Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    You say you're a woman now, do you? Convince me. 'Cause it looks to me like it's just one more way you're trying to hide who you are.

    And constructive criticism, eh? No, it's just pent-up bile, really.

    That word "cajoling". I don't think it means what you think it means. Better grab a dictionary.

    leopold has been pulling this shit for 3 years, as I'm sure you're aware. So, hardly a hasty reaction on my part. And the personal bullshit was already dealt with in my previous post. No need to repeat myself regarding that nonsense.

    You're making me chuckle now, tali89. You're quite desperate to have a go at me, but you make statements that don't stand up to the mildest scrutiny.

    Why did you choose to enter this thread to attack a moderator? Instead of engaging in self-improvement (which you obviously so desperately need to do), you seek to boost your own fragile ego by trying to take down somebody you perceive as an authority figure. The question is, why? Didn't your mother pay you enough attention as a child? Did you have an overly-strict father? Are you a Taurus? Do you have a small penis? We should start a game where we can all speculate on why you have such a desperate need to be noticed.

    This is fun, isn't it tali89? Want to go another round? I'm sure you do. You're coming out of it looking really good, too. Yes, very impressive indeed. Way to win friends and influence people. But that's part of your problem, isn't it? You've never really worked that part out.

    I like to dot my i's and cross my t's. And I thought that leopold deserved a response to his exit posts.

    What I find telling is that you contribute nothing to this forum except whines about the moderation. That suggests to me that you are a young man with a very large chip on his shoulder.

    Heh. Yeah, I guess that must be it. You being a woman and all. Heh.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    My whole point I was making here has less to do with irreducible complexity, and more to do with shining a light on the impossibility of winning an argument against an evolutionist. I was attempting to show that an evolutionist is only required to tell a good story... such as invoking environmental change(an open office window for example).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yet all the really spectacular attempts at intellectual gymnastics; the ones that continually fail and need to be reworked again and again, come from the creationist camp. They always have. Not only that, the moment we switch to a discussion of the particulars of whatever alternative explanation the other side is offering we invariably see that not only are they guilty of all the same charges that they level against others, their transgressions (as you seem to characterize them) are actually far worse.

    Stories huh? Case in point.

    Finally, being that it's much easier to present a veneer of credibility when your current ambition extends no further than trying to poke a few holes, how about a case study? How about we all play out an example of what happens when the hole-poking goes the other way so everyone can see if you are in fact justified in your efforts to take the intellectual high ground here?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    There is a big difference when it comes to learning, between spoken and written language. If you went to a lecture in college, but the professor could not write on the black board and you could not read or take notes, or once at home you could not review your own notes and even use a textbook, the amount of information retained, with clarity, would go way down. Complicated things need time to digest, with a spoken lecture without read/write not enough for most people to learn. You will need to read and reread.

    If we are dealing with a learning a new craft/skill, such as tool making, one can learn from another person, if they show you how to do it, with or without speaking. The demonstrating of the skill offers visual cues. This is how writing works. Writing is a way to mimic visual actions; simulated in the imagination. The master may not have time to tutor a lot of students, but if he writes a manual to help his key students, they can teach more students his exact ways. We can still learn from Master Einstein, decades after his death due to his own words in writing. This is more accurate than relying on someone else's rendition of his words, from memory, which they got from another person, who also tried to remember, etc. Spoken language is more organic and more subject to change. Written is more enduring like stone.

    Spoken language was already around with the pre-humans; before symbolic Adam. This is natural and is an extrapolation from nature. Animals have their own version of spoken language. Once written word appears, this was a departure from nature, since there is no precedence in nature. The dynamics of learning changes, with ancient wisdom perpetuated even after the death of genius; bible was written and is still here.

    If we had to rely on spoken language there is no way to assure an exact copy. Writing changed the balance between brain and the DNA. The main reason is, being carved in stone; writing, perpetuates what should organically change with time. Time heals all wounds, because the brain changes with time. If we write down the incident, the memory can be accurately refreshed so the organic process does not work the same way but begins to loop. This sets a potential with the DNA; spirit leading matter.

    In the symbolism of Adam and Eve, Eve eats of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This tree symbolized a specialty aspect of writing, connected to laws of good and evil. If law only had spoken language support, it would be subject to the flux of natural change, as the original needs are forgotten and modified by time and the needs of the next generation. But with written language; Eve likes to read, as the organic change tries to occur, since the law is carved in stone by writing, people become dogmatically blind. Death appears as dogmatic irrationally gets violent and oppressive due to sacred writing carved in stone, that should change, but cannot change without destruction; loops against nature.

    Darwin's book is a sacred writing for many. Because this writing is carved in stone, for many, there is resistance to any natural change; keeps looping back. The water within life is not yet seen as sacred, since it is only considered to be at spoken level; not yet regulation writing. If it was regulation writing, that was carved in journal stone, then the faithful behave differently. I am leaving it organic for now; spoken, so it can remain in flux since a lot needs to be done.
     
    davewhite04 likes this.
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    ...WW, Darwin's book is the insight of the process, divining - no pun intended - the method from observation. There is no 'looping back' as if the anti-gradient people such as yourself had presented some kind of reasonable alternative to the process we keep finding supporting evidence for, again and again and again and again. I just found some the other day, although I suspect you might say it had the scent of saltation - and maybe it does. But it does not impugn the essential idea of descent with modification, particularly in polygenic systems. There is no 'natural change': we have detected the natural system and it is something that, for whatever reason, you do not like.

    Please, save the pronouncements of prophecy. You are attempting to shove a broken cart into a crumbled mine-shaft.
     
  9. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    How did life begin? From an evolutionary standpoint.
    Are there any molecules that make more of themselves?
    And are there any that change their form if that will make it easier to replicate?
    The first living thing must have had simpler predecessors, otherwise it would be irreducibly complex.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Organic matter appears to be self-organising, as we would call it, and even as we would expect it, the latter being I guess tautological.
     
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,049
    It is? That is really weird since it is a science book. Who thinks it is sacred?
    Nor will it ever be, Aqualad.
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Miller-Urey experiment.
     
  14. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    This is straight almost all out of the dictionary and is as concise as I can be:

    "Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals,such as voice sounds,gestures,or written symbols leading to words."

    I posted a link but after thinking on it removed it, forgot to remove text hence the confusion.

    I don't think it is obvious. If our brains evolved to this point they wouldn't of just stopped evolving. It is possible that a change in diet, over time, may have unleashed the power of our imagination and we began to talk. Something happened, so what do you *think* it was?

    You're jumping ahead. You've assumed the position of We have established the cause now explain the spread we haven't explained any of the mystery of the written word.

    One of the two is needed, learning to talk and write doesn't come naturally. Even today we need to teach our young. Do you see what I mean? Guess not, but hope so.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Heh.
     
  16. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    Evolution does not explain the creation of life. We simply do not know.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,366
    What?

    This makes no sense.

    I have to hand it to you. You are outdoing yourself with this level of gibberish.

    It is a science book.

    Pretty sure it is available in paperback.

    Do you know what that is? Or is your tribe still stuck in the stone age?

    Does your water speak to you often?

    So now the water is writing regulations in journal stones?

    Is this your water or your stone that you are leaving organic?
     
    origin likes this.
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    That experiment shows that some organic chemicals are produced naturally, including amino acids.
    It doesn't show those chemicals competing with each other, and trying to replicate.
     
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Some changes allowed us to have larger and more complex brains. Expensive users of energy, requiring better nutrition.
    So.
    Agriculture, tools, meat and cooking.

    See http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...olution-of-the-human-species-new-book-argues/

    Added later. Missed one, Hunting.
    The first big advance in nutrition was hunting for larger animals.
    Homo heidelbergensis is currently thought to be the first type of man to hunt, and to make dwellings. This species may have split into Neanderthals and ourselves.
    See http://eol.org/pages/4454115/overview/
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2015
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,414
    Agreed. It is a common rhetorical trick of creationists to conflate evolution with the origin of life. There is evidence aplenty for evolution but, for abiogenesis itself, all we have is a hypothesis and a few tantalising clues. A lot of creationists will try to suggest that the lack of a real theory of abiogenesis makes the theory of evolution fall down. It doesn't of course, as the theory of evolution does not rely on any particular model, concept or mechanism for abiogenesis.
     
  21. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    Agreed.

    Exactly. Another well written paragraph.

    I wouldn't say that animals had their own "spoken" language, but maybe that is down to my understanding of the word *waits for bells to come running with her amazing insight*.

    You're explaining things rather well, and I'm glad I read your post as I had no idea it related to what I was talking about.

    You know exactly what I'm trying to say!

    The law was first written on stone by Moses according to the bible, and genesis was written by Moses, so writing seemingly came later for the Jewish people. But maybe I misunderstood what you're trying to convey?

    Agreed. My ex used to kiss her copy.

    Sort of understand, but a more elaborate explanation would be great.

    Don't let the likes of "bells" put you down, you are in a different league intellectually.

    Thanks for an excellent read.
     
  22. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Darwin's logic for the progression of life is called natural selection. Nature sets conditions; such as environmental; desert or rain forest. It also sets instinctive conditions within a species. Based on these potentials, there is an optimization that he calls natural selection. In his book, he limited the analysis to macro scale life; origin of species. This is life one can observe with the eye. Does the process of natural selection stop at Darwin's data set that he uses as the basis for his book?

    Say we extrapolate Darwin's theory of natural selection into smaller scales. I take his theory to the limit. Does Darwin's theory also apply at the nanoscale? In particular, does his theory apply to organic selection within a liquid water environment. Instead of reptiles were have amino acids. Or is the theory of natural selection limited to large scale such as species? I appear to be the only one giving Darwin the benefit of the doubt that it applies at all scales.

    I am extrapolating Darwin to the limiting scales of chemistry. He did not even go that far with his theory. You don't seem to think his theory works at that scale. You have made a 150+ year old book a dogma cast in stone; loop back wall.

    The consensus seems to prefer randomness at the nanoscale instead of the Darwinian logic of natural selection. Science has proven that protein folds, once thought to be subject to randomness, are not random at all. The folds are selected based on potential so they are always the same.

    Say we start with the consensus assumption of randomness during the pre-life stage this is called abiogenesis, and not the logic of natural selection. This implies Darwin's theory has a cut off below a certain scale. Does it only works with the mystery of life; religion.

    When something becomes a dogma, people forget what it really means. The blind start to lead the blind against those with sight.
     
    davewhite04 likes this.

Share This Page