Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

If you stop referring to evolution as a fluke and accidental mutation, then perhaps you would realize that you do not understand evolution. You can shrug it away, but the science is still there. You can deny it with a religious insistence, but science provides reality.

Accidental mutations are the basis for the whole evolutionary theory.....then the natural selection kicks in to explain all the diversity.

"Natural selection did it" is science's substitute for "God did it".....this has been established throughout this thread. Evolution is as much a "belief" as ID is. You guys just howl down anyone who dares to say it.

Whilst evolutionists virtually accuse ID believers of 'swallowing the Kool-Ade', have you really swallowed some yourselves?

If science cannot prove that evolution ever happened with real substantiated evidence, then why do you insist on presenting it as fact?.......when it clearly isn't.

 

[Sapiens]

I have no reason to doubt the sources I quoted and I am not terribly interested in whether you agree with them or not.

You should doubt all sources, especially when qualified experts suggest to you that they are wrong.

Are you serious? Good grief! I am being held to ransom by a mollesc!

No, you are being held back by your lack of basic knowledge and scientific insight.

Sapiens, I don't care if you beg to differ. Its just one scientist trying to debunk the opinion of another. Fight it out among yourselves...you have the link. It makes no difference to me.

No, he is not a scientist, he is an engineer. He is as ignorant as you are when it comes to basic biology. I am, however, amazed at his lack of basic physics and fluid dynamics.

It is so much fun to watch you squirm, you know you screwed up, but you still don't know where and how.

 

[Deeje]

You should doubt all sources, especially when qualified experts suggest to you that they are wrong.

One qualified "expert" arguing with another qualified "expert" is of little consequence to me Sapiens.

No, you are being held back by your lack of basic knowledge and scientific insight.

You never seem to be 'held back' by being shown up to be nothing more than an argument on a religious discussion site. As one who has no religion, I actually wonder why people like you are even here?
Is it just to show everyone how right you are and how wrong they are?

You have an opinion...which on a site like this is hardly worth anything, especially for a man of your self proclaimed caliber and expertize.

he is not a scientist, he is an engineer. He is as ignorant as you are when it comes to basic biology. I am, however, amazed at his lack of basic physics and fluid dynamics.

Let me just re-post the original article.....and discuss a few things...

Consider: Engineers analyzed two seashell forms—bivalve (clamshell-style) and spiral (screw-shaped).

In the case of the bivalve, it was found that the ribbing on the exterior of a shell directed stresses toward its hinge and outer edges. In contrast, the curving exterior of a spiral shell directed pressure toward its core and wide top. In both cases, the seashells’ shapes channeled pressure to their strongest areas, meaning that in the event of damage, harm to the mollusk would be less likely.

Researchers also ran comparative stress tests on real shells and on simple hemispheres and cones (produced on a 3-D printer) that mimicked shells’ shapes and composition. The results showed that natural seashells’ complex surfaces nearly doubled their ability to withstand pressure when compared to the simple shapes.

Commenting on the applications of this research, Scientific American says: “If you wind up driving a shell-shaped car someday, it’ll be both stylish and designed to protect the soft bodies inside.”

These few paragraphs posted 5 pages and many comments ago, are apparently what the fuss is all about. Is this a science paper Sapiens? Does it have a detailed analysis of the situation from a biological perspective? Were "experts" such as your good self even consulted? Heaven forbid! that they did not seek your learned opinion before conducting their experiment and publishing their findings.

These engineers were probably as qualified as you in their chosen field. Do you look down on engineers as much as you do on other people who disagree with you? Your air of superiority just lends itself to everything I have said about the egos that drive science...we can see it your posts.

If it was good enough for "Scientific American" to comment about, what is with your obsessive focus on this one small piece of information?

Seashell Shapes Show Strength for Safety

It is so much fun to watch you squirm, you know you screwed up, but you still don't know where and how.

I wasn't aware that I was squirming at all....and since there is no "where or how" ever posted....your argument is moot. I was just bemused by your strange obsession with molluscs TBH.

You give the impression that you are probably used to having people fall at your feet and hang on your every word

....You must forgive me for thinking that yours is just an anonymous somewhat overinflated opinion on an internet site.
As I said..."don't you know who I am?" is meaningless here.

 

[metis]

When some use religious beliefs as a set of blinders, then I'd suggest that such a "religious" approach must be considered bogus. Religion works on the basis of subjectivity, not objectivity; whereas science works on the basis of objectivity, not subjectivity. Therefore, if there were to be a conflict between a religious teaching and a scientific one, wouldn't it make much more sense to at least lean in the direction of objectivity?

A problem with some theists is that they simply cannot get it through their head that their faith is based, not on empirical evidence but on just faith itself, thus not relying on objective evidence. Pretty much every theologian, I would assume, probably knows that faith doesn't need the objective approach that scientists throughout the world use.

Oh well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ditto.

Don't we all dance to our favorite tune?

Scientists will gravitate to the musings of other scientists of like mind.....who says their reasoning is sound....?
other scientists of course......adding to the pile of evidence? NO! Just adding to the pile of gullible "believers"

Isn't this what we get accused of? Pot calling the kettle black, much?

Please feel free to prove that the theory is true.....nothing based on assumption or belief...just real solid evidence that macro-evolution ever took place. Shouldn't be hard for a scientifically minded person like yourself.

Please educate yourself about how science works. Please.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now this is funny. After being accused of dishonesty, @Deeje says "One of us is being dishonest here....but I don't think its me. The readers will decide."

Then when it's pointed out that the readers have decided and concluded that she is the one being dishonest, she says "is this a contest? Do the numbers count for something? Have they ever counted with God? "

Hilarious.

 

[Jose Fly]

When some use religious beliefs as a set of blinders, then I'd suggest that such a "religious" approach must be considered bogus. Religion works on the basis of subjectivity, not objectivity; whereas science works on the basis of objectivity, not subjectivity. Therefore, if there were to be a conflict between a religious teaching and a scientific one, wouldn't it make much more sense to at least lean in the direction of objectivity?

A problem with some theists is that they simply cannot get it through their head that their faith is based, not on empirical evidence but on just faith itself, thus not relying on objective evidence. Pretty much every theologian, I would assume, probably knows that faith doesn't need the objective approach that scientists throughout the world use.

Oh well.

Don't underestimate the importance of @Deeje 's faith to her emotional well-being. A while ago she made it very clear that she could never, ever admit to there being any truth to evolution. because doing so would result in her being treated "like a piece of garbage" by her JW friends and family, and her losing all meaning to her life.

Think about that for a second.....acknowledge one single truth to a field of science and your entire life is over? No wonder she acts the way she does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't underestimate the importance of @Deeje 's faith to her emotional well-being. A while ago she made it very clear that she could never, ever admit to there being any truth to evolution. because doing so would result in her being treated "like a piece of garbage" by her JW friends and family, and her losing all meaning to her life.

Think about that for a second.....acknowledge one single truth to a field of science and your entire life is over? No wonder she acts the way she does.

I find that really sad and oppressive.

 

[Jose Fly]

I find that really sad and oppressive.

It is sad, isn't it? I recall @Deeje , in a very Freudian way, using the phrase "emotional blackmail", and I think that sums it up quite well.

It'd take a lot of courage for someone to break free, knowingly abandon their friends and family, and start their life all over. I can't imagine........

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is sad, isn't it? I recall @Deeje , in a very Freudian way, using the phrase "emotional blackmail", and I think that sums it up quite well.

It'd take a lot of courage for someone to break free, knowingly abandon their friends and family, and start their life all over. I can't imagine........

I agree. That's a tough position to be in.

 

[metis]

Think about that for a second.....acknowledge one single truth to a field of science and your entire life is over? No wonder she acts the way she does.

I saw this happen with one of my sets of JW neighbors who left the faith, whereas their son turned out to be gay, and he and his parents were made to feel quite unwelcome as he and they were being made fun of behind their backs.

 

[Sapiens]

Might I say the same about you?

You assume that you support the 'winning side'......who said?

I was a staunch evolutionist in my youth, but I could not reconcile what I saw in nature with flukes and accidental mutations.
The more I studied evolution, the more convinced I was that it was nonsense. If you want to admire the Emperor's new clothes...feel free.

My BS meter is pegged by this one. You have demonstrated such an abysmal lack of basic biological knowledge that it is quite impossible for you to have ever been a "staunch evolutionist" or to have "studied evolution" in any serious sense.

One qualified "expert" arguing with another qualified "expert" is of little consequence to me Sapiens.

It is so funny to watch, you still can't figure out what's wrong. Here's a hint: it is not a "matter of opinion" but rather a misstatement of obvious fact.

You never seem to be 'held back' by being shown up to be nothing more than an argument on a religious discussion site. As one who has no religion, I actually wonder why people like you are even here?
Is it just to show everyone how right you are and how wrong they are?

That''s your game not mine, keep it to yourself and do not project it onto others.

You have an opinion...which on a site like this is hardly worth anything, especially for a man of your self proclaimed caliber and expertize.

Again, you make the error of bouncing between arguments from authority and from ignorance.

Let me just re-post the original article.....and discuss a few things...

Consider: Engineers analyzed two seashell forms—bivalve (clamshell-style) and spiral (screw-shaped).

In the case of the bivalve, it was found that the ribbing on the exterior of a shell directed stresses toward its hinge and outer edges. In contrast, the curving exterior of a spiral shell directed pressure toward its core and wide top. In both cases, the seashells’ shapes channeled pressure to their strongest areas, meaning that in the event of damage, harm to the mollusk would be less likely.

Researchers also ran comparative stress tests on real shells and on simple hemispheres and cones (produced on a 3-D printer) that mimicked shells’ shapes and composition. The results showed that natural seashells’ complex surfaces nearly doubled their ability to withstand pressure when compared to the simple shapes.

Commenting on the applications of this research, Scientific American says: “If you wind up driving a shell-shaped car someday, it’ll be both stylish and designed to protect the soft bodies inside.”

These few paragraphs posted 5 pages and many comments ago, are apparently what the fuss is all about. Is this a science paper Sapiens? Does it have a detailed analysis of the situation from a biological perspective? Were "experts" such as your good self even consulted? Heaven forbid! that they did not seek your learned opinion before conducting their experiment and publishing their findings.

These engineers were probably as qualified as you in their chosen field. Do you look down on engineers as much as you do on other people who disagree with you? Your air of superiority just lends itself to everything I have said about the egos that drive science...we can see it your posts.

If it was good enough for "Scientific American" to comment about, what is with your obsessive focus on this one small piece of information?

Seashell Shapes Show Strength for Safety

I suggest you look for the difference between the Scientific American article which lacks the error and article you originally cited.

I wasn't aware that I was squirming at all....and since there is no "where or how" ever posted....your argument is moot. I was just bemused by your strange obsession with molluscs TBH.

That's downright funny, especially since you have not yet even figured out what is going on.

You give the impression that you are probably used to having people fall at your feet and hang on your every word

....You must forgive me for thinking that yours is just an anonymous somewhat overinflated opinion on an internet sight.

That's all it is, but it is combined with a record of correctness in factual matieral that seems to escape you.

As I said..."don't you know who I am?" is meaningless here.

Yep, who I am is meaningless here, I never expect anything else, but my track record here speaks for itself, as does your long history or faceplants ... like the one you are suffering from right now and can't even find. I've rarely seen anything quite so amusing.

 

[Deeje]

@metis @Jose Fly @skeptic Thinker ......Now this is very interesting that the pro-evolution camp have resorted to a collective denigration of me and my brotherhood personally in a vain attempt to deflect attention away from the topic at hand. The obvious smoke screening didn't work because it is very obvious that none of you can come up with the solid substantiated evidence that your beloved theory is even true. There is nothing but supposition that it "might have" happened all those millions of years ago the way science "suggests" that it "must have".

Let me just issue the challenge once more......since none of you seem to want to address these important things that step outside of your pet theory but are vital to the existence and perpetuation of life on this planet......

My evidence for things "planned" and organized is right before everyone's eyes, though largely glossed over.

All throughout creation there is pre-conceived purpose demonstrated in everything. Purpose demonstrates planning and planning has to have a planner. Is it all just a series of very fortunate coincidences that the earth is designed for life and life is designed for the earth? Was this all 'just accidental'?

Here are the questions again......

Is the mixture of gases here in our atmosphere just a fluke? If there was a bit more oxygen in the mix, then every spark would cause an explosion. We could never light a fire to keep warm or cook our food. Every thunderstorm would be life threatening.

Is the earth's size, distance from the sun, the tilt of its axis, and the speed of its rotation, all just coincidental?
It is also coincidental that trees and vegetation breathe out what we breathe in and vice versa?...providing a self sustaining supply of a basic necessity, based on a system of mutually beneficial interactions that just happened....for no apparent reason?

Plants and insects also demonstrate this amazing relationship with pollination....its all just a fluke though....right?

Is it accidental that the vast quantities of water on this planet are not consumable by its land dwelling creatures and that precipitation just magically transforms salt water into fresh water so that all land dwellers and vegetation can survive? What would happen if the oceans were fresh water instead of salt?

Is it just a fluke that water floats when it freezes, when no other liquid does? What would happen if that was not the case? Think of all those creatures in the polar regions who live on and under the ice.

Is it just coincidental that nature's 'garbage disposal experts' just happen to operate the greatest recycling program in existence to ensure that the millions of dead bodies don't litter the earth to stink up the place?

Is it a fortunate coincidence that the moon controls the tides and that these tides provide vital functions for earth's tidal waterways and oceans? It stabilizes earth's rotation. Its the perfect 'nightlight', having a surface largely made of glass which is designed to reflect just the right amount of light to the earth.

Haven't excursions into space proven that there is no real evidence of intelligent life anywhere else?

You have no more "evidence" for macro-evolution than I have for my Creator.....but I have so much more by way of logical evidence in the real world than you do IMO....and what's more, I don't need a science degree to appreciate them.

Feel free to tell us how all this was just a series of fortunate coincidences that just happened with no intelligent direction or planning......these questions have nothing to do with religion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now this is very interesting that the pro-evolution camp have resorted to a collective denigration of me and my brotherhood personally

You're forgetting one very important thing Deeje......everything we said is true, as confirmed by you. You're the one who said that your Jehovah's Witness friends and family would treat you "like a piece of garbage" if you were to waver on this issue. You're the one who said that your life would lose all meaning.

I asked you a question the last time all this came up (and you ignored it).....are we supposed to ignore those things you said and pretend they're not a factor in how you approach the subject?

If so, please explain why we're supposed to ignore those statements from you, but not ignore your other statements.

 

[Deeje]

My BS meter is pegged by this one. You have demonstrated such an abysmal lack of basic biological knowledge that it is quite impossible for you to have ever been a "staunch evolutionist" or to have "studied evolution" in any serious sense.

You are correct. As I have said many times, I have no science degree, but studied the various aspects of evolution in my High School years. This is where I believe atheists are born. If you can be convinced as a youth that evolution is true (and I believe most High School students are completely indoctrinated by their science teachers) then they will enter the halls of higher learning with a mindset that they never challenge. Ask you average university science student if they doubt that evolution is true and they will laugh at you. But if you challenge them to prove it with substantiated evidence that does not rely on supposition and suggestion...they cannot do it. That is what 'brainwashing' does to people. Yet it is what ID proponents are accused of all the time. You are all blind to your own techniques.

It is so funny to watch, you still can't figure out what's wrong. Here's a hint: it is not a "matter of opinion" but rather a misstatement of obvious fact.

You apparently like to play mind games Sapiens.....why? The supposed 'misstatements of obvious facts' are irrelevant to the article I posted...which was not a science paper, but a simple statement of the usefulness of two particular shell shapes to their inhabitants.....you made it into an issue but I have no idea why you wanted to to? Why did it matter so much that you are still carrying on about it like it matters all these pages later? A mountain out of a molehill....much?

Again, you make the error of bouncing between arguments from authority and from ignorance.

We can be the most learned of men in academic circles and still be an ignoramus in the real world. I live in the real world, not your world.....thank heaven.

That's downright funny, especially since you have not yet even figured out what is going on.

I am guessing that the majority of the readers here (not the small number of poster)s wonder what you are on about most of the time? I think I 'figured out what was going on' with you some time ago.

That's all it is, but it is combined with a record of correctness in factual matieral that seems to escape you.

I have no problem with my record of correctness in factual material Sapiens.....that is your problem. Your material isn't as "factual" as you make it out to be IMO. It might sound impressive when you use the jargon, but put it into plain language and it falls apart pretty quickly.

but my track record here speaks for itself, as does your long history or faceplants ... like the one you are suffering from right now and can't even find. I've rarely seen anything quite so amusing.

Your track record does speak for itself.....what it speaks is up for grabs though....

My 'faceplants' are a matter of opinion also.

I am pleased you are finding amusement......but wondering why an atheist of your educational level would be doing so on a 'religious' internet site.......?

 

[Deeje]

You're forgetting one very important thing Deeje......everything we said is true, as confirmed by you. You're the one who said that your Jehovah's Witness friends and family would treat you "like a piece of garbage" if you were to waver on this issue. You're the one who said that your life would lose all meaning.

I asked you a question the last time all this came up (and you ignored it).....are we supposed to ignore those things you said and pretend they're not a factor in how you approach the subject?

If so, please explain why we're supposed to ignore those statements from you, but not ignore your other statements.

You are clearly dodging the questions again.....why make it personal JF? Have you got nothing to back up your pet theory? Please answer the questions which are not of a religious nature and show us why you believe that these things that are vital to life on earth are all "just accidental". How many beneficial flukes does it take to sustain life......and then explain to us how it just "poofed" itself into existence one day...for no apparent reason.....?

We await your learned reply with bated breath.....tell the readers here and leave me out of it. Can you?

 

[Mister Silver]

Cognitive dissonance on her part @Jose Fly , there's not much else you can do, I'm afraid.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are clearly dodging the questions again

This thread is testament to all the different ways multiple people (including me) have answered your questions, and all the silly excuses you invent to wave them away.

why make it personal JF?

Again, you made it very clear by stating so without equivocation.....you cannot compromise one bit on this issue lest you be treated like garbage by your own family and friends, and lose all meaning in your life. Why do you expect everyone to ignore that?]

 

[Jose Fly]

Cognitive dissonance on her part @Jose Fly , there's not much else you can do, I'm afraid.

You're probably right.

 

[Deeje]

Cognitive dissonance on her part @Jose Fly , there's not much else you can do, I'm afraid.

Oh the deflection!

This is hilarious! Classic diversionary tactics.

How long will it take for the pro-evolutionists to present a believable case to the undecided readers here? The odds are not looking good so far. Who will accept the challenge?