A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

No, it doesn't, because these mutations are merely slight variations on existing organs, cells or abilities. Nothing had to happen "simultaneously".

Not having a cecal appendix than having one is a "slight variation"? I'm being Socratic here, for your benefit.

 

[ecco]

I don't know if I'll grasp eternity well in Heaven, but I can report to you that while having some past memories, I live in the present time. I think I'll always enjoy living in the present in eternity, joy which is the goal of most people.

Once you have experienced 1/10th of 1% of eternity you will have done everything millions of times over. You will have climbed all mountains millions of times. You will have been given a cheek pinch by Aunt Betty a million times. You will be totally bored. And when you realize that you still have to endure this for eternity, you will wish for a means of suicide. Alternatively, you will wish that we atheists were right and you would have indeed died when you died.

You are having trouble reconciling God existing for a long time, ... I try not to accuse God of doing nothing for eternity, since it is a baseless accusation, and unwarranted,

I have no trouble imagining it. I can accept it. When I do, I realize how completely ineffective he was for most of eternity,

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is all just garbled nonsense. We've already explained to you that every appendage at every evolutionary stage is a "fully-formed" appendage. There's no such thing as a "half arm". Evolution doesn't start with an idea of an end goal and painstakingly move towards that goal over millions of years, with many steps along the way being of little or no benefit. Evolution improves gradually on existing formations that are already there and refines them. This is basic biology.


Not all of them. Some of them are just outright dishonest.

The subset of dishonest creationists must be small, because we answer to a higher source than fellow forum posters. We respect people with opposing views as we adore God and try to follow His manner of life.

I'm well aware that evolution improves gradually on existing formations, refining them, as you said, which if we believe as 100% true, gives us in this case:

1) Many, many species were surviving without a cecal appendix
2) 32 separate times, an appendix evolved
3) Despite the "necessity" for 32 iterations, some think it's now vestigial as an organ

WHY?

PS. I've clearly answered the question for myself (evolutionary theory is just-so stories, in large part) and here's your chance to change my mind.

PPS. Saying, "you don't understand basic biology" and "you don't understand evolution" when I successfully completed biology, statistics, anatomy, etc. for multiple degrees is akin to saying, "I don't really have facts for you, just rhetoric."

DO BETTER.

Or, if you like, tell me (or yourself) WHY and HOW evolution gradually improves existing forms without using the canard, "so slowly, that this may be seen neither today nor in the fossil record, except with fully-formed, complete species".

WHY is there no such thing as a half-arm, if some mutations are harmful, some beneficial, how does evolution achieve godlike power to overcome?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Talking about a biological process in terms of numerical possibilities in meaningless because the variables are far too many to be able to account for, and the forces working on these variables influence the outcomes in significant ways. I suggest you look into statistical thermodynamics to understand why attempting to assign probability to biological formations is a completely fruitless and meaningless exercise.

These are genuine questions, not rhetorical:

Do I need to deeply investigate statistical thermodynamics to understand its root applied to evolution: give a large population enough time, and all possibilities are acted upon? (Of course, they are!)

Do I need to " " to wonder at the odds of something unlikely (new organ, new function) happening 32 separate times?

Does it not beg the question, "what mechanism causes such power, for beneficial mutations, continually?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh okay, so made up reasons. Thanks.

I gave you four real reasons, and felt 22 reasons would be dismissed by you, just like 4. So change your behavior.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I"m curious as to how you would calculate the probability that the specific God you believe in exists.

About a dozen major religious texts are extant.

I've explored the phylogenic trees of religion for lines of common descent.

One ancient tradition, whose scriptures reckon among the oldest, contains lines of evidence not present in the other dozen texts, verifiable via archaeology, history, scientific accuracy, etc.

 

[tas8831]

I can see modern flightless birds with fully formed wings, so it may have been unfair for us to try to define protowings from forensics.

What is a Half-formed wing? Maybe this?

But your second post requires defining terms, via statistics. For example, evolutionists concluded a cecal appendix evolved independently at least 32 separate times in mammals. This would raise the odds of this development alone to the 32nd power, with some modifications for an appendix helping a species. Do you think a vestigial organ was so helpful, it evolved 32 times separately?

Not at all. I disagree with their conclusions - it looks more like, given what THEY present, that it is an atavism in those creatures currently possessing it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're being "crucified" for blatantly ignoring the very evidence you requested in the first place.

I'm not ignoring anything. An ostrich may have protowings, vesitigial wings or ancillary wings. Bees fly, and are considered to have wings that shouldn't fly. Protowings has to do with the arbitrary nature of assigning protowings to wings, drawing feathers where only bones were found, etc. Consider how phylogenic trees are formed--DNA has been a help, but basically it's lining up creations and placing similar features together, in our imagination, in the case of ancient life forms.

 

[tas8831]

Wings require complex changes in body mass, proprioception, sight, thermoregulatory systems. Be real. Be consistent. Be logical.

Regarding being logical - do tell why a wing requires "complex changes in body mass, proprioception, sight, thermoregulatory systems".

Start by defining how those systems work, then explain why a wing would require changes in them, and what those changes must be, and how you know.

Being logical, of course.

 

[BilliardsBall]

REally? I have never seen one example of such by creationists that was not immediately refuted. Once an idea is refuted it should no longer be used in an argument.

Please give me your best example.

And the point of my question was to see if you could spot the errors that you keep making.

My best examples do not compare to the sophisticated things I've read online, to be honest. But if you do not understand that creation scientists have hundreds of papers extant relating modern phylogeny and fossils to creation... your statement showed you've never read anything printed by creationists.

 

[tas8831]

Rapid speciation is part of the creationists' viewpoint.

For which they offer no mechanism nor any actual evidence.

For example, how is it that at most, 2 bat "kinds" produced more than1000 distinct species - with nobody taking notice - in less than 4,500 years (if we use the YEC timescale, which I presume you do?).

But an actual study of transposons and creation and genomes and creation and diversity in creation is also telling.

And we can find this study where?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No link? Try again. The odds are that your source was a creationist one and at best they got a valid source wrong.

https://zenodo.org/record/894682/files/article.pdf?download=1

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_related_ecological_and_anatomical_factors

 

[Jose Fly]

Crucify me, for I used the wrong term? A protowing is a fully formed appendage, it speaks only to the just-so story of how saying the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races... but, the responses here continued to be rude to my inquiry, and apparently, only I wrestle with the magic powers that determine in evolution what is a protowing, what is vestigial, ancillary, etc. -- wait I forgot, you simply swap around the phylogenic trees more.

Erm... do you want to ask me any questions about my beliefs and notions or simply bash me as an ignoramus. Are all creationists idiots, do you think?

The issue is that you continually try to challenge and criticize a field of science--evolutionary biology--without taking the time to learn the subject first. Whether your appreciate it or not, that sort of thing does indeed make you look like an "idiot" (to borrow your label).

If you want to avoid that sort of thing in the future, I suggest you make the effort to learn about evolutionary biology, then decide whether or not it should be challenged. If you decide it is, feel free to get back to us with your arguments. But as long as you keep trying to critique a subject you know little about, people are going to keep laughing at you.

 

[tas8831]

Natural selection should avoid parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.

You completely ignored what poly wrote - but I do find it awesome that you deign to speak for the outcome of differential reproduction.

Thus 100% of the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen simultaneously.

Cool assertion.
And there we have that 'no harmful mutation' assertion again. Which YEC website did you get that from?

"Neutral in effect" seems to go against the modern facts we know--that very slight genetic changes reach limits (modified crops and animals), cause sterility, disease... negative mutations must also be in effect.

What does that even mean? Are you claiming that neutral mutations do not exist? What 'modern fact' can you show us that supports that notion?

A one-celled species is as complex as New York City.

Please show your calculations for this, as well as your definition of "complex."

A micron contains an unfathomably long sequence of DNA.

No, a micron contains 1 millionth of a meter. But 1 micron of DNA contains about 3300 bases. 'Unfathomable' to non-biologists, I suppose.

To breathe, pulmonary and respiratory and autonomic and a dozen other systems have to evolve together.

A dozen other? Which dozen? Please explain.

We don't jump from planes without parachutes, hoping a net is exactly where we'll land, and that the net maintenance crew was on that day, and the winds right, and the GPS satellites accurate, and I land feet first.

Gibberish.

You are all over the map on your unsupported, 'folk science' assertions. It all looks like a rather desperate version of the Gish Gallop.

 

[tas8831]

https://zenodo.org/record/894682/files/article.pdf?download=1

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_related_ecological_and_anatomical_factors

And what did you make of their phylogenies? And how there was no functional correlation between, say, diet and whether or not they had an appendix? All seemed rather haphazard.

 

[tas8831]

My appendix is not "vestigial", if it is, evolution screwed up in 32 "new species" iterations. Think! (Pray?)

So, you are unclear what "vesitigial" means, and you think evolution seeks perfection. Any other strawmen you'd like rely on?

 

[tas8831]

1) Evolution wouldn't have made an appendix 32 separate times unless it was a good organ for animals--so perhaps we can consider the odds of having no such organ, then moving to have one

Very few evolutionary biologists are pan-adaptationalists these days.

2) Science is in the business of observing natural law (things that tend to always occur) including evolution, rapid speciation, etc.
3) Scientists are curious--why did the appendix evolve 32 separate times?

What is the difference between me saying goddidit and you saying, "Shut up, BB, evolutiondidit"? (Rhetorical, none.)

If the appendix is so great, why weren't ALL mammals created with one? You may want to stop throwing stones in from your glass house.

I'm asking you, as a fellow Christian, to re-read this or other recent posts to me, and ask of yourself, "Is my behavior Christian here? Is BB's?"

LOL!
'Come on bro, why you got to call me out on all my bluffing and fluff?'

 

[tas8831]

That is my point, precisely, you are using uniformitarian assumptions (this is a protowing skeleton). However, your assumption is wrong: the ostrich has an vestigial wing, or is it ancillary? You follow what I'm saying here?

Not at all. You seem to be changing your position.

An ostrich has a wing. Not a proto-wing. I would call it a vestigial wing, if anything.

If we must use your parlance, a proto-wing would be something like what we see in an Archaeopteryx.

I guess you forgot why I posted that Ostrich skeleton in the first place. Given your initial response, it looks like you thought it was a dinosaur.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I gave you four real reasons, and felt 22 reasons would be dismissed by you, just like 4. So change your behavior.

You gave four reasons why you believe God would create creatures with "half-wings." None of them are "real" in the sense that they are factually based. Like seriously, one of your reasons was "beauty." Do you find "half-wings" to be quite beautiful?

 

[SkepticThinker]

About a dozen major religious texts are extant.

I've explored the phylogenic trees of religion for lines of common descent.

One ancient tradition, whose scriptures reckon among the oldest, contains lines of evidence not present in the other dozen texts, verifiable via archaeology, history, scientific accuracy, etc.

I'm unclear as to how this answers my question.