A Message to Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2012, 08:24 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
I read the first part of your blog. Very interesting arguments put forth.

But first, the common problems throughout your arguments. You seem to not really understand natural selection, the mechanisms of evolution and phylogenetic trees.
Quote: Probably few people realize it, but the theory of evolution is based entirely on those random genetic mutations that allegedly occurred in the millions of years of living, dying, fighting for survival and passing on your genes to the next generation. It’s the only way they can explain the many leaps from one species to another in the tree of life according to the fossils they have found.
No. There are other mechanisms for evolution. Random mutations is one of them. There are others such as gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection and artificial selection. But let's talk about natural selection, and to answer the questions posed in your essay.
Quote: Suppose there were some accidental genetic changes in the DNA of the first bat-to-be. I’m not going to argue with that. But then, why would the intermediate generations between that one and the first real bat keep those useless (at that time!) changes in their tiny brains for millions of years? What weird force of nature drove those chemicals in the DNA to keep changing and “improving” bit by bit for no apparent reason and with no foreseeable result? The bats-to-be had no idea those changes would eventually lead to a much more efficient way of catching prey. And even if they did, how on Earth do you change your own DNA so that your kid’s DNA would be, while identical to yours, gradually better for millions of generations?
Let's use flight as an analogy. Nowadays, we see birds with full wings, flapping about, or even gliding animals like the flying squirrel, leaping from tree to tree. It all started with a little "wing". The extra lift or glide just by having a very slight gliding or flying ability allowed an edge in survival. Similarly, for bats to possess the echolocation systems they have, it started not as a complete system. Bats with the ability to use sound to aid the capturing of their prey had better survival rates as they will have more food using this primitive system. The ability to use sound as an aid to hunt, regardless of how weak it is, is not as useless as you claim.

What weird force you say? Selection pressures in the environment an organism thrives in. This is how natural selection works in simple terms. It starts with a population of organisms and a selection pressure, which ranges from temperature to the availability of food, depending on the area. Let us say for instance, a hypothetical group of rodents will be the population we want, and the selection pressure will be the lack of food on land, which leaves the waters to hold the sole source of food. Now, to enter the water to obtain food, the rodents require an ability to hold their breathes in water long enough to obtain food. Not all of these rodents have equal abilities of holding their breathes. Those who can hold longer are able to obtain their food while those who can't, starve. In this case, the next generation of rodents will have higher instances of rodents being able to hold their breathes longer under water to obtain food. In other words, traits that result in organisms being better adapted to their living conditions become more common in descendant populations. Eventually, as this continues, you will have a population of rodents who can both survive on land and in water.

For your third question, no. Your kid will NOT have identical DNA with you. Through meiotic processes such as homologous recombination in the gametes of both parents, the kid will possess a combination of the DNA of both parents.
Quote: If we go back to their alleged common ancestor, we have a big dilemma: what did that animal eat? If it was a carnivore it ate other animals, and if it was a herbivore it ate grass. How could it have split into two lines that would eventually end up eating and being eaten by the other?
Heard of omnivores?
Quote: That animal would have to resemble–more or less–all the species of mammals that live on Earth today, or it could not qualify as a valid ancestor for all these species. I mean, evolution sounds plausible when we think about improvements within one species, but it shoots the fly dead in the eye with a ballistic missile when it tries to explain leaps from one species to another.
[Image: Crocoduck.jpg]
Crocoduck says that you may have misunderstood how speciation comes about.

I'll read Part 2 tomorrow (I promise, I love reading new things Smile ).

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 08:26 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
I skimmed through that stuff - it is made of rant. The scientific method evolved naturalism away from philosophical truth and towards predictive modeling. You seem to have missed the turn.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
29-03-2012, 08:40 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 08:26 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I skimmed through that stuff - it is made of rant. The scientific method evolved naturalism away from philosophical truth and towards predictive modeling. You seem to have missed the turn.

Lots of ranting in Part 2. I'm doing more research on the parasitic wasps he mentioned. But you have to give it to him that he is indeed an interesting article writer. Very engaging even through I disagree with his points Smile Maybe less personal attacks and the article will be better Tongue

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 08:56 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 08:40 AM)robotworld Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 08:26 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I skimmed through that stuff - it is made of rant. The scientific method evolved naturalism away from philosophical truth and towards predictive modeling. You seem to have missed the turn.

Lots of ranting in Part 2. I'm doing more research on the parasitic wasps he mentioned. But you have to give it to him that he is indeed an interesting article writer. Very engaging even through I disagree with his points Smile Maybe less personal attacks and the article will be better Tongue

Yeah he can write, but I'm too much the math guy to not be off-put by shit like "infinite questions, multiplication by zero," combined with a failure to understand iteration. Tongue

He's one of those "zero or one" cats; doesn't understand the relationship between truth and locality.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 09:01 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Quote:Nobody knows why matter attracts matter, why particles inside an atom stick together so tightly that they can hardly be separated, why certain substances generate magnetic fields around them, why the electrical current itself generates a magnetic field around conductors, why light is both matter (photons) and an electromagnetic wave, why water has the 4° C point
Can't resist. I predict the following lines of debate...

Why A?
Because of B.
Why?
Because of C.
Why?
Because of D.
.
.
.
Why?
Because of ZZY.
Why?
Because of ZZZ.
Why?
I do not know.

Therefore, God exists.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes robotworld's post
29-03-2012, 09:05 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 09:01 AM)robotworld Wrote:  
Quote:Nobody knows why matter attracts matter, why particles inside an atom stick together so tightly that they can hardly be separated, why certain substances generate magnetic fields around them, why the electrical current itself generates a magnetic field around conductors, why light is both matter (photons) and an electromagnetic wave, why water has the 4° C point
Can't resist. I predict the following lines of debate...

Why A?
Because of B.
Why?
Because of C.
Why?
Because of D.
.
.
.
Why?
Because of ZZY.
Why?
Because of ZZZ.
Why?
I do not know.

Therefore, God exists.

To me it's more:
Quote:(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 09:08 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 09:01 AM)robotworld Wrote:  
Quote:Nobody knows why matter attracts matter, why particles inside an atom stick together so tightly that they can hardly be separated, why certain substances generate magnetic fields around them, why the electrical current itself generates a magnetic field around conductors, why light is both matter (photons) and an electromagnetic wave, why water has the 4° C point
Can't resist. I predict the following lines of debate...

Why A?
Because of B.
Why?
Because of C.
Why?
Because of D.
.
.
.
Why?
Because of ZZY.
Why?
Because of ZZZ.
Why?
I do not know.

Therefore, God exists.
Did you read what I wrote about not being able to prove God empirically?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 09:11 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 09:08 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Did you read what I wrote about not being able to prove God empirically?

Nobody's talking to you. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 09:12 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 09:11 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 09:08 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Did you read what I wrote about not being able to prove God empirically?

Nobody's talking to you. Tongue
Don't make me bust out the sad puppy pic again.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 09:44 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 09:08 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 09:01 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Can't resist. I predict the following lines of debate...

Why A?
Because of B.
Why?
Because of C.
Why?
Because of D.
.
.
.
Why?
Because of ZZY.
Why?
Because of ZZZ.
Why?
I do not know.

Therefore, God exists.
Did you read what I wrote about not being able to prove God empirically?
I may have missed that part, but my current stance will be that it is indeed impossible to prove a God that exists out of space and time using science Smile (it all depends how you define God). I agree with you on that Big Grin

I got my inspiration from here:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: