and the like.  Those that are extremely maladapted for life such as the "backwards leg" organism you've referred to repeatedly will most likely not see themselves to be able to reproduce - it must be remember that just because an organism makes it to maturity, it does not insure that it will reproduce.

Just because a mutation appears does not automatically mean it will be harmful for the organism.  Most mutations are selectively neutral and may not even produce a morphological change to create a "backward leg".  However, it being selectively neutral doesn't mean it will stay selectively neutral as time goes on and selective pressures change.  For instance, the precursors to bipedalism have been traced far back into the Miocene apes, however the selection of these otherwise neutral items that lead to bipedalism were not seen until much later when a major shift began to occur in the climate changing the landscape.

Also, another point which would raise questions about an "intelligent" agent controlling such processes - HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses).  You see Messenger, our entire genome is about 8% viral (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=387345).

Now, for your claim, what empirical evidence is there to support an "intelligence" being the culprit rather than mutation and selection?  I'd like to see the studies, the data which support your position.  And no, simply saying that the currently held theories in biology are wrong is not positive evidence of your contentions.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "SSY"What?  In what way is mutation being beneficial against statistics? How else would new traits in the gene pool develop?

That is the problem
You eliminated the option of intelligent developing before the discussion
Then claim that mutation is the only option, this is circular logic (i.e. false)

Then you want even to go further and use this as a refutation of God  

If you wish to put the idea of intelligent design forward as a hypothesis, then you must support it with evidence. You have none of this evidence. Mutation is supported by lots of evidence.

I think mutation makes novel traits becuase the mechanism is well described in the theory, and it is backed up by countless examples. I disgard the notion of god doing it becuase there is o proposed mechanism and there is no evidence as to it ever happening.

I also did nto use this to refute god, you have a vivid imagination.

Furthermore, you did not back up your claim about statistics going against beneficial mutation. I would be interested to hear how you arrived at this conclusion

Quote from: "SSY"If you wish to put the idea of intelligent design forward as a hypothesis, then you must support it with evidence. You have none of this evidence. Mutation is supported by lots of evidence.

I did not, this is the only logical option

QuoteI think mutation makes novel traits becuase the mechanism is well described in the theory, and it is backed up by countless examples. I disgard the notion of god doing it becuase there is o proposed mechanism and there is no evidence as to it ever happening.

Irrelevant, as if God exists, we have no way to know how he acts!

QuoteFurthermore, you did not back up your claim about statistics going against beneficial mutation. I would be interested to hear how you arrived at this conclusion

Even Evolutionists agree on this
Constructive mutations is way less than destructive ones

Quote from: "Squid"Those that are extremely maladapted for life such as the "backwards leg" organism you've referred to repeatedly will most likely not see themselves to be able to reproduce - it must be remember that just because an organism makes it to maturity, it does not insure that it will reproduce.

This is statement has a lot of problems
-By saying it will not reproduce, you agree that it happened; Where are the fossils?
I'm asking for one fossil record out of billions with one leg facing upwards, and the other is not a leg at all  
-There is no relation between reproduction and leg mutations, it should survive for many generations, before Nature kill them (I mean unselect)
-By agreeing on the concept, then you must bring many bizarre mutation records for every species on the face of the earth
-You are imagining intelligent developing by an un intelligent cause, this is the clear contradiction in the theory

QuoteNow, for your claim, what empirical evidence is there to support an "intelligence" being the culprit rather than mutation and selection?

Selecting: yes but mutation: NO
Logic proves that it is intelligent

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"most mutations are simply a source of variation, Some are good, some are bad, many are in what is referred to as Junk DNA and as such are irrelevant at that time. Most relevant ones are probably bad but since mutation is NOT the only factor in evolution beneficial mutations tend to get carried forward and non-beneficial do not.

This not the subject of this thread

Then why did you mention it in the first place?

Quote from: "Messenger"Actually I agree that mutation can be good (but with very low probability)

No evolutionist would disagree.

Quote from: "Messenger"My argument that mutation being the/a source of evolution is not proved at all, it is even against statistics

As previously stated, mutation isn't the only source of variation.

Quote from: "Messenger"Remember that, I don't deny that Evolution happened (so don't bother to bring facts about changes)
I'm saying that iff it happened then it is intelligent and mutation has nothing to do with it

And now you're back in fairy gah gah land ... there is no validatable evidence at all to support intelligent designer or the existence of an intelligent designer. It is no more or less than a religious POV.

Quote from: "Messenger"Can you prove me wrong

No (it being rather difficult to test for the existence of a designer that won't come out & play or even leave a few analysable clues to its supposed existence) but I don't need to because it is YOU that is advancing the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM so it is YOU that must prove it!

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"This is statement has a lot of problems
-By saying it will not reproduce, you agree that it happened; Where are the fossils?
I'm asking for one fossil record out of billions with one leg facing upwards, and the other is not a leg at all  
-There is no relation between reproduction and leg mutations, it should survive for many generations, before Nature kill them (I mean unselect)
-By agreeing on the concept, then you must bring many bizarre mutation records for every species on the face of the earth
-You are imagining intelligent developing by an un intelligent cause, this is the clear contradiction in the theory

You really are a moron with absolutely no idea how to debate aren't you? You've ALREADY had answers to this in the other thread where you asked the same tripe, not least of all from me:

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process. In addition you also ignore that all species except first life and end-branch species are transitional ... but then if you'd bothered to read my first response to you in this thread you'd already know that but you're not, since you're not interested in answering you're challengers just spewing your crap across these forums!

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteNow, for your claim, what empirical evidence is there to support an "intelligence" being the culprit rather than mutation and selection?

Selecting: yes but mutation: NO
Logic proves that it is intelligent

No, it doesn't ... you HAVE NOT proven the existence of an intelligent designer, you HAVE NOT supplied a single piece of validatable evidence ... please do so.

Kyu

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Messenger"None, this is a fact of change not evolution
Species change but don't evolve

It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  :brick:

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Messenger"None, this is a fact of change not evolution
Species change but don't evolve

It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  :brick:

Kyu

Don't anyone wonder why I won't waste time with him. I banned him once for this blather, and will do so again without a second thought if this keeps up. I give you guys credit for trying initially, but I have to tell you, I saw this from the beginning and knew it would go nowhere. In every thread in which he participates, he shows an ocean of ignorance in all the necessary subjects germane to the discussions.

The only reason he is still here is because of his somewhat compliance with forum rules.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Squid"Those that are extremely maladapted for life such as the "backwards leg" organism you've referred to repeatedly will most likely not see themselves to be able to reproduce - it must be remember that just because an organism makes it to maturity, it does not insure that it will reproduce.

This is statement has a lot of problems
-By saying it will not reproduce, you agree that it happened; Where are the fossils?
I'm asking for one fossil record out of billions with one leg facing upwards, and the other is not a leg at all  
-There is no relation between reproduction and leg mutations, it should survive for many generations, before Nature kill them (I mean unselect)

You have an incorrect idea of how natural selection operates -  there is no "unselection".  Selection is a process - a consequence of the interaction of an organism with its environment.  As for your fossils, I gave you several examples of pathological specimens.  Because of the nature of what you're exactly wanting - you know it's ridiculous, if you do not understand why then you obviously must reexamine you presumptions.  Such extreme morphological changes are not conducive to survival to even maturity let alone survival to reproduce.  If you are correct, why don't we see more people walking around with Holt-Oram Syndrome - the result of a mutation of the TBX5 gene on chromosome 12 (Basson, Cowley, Solomon, Weissman, Poznanski, Traill et al., 1994; Tseng, Su, Lu, Jeng, Hsieh, Chen, 2007).

Source - Basson, C., Cowley, G., Solomon, S., Weissman, B., Poznanski, A., Traill, T. et al. (1994). The Clinical and Genetic Spectrum of the Holt-Oram Syndrome (Heart-Hand Syndrome). New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 885-891.

Tseng, Y., Su, Y., Lu, F., Jeng, S., Hsieh, W., Chen, C. et al. (2007). Holt-Oram syndrome with right lung agenesis caused by a de novo mutation in the TBX5 gene.  Amercian Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 143A, 1012-1014.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefetus.net%2Fimages%2Farticle-images%2FSyndromes%2FHOS_Quiroga%2F7.jpg&hash=962fd00dcb64c359a670a18f3807927d3d5cce3b)

Because, such drastic changes are most likely going to shorten the lifespan of that organism - it may not be able to survive to even close to maturity.  In a population where one must compete for resources a small mammal with a "backward leg" isn't going to survive very long if even past being a newborn.  You assume that an organism with such a drastic and obviously detrimental mutation will survive to even developmental maturity.  Like I've tried to make you understand in the past, most mutations are neutral and there is no guarantee that a mutation will lead to a morphological change especially one as drastic as you want.  There is also a particular set of genes and associated genes that control or contribute to an organisms body plan - homeobox genes.

It seems your going off of misunderstanding of selection and mutations, a predetermined yet unsubstantiated claim (you have yet to provide empricial evidence - all you have done is claim "logic" supports the notion when your argument is primarily negative and a inaccurate one at that), and either refuse to or cannot understand the previous evidence given to you.  I cannot make you understand nor can I make you correct your incorrect ideas about mutation and selection no matter how much I post.  If you refuse to address directly all the previous evidence given to you then I'll others deal with you as this, in my opinion, is getting nowhere and attempting to educate you is a waste of my time.

If you believe there's an intelligent agent involved, fine, whatever helps you sleep at night, I really don't care.  I simply refuse to reject empirically validated scientific constructs based upon your silly idea of what you think a logical argument is.

Quote from: "Squid"You have an incorrect idea of how natural selection operates -  there is no "unselection".  Selection is a process - a consequence of the interaction of an organism with its environment.  As for your fossils, I gave you several examples of pathological specimens.  

I have no problem with that!

QuoteBecause of the nature of what you're exactly wanting - you know it's ridiculous

Actually it is ridiculous not to expect ridiculous  :eek:

QuoteBecause, such drastic changes are most likely going to shorten the lifespan of that organism - it may not be able to survive to even close to maturity.  In a population where one must compete for resources a small mammal with a "backward leg" isn't going to survive very long if even past being a newborn.  You assume that an organism with such a drastic and obviously detrimental mutation will survive to even developmental maturity.

You don't get it at all!
First, it seems that you believe that they existed but did not survive
Second, if you assume that, how do you expect transitional creatures (which you claim that they exist for sure) to survive

I'll give you an example
You claim that some Dinosaurs evolved into birds
We have
A-A Dinosaur that fits its environment
Z-A Bird that fits its environment

Between them (You claim) that we have B, C, D, .... (Transitional forms)
for example C was selected over B but was unfavored Vs. D
So C lived (enough to evolve and to be fossilized)

Till now I don't have a problem

But the claim that C came unintelligent, means that there was $,@,^,& (Which include my earlier example)
They should have lived periods similar to C (less and more as it is uncontrolled)
not only that, some of them must have evolved into more ridiculous things like C#@
As the unintelligent options must be much more, taking into considerations that transitional forms are in Billions (As Claimed)

What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

An unintelligent Evolution is too ridiculous to be even discussed

Quote from: "Messenger"What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

You say that if evolution is true, the fossil record should form a tree of species, with some branches that end at some point in the past?

But, then that is exactly what we do find in the fossil record.

Quote from: "Messenger"An unintelligent Evolution is too ridiculous to be even discussed

An intelligent Messenger is too ridiculous to be discussed!

Bored now!

Kyu

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

You say that if evolution is true, the fossil record should form a tree of species, with some branches that end at some point in the past?

But, then that is exactly what we do find in the fossil record.

This not what I mean
The existing tree (iff it is really) is forming a sequence for development

For Evolution to be unintelligent, is should includes all weir things that does not develop into something beneficial
You claim that this happened over Billions of years and Billions of Mutations, where is that?

It is a bit complicated to see the difference, Fossil records are showing a very intelligent development or no development at all but not an uncontrolled one

I'm still looking for my animal with one leg facing upwards and the other ends with a football shaped hand  :lol:

Quote from: "Messenger"For Evolution to be unintelligent, is should includes all weir things that does not develop into something beneficial

You are the one to claim that these should be a majority, which is not what evolution claims.
Natural selection prevents unfit mutations to develop. Add to this the extremely small percentage of a population that actually gets fossilized,
then it is no wonder that such individuals are absent in the fossil record.

Quote from: "Messenger"It is a bit complicated to see the difference, Fossil records are showing a very intelligent development or no development at all but not an uncontrolled one

But evolution is controlled, by natural selection.

Quote from: "Messenger"I'm still looking for my animal with one leg facing upwards and the other ends with a football shaped hand  :lol:

As I pointed out before : we can see such unfit individuals alive today.

Quote from: "bowmore"which is not what evolution claims.

Do you mean that for each transitional stage
The number of fit mutation is greater than the number of unfit ones?

QuoteBut evolution is controlled, by natural selection.

sorry, I mean mutation or changes
Natural selection does not control the changes itself, but controls its population over the years

QuoteWe can see such unfit individuals alive today.

Squid, borough very few examples, where are the rest?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"which is not what evolution claims.

Do you mean that for each transitional stage
The number of fit mutation is greater than the number of unfit ones?

Nope.
Note that most mutations are neutral. The number of unmutated, neutral and beneficial combined is larger than the detrimental.
I mean that individuals with detrimental mutations are a low percentage of a total population as they are simply being outbred. Note also that the largest part of the DNA gets copied without mutations.
An individual with one leg growing in the wrong direction, is likely to get eaten (can't run away as fast) before being able to produce offspring. For this one individual with the detrimental mutation there are many more in it's generation without detrimental mutations, that do produce offspring.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteBut evolution is controlled, by natural selection.

sorry, I mean mutation or changes
Natural selection does not control the changes itself, but controls its population over the years

So you do realize that you must take natural selection into account if you are to make predictions about populations, based on data of mutations?

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteWe can see such unfit individuals alive today.

Squid, borough very few examples, where are the rest?

You're the one claiming they should form a majority.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"which is not what evolution claims.

Do you mean that for each transitional stage
The number of fit mutation is greater than the number of unfit ones?

Nope.

Then you agree that they should be more

QuoteI mean that individuals with detrimental mutations are a low percentage of a total population as they are simply being outbred.

This is true if we look to the whole populations, but for each stage the ridiculous ones must be more

An individual with one leg growing in the wrong direction, is likely to get eaten (can't run away as fast) before being able to produce offspring.[/quote]Wrong, because you only think about the final stage of development
You must think only about transitions
If an animal with a leg in its first stage survived
Another animal with my example in its first stages, must have survived too

Quote from: "Messenger"An individual with one leg growing in the wrong direction, is likely to get eaten (can't run away as fast) before being able to produce offspring.

Wrong, because you only think about the final stage of development
You must think only about transitions
If an animal with a leg in its first stage survived
Another animal with my example in its first stages, must have survived too[/quote]

You really have no idea how evolution works do you? In order to have a limb evolve in the wrong direction it would take millions of years (hundreds of thousands of generations) of unfavourable selection ... IOW a near impossibility. And in essence that is your problem ... you don't discuss the theory of evolution, you don't talk about the theory of evolution, you don't criticise the theory of evolution, you do these things entirely based on the creationist cartoon caricature theory of evolution.

Again risking moderator wrath I'll say it plain ... you're an idiot, go and learn some science.

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"Then you agree that they should be more

No. Again : read my post.

Quote from: "Messenger"This is true if we look to the whole populations, but for each stage the ridiculous ones must be more

No. For the reason I stated in my previous post.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"An individual with one leg growing in the wrong direction, is likely to get eaten (can't run away as fast) before being able to produce offspring.

Wrong, because you only think about the final stage of development
You must think only about transitions
If an animal with a leg in its first stage survived
Another animal with my example in its first stages, must have survived too

Only if the mutation proved to be not detrimental in earlier stages, or natural selection would have weeded them out.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Squid"You have an incorrect idea of how natural selection operates -  there is no "unselection".  Selection is a process - a consequence of the interaction of an organism with its environment.  As for your fossils, I gave you several examples of pathological specimens.  

I have no problem with that!

QuoteBecause of the nature of what you're exactly wanting - you know it's ridiculous

Actually it is ridiculous not to expect ridiculous  :eek:

QuoteBecause, such drastic changes are most likely going to shorten the lifespan of that organism - it may not be able to survive to even close to maturity.  In a population where one must compete for resources a small mammal with a "backward leg" isn't going to survive very long if even past being a newborn.  You assume that an organism with such a drastic and obviously detrimental mutation will survive to even developmental maturity.

You don't get it at all!
First, it seems that you believe that they existed but did not survive
Second, if you assume that, how do you expect transitional creatures (which you claim that they exist for sure) to survive

I'll give you an example
You claim that some Dinosaurs evolved into birds
We have
A-A Dinosaur that fits its environment
Z-A Bird that fits its environment

Between them (You claim) that we have B, C, D, .... (Transitional forms)
for example C was selected over B but was unfavored Vs. D
So C lived (enough to evolve and to be fossilized)

Till now I don't have a problem

But the claim that C came unintelligent, means that there was $,@,^,& (Which include my earlier example)
They should have lived periods similar to C (less and more as it is uncontrolled)
not only that, some of them must have evolved into more ridiculous things like C#@
As the unintelligent options must be much more, taking into considerations that transitional forms are in Billions (As Claimed)

What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

An unintelligent Evolution is too ridiculous to be even discussed

No, your claim is ridiculous, I've explained to you why.  I cannot make it anymore simple.  And, no, there is NO logic behind your conclusion.  No matter how many times you repeat yourself.  I'm done with your game.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages46.fotki.com%2Fv1413%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6623378%2Fheathens-vi.jpg&hash=c804d7009e62ee62498aa7ef378979f08713c9fe)

Quote from: "Messenger"You don't get it at all!
First, it seems that you believe that they existed but did not survive
Second, if you assume that, how do you expect transitional creatures (which you claim that they exist for sure) to survive

I'll give you an example
You claim that some Dinosaurs evolved into birds
We have
A-A Dinosaur that fits its environment
Z-A Bird that fits its environment

Between them (You claim) that we have B, C, D, .... (Transitional forms)
for example C was selected over B but was unfavored Vs. D
So C lived (enough to evolve and to be fossilized)

Till now I don't have a problem

But the claim that C came unintelligent, means that there was $,@,^,& (Which include my earlier example)
They should have lived periods similar to C (less and more as it is uncontrolled)
not only that, some of them must have evolved into more ridiculous things like C#@
As the unintelligent options must be much more, taking into considerations that transitional forms are in Billions (As Claimed)

What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

An unintelligent Evolution is too ridiculous to be even discussed

Oh, you're talking about transitional forms!  The forms between dinosaur and bird or between land mammal and sea mammal or the forms between fish and amphibian.

Transitional forms are not unfit.  They are steps along the way.  A transitional form is a little more fit than its predecessor.  So you're wondering where the things like whales with legs are.  They are in the fossil record.  They weren't unfit, they were marvelously fit, the next step along the ladder was just even more fit and took over their niche.

If you think of mammals as highly evolved, having gone through many complex changes from life's origin, this should be easy to explain.  If you keep a sessile invertebrate, such as a coral, as a pet, it's really delicate.  It needs very strict environmental parameters to live, temperature variations, unstable PH, toxins, variation in specific gravity - all can lead to death.  It dies very easily from even the slightest change.  

Then we come to invertebrates such as snails, clams, and other mollusks.  They can handle more changeable environments than corals, slight variations in temperature, specific gravity, PH and chemical makeup of the water or the presence of some toxins will not kill them.

Then we come to vertebrates such as your pet puffer fish.  They can handle pretty wide swings of PH, temperatures as low as 62 degrees for short periods, a higher degree of environmental toxins, unstable chemical makeup of water, and they can handle water with a specific gravity between 1.009 and 1.32 with little harm.

Now we've got a pet toad.  He can handle temperatures from freezing to over 100 degrees.  He can flop around on dry land.  He's is even sturdier than a puffer fish.  He can eat all sorts of critters but mostly insects.

Now we have a pet bird, it can handle even more environmental stresses and it can eat insects and plant material, too.

Toughest of all we have a pet rat, a mammal.  He can handle temperatures below freezing, he can eat almost anything, environmental toxins need to be horrible to prevent his survival and reproduction, and he is tough as hell.

We could argue that each of these creatures is more able to survive hostile conditions than the previous creature but absolutely none of them are unfit.  They each have their ecological niche (though we are rapidly destroying corals environmental niches) and their place.

A 'less evolved' creature between a dinosaur and a bird would not be unfit in any way, he'd either be just as fit as a dinosaur or a little more fit than a dinosaur.  If you have warm blooded dinosaurs in between reptiles and birds yet without feathers, they are more more versatile than cold-blooded dinosaurs.  If you have dinosaurs walking around with feathers but not flying, how does that make them unfit?  It doesn't, it would hold in their possibly primitive endothermic body heat to let them remain active in cooler temperatures and to survive colder temperatures.  And everything from possibly non-flight birds through flight birds would be equally or more fit than its predecessor.

And the lesson today, kids, is to look higher on the evolutionary ladder when buying pets, puppies are sturdier than goldfish.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"And the lesson today, kids, is to look higher on the evolutionary ladder when buying pets, puppies are sturdier than goldfish.

Ah, but goldfish are sturdier (more fit) than puppies in 2 feet of water  

Kyu

Quote

Quote

QuoteBut the claim that C came unintelligent, means that there was $,@,^,& (Which include my earlier example)
They should have lived periods similar to C (less and more as it is uncontrolled)
not only that, some of them must have evolved into more ridiculous things like C#@
As the unintelligent options must be much more, taking into considerations that transitional forms are in Billions (As Claimed)

I think this is where your understanding breaks down.

You seem to think the population of C creaures will produce lots of offspring, correct
Some will have disadvantages mutations, good so far!
the unfit offspring will reproduce and form their own populations, oh dear .

These unfit individuals will not live the same amount as the unmutated ( or neutrally mutated ) C creatures, they will die young or fail to pass their genes in some other way. So any of these creatures will die out and not form their own populations. The normal C type creatures will keep on living after the unfit ones have died and produce more C babies for many generations. In one of those generations, there will be a mutation that is helpful, after enough generations anyway. This mutation wil spread throughout the genepool until they all have it, and there are no c type creatures left. We now call the species D type creatures, and the cycle will repeat.

I'm glad kylyssa finaly seems to have figured out where you lost it, all credit to her.

Quote from: "SSY"You seem to think the population of C creaures will produce lots of offspring, correct
Some will have disadvantages mutations, good so far!
the unfit offspring will reproduce and form their own populations, oh dear .

These unfit individuals will not live the same amount as the unmutated ( or neutrally mutated ) C creatures, they will die young or fail to pass their genes in some other way. So any of these creatures will die out and not form their own populations. The normal C type creatures will keep on living after the unfit ones have died and produce more C babies for many generations.

You are contradicting yourself
uncontrolled mutation means any thing, you only assume it is very good or very bad
Yes, some will die before breeding, but many will survive

Unintelligent means anything (under physical restrictions only) can happen

You know this really isn't rocket science.

Assume a population of, say, beetles and let's take the characteristic of speed.

In every generation some are born faster than their parents and some are born slower ... the population expands until such time as it starts to outgrow its food supply. This is where one type of selection (fitness to a given environment ) starts to kick in:

* Genetic characteristics can be inherited.
* Beetles have offspring and ecah generation some are faster than their parents, some are slower.
* Faster beetles (with better genetic characteristics) get to the food (whatever that is) quicker, slower ones do not.
* Beetles that get to the food quicker are better fed, healthier, tend to attract fitter mates or whatever and their offspring (faster and slower) tend to be more similar to them so faster than the older ones. They also (being healthier) have more offspring.
* Over a period of time the faster ones become the predominant population and the slower ones die out.
* At some point the observers of a species (scientists) decide that one type of beetle os one species and another is not yet both are from the same original stock.

As I said earlier or another thread small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus small change eventually equals big change (as in any such situation) and if it does not there must be a mechanism to stop it being so ... YOU as a creationist cannot adequately answer that question, "evolutionists" have the answer completely and utterly sussed.

So go and learn some science because you're an idiot and you're not impressing anyone here at all.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"You know this really isn't rocket science.

Assume a population of, say, beetles and let's take the characteristic of speed.

Wrong example, as speed does not have many variations as I asked
It is either slow or fast
But mutation can be anything
Till now you have failed to explain why we don't see an animal with one leg facing upwards and the other ends with a ball  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"You know this really isn't rocket science.

Assume a population of, say, beetles and let's take the characteristic of speed.

Wrong example, as speed does not have many variations as I asked
It is either slow or fast
But mutation can be anything
Till now you have failed to explain why we don't see an animal with one leg facing upwards and the other ends with a ball  

No you idiot ..., it is either faster or slower and then to a variable degree.

Plonker.

Kyu

As frustrating as it can be, let's try to place nice and attack the claims and not the person.  Thanks everyone.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "SSY"You seem to think the population of C creaures will produce lots of offspring, correct
Some will have disadvantages mutations, good so far!
the unfit offspring will reproduce and form their own populations, oh dear .

These unfit individuals will not live the same amount as the unmutated ( or neutrally mutated ) C creatures, they will die young or fail to pass their genes in some other way. So any of these creatures will die out and not form their own populations. The normal C type creatures will keep on living after the unfit ones have died and produce more C babies for many generations.

You are contradicting yourself
uncontrolled mutation means any thing, you only assume it is very good or very bad
Yes, some will die before breeding, but many will survive

Unintelligent means anything (under physical restrictions only) can happen

Where do I contradict myself?

Yes, there may be the odd C creature with a disadvantage mutation that mates and passes on its genes, but the chances of that are small, 1 in a 100 lets say, the kids of that malformed C creature will also only have a 1 in a 100 chance of mating, lets say. You can see that not many of these malformed individuals will be produced or mate. For example, out of ALL the T-Rexes ever alive, we have approx 30 fossalised specimens. What are the odds of one of these specimens being one with a disadvantageous genetic mutation? Not a lot.

Quote from: "SSY"Where do I contradict myself?.

By assuming that mutation can be too bad or too good only.

QuoteYes, there may be the odd C creature with a disadvantage mutation that mates and passes on its genes, but the chances of that are small, 1 in a 100 lets say, the kids of that malformed C creature will also only have a 1 in a 100 chance of mating, lets say. You can see that not many of these malformed individuals will be produced or mate. For example, out of ALL the T-Rexes ever alive, we have approx 30 fossalised specimens. What are the odds of one of these specimens being one with a disadvantageous genetic mutation? Not a lot

From where did you get that probability will be small?
If you assume uncontrolled mutations, every thing will be possible

Messenger. Answer these questions. What are your academic credentials and/or education concerning biology? Next, same question with regard to genetics? Because every person here who actually has an education in these topics has shown you much more tolerance than is necessary regarding your babble. So, answer the questions. Do not evade or obfuscate.

One mo' time!

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/

Can you buy academic credentials from drive-thru's in Las Vegas?

[quote="MessengerBy assuming that mutation can be too bad or too good only.
[/quote]
I did specifically mention that things can be mutated neutrally actually. these mutations are much less likley to show in the fossil record, as tiny changes in junk DNA will not be preserved.

QuoteFrom where did you get that probability will be small?
If you assume uncontrolled mutations, every thing will be possible

1) Becuase an animal with one leg turned backwards won't be able to run, catch food or mate as well as animal with normal legs. For a logician you have a talent for missing the obvious.

2) Yes, anything is possible, but what is probable is a wholly different matter. If you take that view, there is a chance, no matter how tiny, that all the genes in a chicken egg could mutate, and it would give birth to a monkey. Chances of this happening? Low, hence, we don't see monkeys from chicken eggs.

I'm afraid to announce that this thread is too long; I didn't read it.
To my knowledge, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of present-day animal species. Whether or not this explanation is correct has no relevance to the question of the existence of God.

QuoteIf Evolution happened then it is an intelligent evolution (Excluding human due to religious beliefs)
i.e. The part about change due to mutation (or any other unintelligent cause) is definitely wrong

Think Butterflies.