does evolution exsist

[Billy T]

These birds are not proof of evolution; they just don't rule out the possibility of evolution- just like they don't rule out the possibility of intelligent design. ...

Of course they are not PROOF of evolution. Proof is possible only within the realm of mathematics.

ID, Intelligent Design, is ruled out by many physiological facts. For one (of many) examples, the design of the human retina.* It supports SD, Stupid Design, not ID, if creatures were designed.

I.e. the light sensitive cells are the last layer the light comes to. Before light can get there it must pass thru the network of nerves that bring the firing pulses of each photo-detection cell to the eye's "blind spot" - that location where these individual nerves merge to form the optical nerve and exit the eye.

Even worse the light must also pass thru all the net of blood vessels that bring oxygen to the photo sensitive cells.

Intelligent Design would have the photo sensitive cells be the first layer of the retina the light comes to, as it is in the octopus, and these supporting structures be the last layer at back of the retina.

Perhaps the IDer was still learning his trade when designing man and corrected his stupidity by time he got around to designing the octopus?

-----------
Thoracic outlet syndrome, a medical problem, is also caused by stupid design. Both the nerves and blood vessels that are going to your arm first go up and over the collar bone instead of more directly. Read about it here:
http://www.nationalpainfoundation.org/articles/422/overview
Here is a brief compressed quote:
"... The main artery and vein and the entire nerve supply to the arm are located in this space - just above your collar bone and outside of your front neck muscle. ... Thoracic outlet syndrome can refer to symptoms caused by compression of the artery, the vein, or the nerves to the arm. All types of TOS are caused by bony or non-bony structures pushing against the vein, artery, or nerves, interfering with their normal function. ..."

Note this is from a publication by the National Pain Foundation as if the nerves are pinched due to this SD over the collar bone instead of under it, the pain appears to be coming from your arm.

Both these flaws are related to evolutionary history. For example the retina is actually brain tissue that migrated to the evolving eye in the first few months of fetal development. The "wrong path" (over instead of under) the collar bone was the shorter, correct path in ancient ancestors. Unfortunately, micro evolution is a sequence of very minor changes and cannot produce any "jumps" such as from one side of the collar bone to the other. So humans (and many other creatures) are still stuck with this old bad design.**

There are many other proofs that the ID did not create modern life, but I admit some SD may have created man, although there is no evidence for that. If man was created, it was by the SD, not the ID. - That man evolved is more likely as there is huge body of evidence supporting evolution as fact.

* Other than this "discrete structural stupidity", which micro-evolution cannot change, the eye is an almost perfect optical instrument. For example, the size, number and density of photo cells in the fovea are perfectly matched to the physical optics resolution limit of the wide open iris, but these are things that can evolve to be optimal by infinitesimally tiny steps over millions of years, it need be. Flipping front to back sides of the retina can not be achieved in the infinitesimally tiny steps of micro-evolution so humans are stuck with SD.

**The giraffe has a very bad “design.” Most of the nerves, even from the top of his neck, first make their way down to pass under its “collar bone” and them go back up that long neck to the brain!!!! What a stupid a design. – Well not really, as giraffes were not “designed” - they evolved from shorter neck creatures, which had these nerves going under the bone that would evolve into the collar bone.

 

[spidergoat]

why? so you can say "the earth was folded over to cause the misplacement"?
analysis: fail

That's a possibility, but one that could be discounted by further analysis. All your arguments so far are one big fail.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

.....therefor this comment falls under HR's new proposed ban rule. HR?

Yet more evidence that you lack the language comprehension skills needed to understand what you read.

It’s not my proposed ban rule and I never said it was my rule. Go back and re-read what I said, but this time pretend you are a 5-year-old and read it like they do in elementary school.

Read ..... it .... aloud .... to .... yourself .... very .... slowly.

This is clearly the level you need to operate at.

 

[chimpkin]

Dawkins and I both suffer from sinus problems. The sinuses are mainly there to provide armor...if they were solid bone they'd make our heads inconveniently heavy...

But-their drainage is designed in a truly horrid manner-and if they get an infection? the infection can cause them to swell shut, creating an abcess surrounded by bone.

And knees.
Leopold, are you old enough to have knee problems yet? Knees are terrible.

Basically, evolution doesn't go for "best," it goes for "better than," or "good enough," and leaves it at that. If things can reproduce better than like things, they get selected for. Nothing very dramatic.

Look-Dawkins's book, "The greatest show on Earth," is a really good read. You should pick it up.

 

[leopold]

Look-Dawkins's book, "The greatest show on Earth," is a really good read. You should pick it up.

or dawkins and piltdown man.

 

[spidergoat]

or dawkins and piltdown man.

Just admit you don't even want to know about evolution.

 

[Billy T]

Dawkins and I both suffer from sinus problems. The sinuses are mainly there to provide armor...if they were solid bone they'd make our heads inconveniently heavy... But-their drainage is designed in a truly horrid manner-and if they get an infection? the infection can cause them to swell shut, creating an abcess surrounded by bone.

And knees. Leopold, are you old enough to have knee problems yet? Knees are terrible. Basically, evolution doesn't go for "best," it goes for "better than," ...

For two more examples of SD, Stupid Design, see post 241.

Note there I explain why some stupid design layouts have not evolved away. - They are dumb discrete structures that can not be changed by even a million mico-evolution steps.

One example being the fact that blood vessels and nerves still pass over the collar bone instead of under it. The other is that the retina is "built backwards" - light sensitive cells are behind both the web of blood vessels and neural collection network.

Let me add example 5 of SD - Humans evolved from creatures that walked on all four limbs. Thus conversion to a standing posture has left many with lower back pain and sciatica .

SUMMARY: There is no IDer. There could have been an SDer but there is no evidence for an SDer; however, judging by some of the posts here I can understand why they assume the SDer exists and worship that SD.

 

[matthew809]

By this logic, does this mean that the twin towers were built by random mutations? Is our banking system an act of evolution as well?

Imperfect design is not evidence against intelligent design. "Intelligent" simply refers to a deliberate act of consciousness.

 

[Billy T]

By this logic, does this mean that the twin towers were built by random mutations?

No. what logic has been posted that might even vaguely suggest that?

Is our banking system an act of evolution as well?...

Yes, to a large extent the banking system has "evolved" by human trial and error. Gold has always been a store of wealth, but dangerous to your health as many were robbed for it. Then a few wealthy men, often Jews built strong safes and for a fee would safely story your gold in them. (They gave you a signed paper stating that X amount of gold in their safe belonged to you.)

When you bought some expensive thing you often did not collect your gold - dangerous -so just signed the paper over to the seller and it became his gold.

Eventually, some clever owner of the storage vault realized he could safely use some of the gold for his own expenses as it was very unlikely all would come at the same time asking for their gold. - I.e. they did not call it that but "fractional banking" had evolved. Later governments realized they could print paper that was money, back by gold and soon were also printing paper money more than they had gold.

Read a book on the history of the evolution of money. There are any fascinating cases. - On a South Seas coral island a few centuries ago, neither stones nor money existed, then one day a sailing ship came, loaded up with pretty wood, etc. and left its ballast rocks behind. They became that island's money. A pretty girl for a wife might cost three big stones, etc. The stones always stayed in one central location, but everyone knew who "owned" each stone. Etc. for many other interesting points in the evolution of money. The Bible is also full of stories about "money” - often X years of labor was traded for a wife or a field etc.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

DNA evidence proves that all life code is written in the same language, and that there are many similarities between species. There definitely is a connection between a fish and a human, but this connection is one of common design, not common ancestry.

that would be a reasonable hypothesis if design was apparent instead of the rather haphazard co-opting and adaptation of existing structures to produce new function which we actually observe - but hey - I'll give you a crack at it.

name 7 structures that have no evolutionary precursors

 

[matthew809]

I think we can all agree that what we perceive(of our largely ignorant, severely limited perception) to be a less-than-perfect design of our biology is not strong evidence for evolution- but perhaps necessary of it.

If evolution is expected to create faulty designs by it's very nature, then how do you suppose the DNA language(another chance invention of evolution) is so perfect? And how does the language of DNA naturally evolve at the same time as it's applications are being created?

 

[leopold]

let's do the tango fellas

The absence of transitional forms be- tween established species has tradition- ally been explained as a fault of an im- perfect record, an argument first advanced by Charles Darwin. The accumulation of sediments and the entrapment and fossilization of animal bones is, at best, a capricious process: as a result, geologists are familiar with the difficulties of reconstructing past events. According to the traditional position, therefore, if sedimentation and fossilization did indeed encapsulate a complete record of prehistory, then it would reveal the postulated transitional organisms. But it isn't and it doesn't.

"Certainly the record is poor," admitted Gould, "but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change." To the evident frustration of many people at the meeting, a large proportion of the contributions were characterized more by description and assertion than by the presentation of data.

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from 884 what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

-Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887
how about that HR? are you going to still profess the conference did not say small changes do not accumulate?
are we being intellectually dishonest?
remember, you posted the quote 3 TIMES without including the above quote.

 

[matthew809]

that would be a reasonable hypothesis if design was apparent instead of the rather haphazard co-opting and adaptation of existing structures to produce new function which we actually observe - but hey - I'll give you a crack at it.

name 7 structures that have no evolutionary precursors

I'm sure it will be a waste of my time, since we both have opposing perceptions of the same idea.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

let's do the tango fellas

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from 884 what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

-Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887
how about that HR? are you going to still profess the conference did not say small changes do not accumulate?
are we being intellectually dishonest?
remember, you posted the quote 3 TIMES without including the above quote.

yawn! quote mining again - remember its a form a lying leo.

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200th anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:
Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I'm sure it will be a waste of my time, since we both have opposing perceptions of the same idea.

not at all - any structure that has no evolutionary precursor - or one that is irreducibly complex would provide a strong case for design - if design is the correct paradigm we should be knee deep in examples - I'm only asking for 7 - so go ahead and wow me

I think we can all agree that what we perceive(of our largely ignorant, severely limited perception) to be a less-than-perfect design of our biology is not strong evidence for evolution- but perhaps necessary of it.

lack of design is not evidence for evolution - its evidence against design - simple as that - the reason why sane people use the argument against design when in discussion with religious extremists is that THEY are the ones using the design argument in the first instance - for sure it's a negative argument, but what else have the Jihaddis got to bring to the party?

If evolution is expected to create faulty designs by it's very nature, then how do you suppose the DNA language(another chance invention of evolution) is so perfect? And how does the language of DNA naturally evolve at the same time as it's applications are being created?

what makes you think that DNA is perfect? the replication process almost has copying errors hard-coded into the process

you are basing your beleifs on a set of faulty assumptions from the outset - no wonder you come to an erroneous conclusion

 

[leopold]

yawn! quote mining again - remember its a form a lying leo.



http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm

show where the retraction was posted in "science".
until then i submit the post i made from "science" stands.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

show where the retraction was posted in "science".
until then i submit the post i made from "science" stands.

oops! I nearly fell for your request for troll food just then - I posted a link to a full version of the original article (from the same journal) that Dr Ayala presented at the 1980 conference which contradicts the quote - but then I realised - we are getting ahead of ourselves.

you are still required to do the following before we can move ahead in a spirit of honesty:

post in a very precise manner, in detail, giving hypothetical examples; what criteria must be met for your special secret definition of macroevolution to be fulfilled.
In addition provide a fully argued case as to why you feel you should be granted a special case for the the correct definition of macroevolution not to apply to you

 

[leopold]

that's the same paper you posted earlier.
post the issue of science where the retraction is made.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

that's the same paper you posted earlier.
post the issue of science where the retraction is made.

nope - the paper I posted earlier was a pdf of the original Lewin paper of 1980.

you have some hoops to jump through first before you get Dr Ayala's paper - I suggest you read my edited post and get working to earn a look at it

 

[leopold]

nope - the paper I posted earlier was a pdf of the original Lewin paper of 1980.

you have some hoops to jump through first before you get Dr Ayala's paper - I suggest you read my edited post and get working to earn a look at it

why the mods chastise me and let you get away with your type of horseshit is a mystery.