A simple case for intelligent design

[tas8831]

For example, does your explanation cover a respiratory system that must work/evolve/EXIST in concert with a pulmonary system, a nervous system, an excretory system, a digestive system, autonomic brain systems, etc. to work?

How was it created that way?

What about the salamanders that employ transcutaneous respiration and have neither lungs nor gills?

And why list "a nervous system" AND "autonomic brain systems"? Double dip much?

Which reminds me - one of your strawman refrains is this bit about how thie appendix is needed for survival.

Yet not all mammals have one.

Please explain, without using god-did-it magic, how it is that so many creatures apparently do not need an appendix for survival.


I note that rather than explain or answer questions regarding your previous assertion-based proclamations, you just make new assertion-based proclamations. Clever. But not so clever.

 

[Polymath257]

How was it created that way?

What about the salamanders that employ transcutaneous respiration and have neither lungs nor gills?

And why list "a nervous system" AND "autonomic brain systems"? Double dip much?

Which reminds me - one of your strawman refrains is this bit about how thie appendix is needed for survival.

Yet not all mammals have one.

Please explain, without using god-did-it magic, how it is that so many creatures apparently do not need an appendix for survival.


I note that rather than explain or answer questions regarding your previous assertion-based proclamations, you just make new assertion-based proclamations. Clever. But not so clever.

I see this a lot with creationists. They think that *all* living things have to be male or female, have to have functioning lungs, and appendices. if they would simply look at the diversity of life that is alive *right now*, they would know these things are NOT necessary. And a good number of their arguments would go away.

But, remember that they believe that all animals came into being at the same time. The idea that there was a time before there were mammals, before there were vertebrates, but where there were still living things, is beyond what they acknowledge. The idea that at some point *all* animals were without lungs, or that there was a stage where *all* animals were without circulatory systems, and that because of this *all* animals were small enough for diffusion to work, well that is way beyond their world view.

This, of course, mxes with the strange belief that evolution requires crocoducks and creatures that aren't 'fully formed' and we get to many of the mistakes common to creationists. They really neither understand the variety of life as it exists even today, nor what the theory of evolution actually says and how it applies to living things.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How was it created that way?

What about the salamanders that employ transcutaneous respiration and have neither lungs nor gills?

And why list "a nervous system" AND "autonomic brain systems"? Double dip much?

Which reminds me - one of your strawman refrains is this bit about how thie appendix is needed for survival.

Yet not all mammals have one.

Please explain, without using god-did-it magic, how it is that so many creatures apparently do not need an appendix for survival.


I note that rather than explain or answer questions regarding your previous assertion-based proclamations, you just make new assertion-based proclamations. Clever. But not so clever.

You want me to explain diversity in kingdom animalia without goddidit?

Evolutiondidit. Isn't that your answer to explain magnificent diversity?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once again, these systems DO evolve together. Evolution doesn't work on "one organ at a time". Mutations are cumulative and numerous.


Unlike you, apparently.

Tell me how this has been observed, that systems evolve together. Tell me how mutations add new information to create such wondrous systems that cohere.

 

[ecco]

Evolutiondidit. Isn't that your answer to explain magnificent diversity?

Yay! You finally got it right. Congrats.

 

[tas8831]

How was it created that way?

What about the salamanders that employ transcutaneous respiration and have neither lungs nor gills?

And why list "a nervous system" AND "autonomic brain systems"? Double dip much?

Which reminds me - one of your strawman refrains is this bit about how thie appendix is needed for survival.

Yet not all mammals have one.

Please explain, without using god-did-it magic, how it is that so many creatures apparently do not need an appendix for survival.


I note that rather than explain or answer questions regarding your previous assertion-based proclamations, you just make new assertion-based proclamations. Clever. But not so clever.

You want me to explain diversity in kingdom animalia without goddidit?

So does this mean that you cannot explain your version of events AT ALL?

Here, you imply that "goddidit" is the sum total of your "explanation" - which is no explanation at all. And all the while you are demanding that we explain, to your personal satisfaction - a satisfaction which, not shockingly, seems to continue to accumulate new criteria and depths of detail as a requirement as you go along - how something evolved.

Evolutiondidit. Isn't that your answer to explain magnificent diversity?

That is what we have evidence for.

Where is your evidence for your repeated claim that an appendix is required for survival?

And how does that mesh with your own references that clearly indicate that not all animals have one?

 

[Audie]

"I've never called you "evil, ignorant, deceived, deluded, or in league with Satan."

This is too good to be true - just a day or two ago, you declared that you've never claimed this (about me, anyway).
You have become a parody of yourself, and a great example of creationist integrity.

And you never did explain what neurological control the appendix requires to "release" (which you also never explained) bacteria.

And you also never stated what your profession is.

Dont take this as a criticism-note the "winner",
but.honestly? When will be enough enough?

beat dead - Google Search:

 

[Polymath257]

Tell me how this has been observed, that systems evolve together. Tell me how mutations add new information to create such wondrous systems that cohere.

Most mutations have very small effect, so the changes from one generation to the next are small. Also, all populations have a lot of variation, so all the organ systems work for those small variations. This happens at each stage of evolution: those individuals whose organ systems don't work don't reproduce and pass on their genes.

This means that the organ systems present continue to work in concert from each generation to the next, building up larger scale changes gradually.

If you want more information about the development of some specific organ system (say, the lungs), we can go through the stages. But be willing to go back to animals that don't have lungs and start with them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Tell me how this has been observed, that systems evolve together.

I don't really know how to answer this other than: it's been directly observed. We know that it happens, we've literally seen these kinds of changes occurring in living populations. We've seen changes so significant that one living population diversified into two, separate populations that were not capable of interbreeding.

Tell me how mutations add new information to create such wondrous systems that cohere.

Why do you keep asking us to explain evolution to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You want me to explain diversity in kingdom animalia without goddidit?

Evolutiondidit. Isn't that your answer to explain magnificent diversity?

The thing is though, there's a bit more to it in the "evolution did it" - like an actual explanation of how evolution does it.

Your biology syllabus consists of just 3 words: god dun it.
Science's biology syllabus consists of textbook upon textboox, backed by +200.000 papers explaining these processes in detail.

Don't play stupid.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most mutations have very small effect, so the changes from one generation to the next are small. Also, all populations have a lot of variation, so all the organ systems work for those small variations. This happens at each stage of evolution: those individuals whose organ systems don't work don't reproduce and pass on their genes.

This means that the organ systems present continue to work in concert from each generation to the next, building up larger scale changes gradually.

If you want more information about the development of some specific organ system (say, the lungs), we can go through the stages. But be willing to go back to animals that don't have lungs and start with them.

I'm aware of the apologetic here--have you considered the statistical inference here?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't really know how to answer this other than: it's been directly observed. We know that it happens, we've literally seen these kinds of changes occurring in living populations. We've seen changes so significant that one living population diversified into two, separate populations that were not capable of interbreeding.


Why do you keep asking us to explain evolution to you?

Modern scientists have seen organ systems evolve via direct observation? Why are we even talking? You are being absolutely ridiculous.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The thing is though, there's a bit more to it in the "evolution did it" - like an actual explanation of how evolution does it.

Your biology syllabus consists of just 3 words: god dun it.
Science's biology syllabus consists of textbook upon textboox, backed by +200.000 papers explaining these processes in detail.

Don't play stupid.

Interesting. So you disdain creationists to the point of redacting them to absurdity--"they have three words in the Bible only, and three words in science and in their thousands of position papers," while asserting that modern biology has everything in agreement, and all non-creationists agree on things like lines of descent/taxonomy, issues in abiogenesis, evolution, etc.--which position is not playing stupid. You must really be confused.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm aware of the apologetic here--have you considered the statistical inference here?

Absolutely. That is why I was convinced, actually. Every population has a fair amount of variance in it. Changes in environment shift the average of the population and new mutations restore the variation. Remember that evolution is not goal oriented. it is survival oriented. So those variations that improve survival (including integrating with other organ systems) are the ones that get passed on to the next generations.

This is actually a wonderful way to both obtain good adaptation *and* get a lot of complexity in short periods of time. Doing a random search is much, much less effective than mutation with differential survival over several generations.

The statistics are *strongly* in favor of evolution given the two simple facts of genetics and different survival based on the genetics.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How did they evolve, would you say, in lay terms. Because I've never seen an article explaining how any one organ or system "evolved"--while the species it evolved in remained alive through generations--where the forensic evidence is for partial formation, etc.

A real, full organ, not a proto-organ, please.

Thanks!

The Evolution of Complex Organs

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is this thread really still going? I keep checking to see if anybody has changed their minds. So far...nope.

 

[ecco]

Is this thread really still going? I keep checking to see if anybody has changed their minds. So far...nope.

Apparently, the simple-case-for-intelligent-design ain't so simple.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Absolutely. That is why I was convinced, actually. Every population has a fair amount of variance in it. Changes in environment shift the average of the population and new mutations restore the variation. Remember that evolution is not goal oriented. it is survival oriented. So those variations that improve survival (including integrating with other organ systems) are the ones that get passed on to the next generations.

This is actually a wonderful way to both obtain good adaptation *and* get a lot of complexity in short periods of time. Doing a random search is much, much less effective than mutation with differential survival over several generations.

The statistics are *strongly* in favor of evolution given the two simple facts of genetics and different survival based on the genetics.

All of which shows me two things:

* The pre-assumed power of evolution--it will "enhance survivability" (based on extant fossils and shuffling phylogenic lines of descent) and overcome--though many mutations are neutral, become recessive, or are harmful, causing sterility and death, etc. again overcomes any possible issues, moving things against entropy to become ever-more complex and diverse...

* There are no statistics shown above that "convinced you"... though you remain convinced... no numbers...

...so let me please ask you, since the differences between primates and humans are small/we are genetically close relations:

"How many gene mutations changed some primates to humans, and how long did this process take, in terms of years?"

I'm not asking you to calculate odds of positive mutations or new information added, against the "bad ones". I'm asking if you know how many changes, all of them positive/moving the chains forward, changed the species(s) so greatly... Perhaps I will be convinced also.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Evolution of Complex Organs

I understand, the paper lists conjectures regarding direct and indirect evolution, while tackling some common misconceptions regarding this complex process.

The problem is oversimplification--for example, tackling 30-odd processes that may have evolved complex eyes and sight--when there are perhaps thousands of intermediate steps. I'm asking (AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN) for some gene math...

Assuming 100% of mutations are beneficial/toward eyes evolving, how many gene changes have to occur, in what time frame, to make it happen? We don't need survivability, heritable changes, evolutiondidit or anything, but a simple understanding--how many DNA changes happened to sequence eye formation in species?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.



That's troubling on two sides.

You implied that those of your brothers who are Messianic do "kick their spouses out" during monthly menstruation. Now!? In the year 2019?! Seriously?!?!

I hope that was just poorly worded.

On the other hand, whether you like it or not, that practice was specified and condoned by your god.






"life-changing, empire-changing, world-changing jesus"? It took people of your religious viewpoint 2000 years to come to believe.

If anything, the spread of Christianity, like the spread of Islam, is a direct result of extensive evangelizing. But even with that, it's ridiculous to refer to "Christianity" as one big group. There are thousands of versions of "christianity". Even just within your little subgroup, there are over a half dozen major subdivisions.

In any event, it is clear that members of your specific subdivision are literalists when it comes to Genesis (at least those parts relating to origins). Your "arguments" against evolution are soundly rooted in your religious beliefs, not in science.

Which do you want to argue? The stupid assertion that Jews, Messianic or otherwise, "kick their spouses out of their homes" or the other rhetoric you've posted...?

My arguments against evolution are rooted in science:

* parsing what is conjectural from what is observed, actual, recorded, proven, forensic
* looking at the specific odds of mutations being beneficial, expressed and helpful, even in large populations over large time frames
* asking Socratic questions of forum members and getting ad homs like those you've posted (again) above