| Evolution and thus atheism can't be correct |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Randel Astle ® 09/22/2002, 20:51:18 Author Profile Mail author |
It has been a while since I had time to visit this forum. However, I've spent some time reflecting on several of the topics covered here and on the associated web sites. One of those topics is evolution. Long ago, I discarded evolution as a viable theory since it doesn't make logical sense and because the raw theory proposed by so many is contrary to God -- which is contrary to my spiritual experiences. (There are variations of evolution that include God as the directing force.) Someone on this site asserted that the more someone learns about biology the more correct the theory of evolution appears. I have the opposite perspective: the more I learn about biology the more convinced I am that there had to be a creator. The systems in a single body are too complex and complementary to have "evolved" by accident. Add to that the complex ecosystems that the many forms of life exist in and it boggles the mind that anyone could believe it was an accident. At one time at least, much was said about the missing link. There are actually an extremely large number of missing links that can't be explained by the theory because they didn't take place. Specifically: If we are to accept the theory of evolution as truth, we have to accept the following: 1) At one time, billions of years in the past there existed on the earth a mix of raw chemicals, minerals, matter, etc. Over time, these chemicals reacted with each other forming ever more complex structures. Complexity on the level of a virus or a bacteria eventually developed. (Something science has never been able to demonstrate.) Presumably, some point after that one of these near-life organisms or perhaps a collection of such organisms ran into (or somehow generated) another complex structure that became its cell wall. And, viola, life was born. Of course, somehow, this first cell was programmed (accidentally of course) to reproduce by division so as to create more single cell organisms. Even better, a true evolutionist would probably point out that this process probably occurred many times before a viable cell developed in a viable environment. 2) Eventually, aberrations developed in the various descendents of this first single-celled organism. At some point, they had to start collecting together and somehow (no one knows how, this has to be taken on faith) some cells started to specialize. The specializations were small at first and some of these proved useless, so they died off. Others proved useful so they "survived". 3) Eventually, different systems developed that complemented each other. Some sort of circulatory system had to develop. Did the cell walls of the first circulatory system develop first? How long was this first circulatory system? Did a rudimentary heart that would pump fluid through this system develop at the same time somehow? What was the timing of the development of the fluid that circulated within the system? Similar questions naturally arise about the lymph system, the nervous system, the digestive system, muscles, the skeletal system. sight, hearing, smell, touch, skin, hair, teeth, lungs, bone marrow, etc. etc. All of these very specialized and complex systems developed by accident?? Of course they did, we are told by those who subscribe to this theory. Not only did they occur once by accident, they actually had to occur in slightly different ways to different descendants of the first cell (or cells). Some evolutionary paths led to insects, others to sea dwelling animals and plants, others to land based animals and plants, others to life forms that could fly (what did nascent wings look like? why did organisms that had these useless appendages survived until they became real wings? How did the first such creature learn to fly? How did it transmit this knowledge to its descendants?), etc. etc. 4) But it gets better: Initially the forms of life that are assumed to exist had to reproduce asexually. Male and female were unknown. So,at some point, in the many different evolutionary tracks, an aberration (translate that evolutionary step) created a distinctly male or female form of life. This form of life could not reproduce itself. Quite by accident, of course, another organism of the opposite sex developed simultaneously and in proximity to the male. Also, quite by accident, each of these organisms that could not reproduce without the other had to be compatible with each other in every regard except for sex. This actually must have occurred many times before a series of fortuitous coincidences brought together a viable male and female of the same species in an environment condusive to them reproducing and living. 5) We must also assume that the natural environment was developing in the correct direction in tandem with the different stages of development of life. If one or the other moved to fast or too slow, the development of life would have stopped because the environment would have become poisonous for that lifeform. Presumably existing lifeforms would find the environment that accidentally created the first single cell organisms to be toxic and vice-versa.
In any event, even if you buy into the probability being slightly geater than zero for each step, the cumulative probability of all these things happening would be so close to zero that it might as well be zero. Conclusion: I am incredulous that many smart people buy into this evolution bunk. If you take the time to think through what had to have occurred, you quickly realize that it couldn't happen. If evolution can't be the way life was created, then some form of intelligent creative force must have done it. A reasonable man or woman may not have a personal knowledge of this creative intelligence or his/her/its attributes. (Indeed, such knowledge cannot be acquired without the creative intelligence (God) revealing himself/herself/itself to them.) However, the existence of God seems more probable -- from a purely logical perspective -- than the non-existence of God. Ironically, many who subscribe to evolution/atheism do so because they are supposedly seeking after truth. They disparage those with faith in God as being foolish and uninformed. The argument is that they can believe only "facts" which can be proven by science. Evolution requires a great deal of faith and an intellectual arrogance that is unfathomable when the entire history of man demonstrates the fallibility of human reasoning. Evolutionists and atheists must of course discount the spiritual experiences that many bolster their faith in God with because they themselves haven't had the experience. By the same fallacious reasoning, most of them should not believe that man has flown to the moon because they haven't personally experienced it. While this line of reasoning appears conclusive to me, I doubt many of the people on this forum will accept it. There appears to be a part of man (even those who put a priority on logic and reason) to reject anything that contradicts their most fundamental beliefs or faith.
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
I disagree Re: Evolution and thus atheism can't be correct -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: RC ®
09/22/2002, 23:30:50
Author Profile Mail author
You seem bent over the idea of accepting certain aspects of a fairly sound theory on faith. I don't know that I see it that way.
Let me see if I can explain why I disagree. As I understand it, Mormons believe that God works according to natural laws. So, when you have an incident, say, Moroni descending and ascending through the roof of Joseph Smith's boyhood cabin, there is an explanation that follows natural laws. Just because we humans are ignorant of the laws that allow resurrected beings to pass through what would seem to mortals to be solid matter and also defy gravity, it doesn't mean that God doesn't work through natural laws and that it can't be done; we just don't know how he did it. In other words, even though we don't have all the answers, we know that one day we will. God doesn't defy laws, he just knows all of the laws. Mormons have 'faith' in that. Moroni can do what he can do because he understands the laws necessary to allow him to do that; we mortals don't.
But when it comes to evolution, instead of using the same reasoning, that perhaps we haven't discovered how the entire process of evolution works, though we have tangible evidence of its existence (e.g. Darwin's finches in the Galapogos, men's nipples, lots of garbage DNA, etc.), you simply deny that it could work because there are too many holes in the theory and we don't fully understand how it could work.
Based on your logic, Moroni could not have visited Joseph Smith. Why? Because we don't know how he could have done it therefore it could not have been done.
What I find even more ironic is that, though there is evidence of evolution and there is no evidence for God, you are still willing to put a belief of God above a belief in evolution. That's disturbing.
As for the statistical probability of evolution, try calculating the statistical probability of God and see which one is more likely?
Conclusion: I am incredulous that many smart people buy into this evolution bunk. If you take the time to think through what had to have occurred, you quickly realize that it couldn't happen. If evolution can't be the way life was created, then some form of intelligent creative force must have done it.
Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. If your entire argument against evolution is that it is unlikely, then you don't have much of an argument. There is no way that you can claim that it didn't happen. All you can say is that it was unlikely. How likely (prior to 9/11) was it that two planes would hit the World Trade Centers? Now that we know it can be done, we recognize that it is a possibility?
Again, if you want to talk likelihood, how likely was it that God the Father and Jesus the Christ visited a fourteen year old boy in upstate New York? How likely was it that the record of a non-existent (based on archeological evidence) people that descended from the Hebrews and populated the Americas (Central America specifically) buried their record of their non-existence several thousand miles from where their civilization ended in a hill only to have it dug up by a young man using a peep stone (or the help of the person who buried it who has since resurrected - whichever version suits your fancy)?
I don't think arguments of probability end in your favor.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I disagree Re: I disagree -- RC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Karyn ®
09/24/2002, 05:27:07
Author Profile Mail author
I believe Randy said something to the effect of "some form of intelligent creative force". You are putting words in his mouth and creating an argument that he never brought up by restricting this "force" to be the so-called God of Mormonism. I don't believe that was the purpose of Randy's post. He never purported to convince anyone that Mormonism is correct.
What he does an excellent job of, however, is bringing up evidences which would point to the hypothesis that this universe was indeed no accident. However further you want to go with your concept of "God" is entirely up to you.
I can't believe you actually used the tired old argument of men's nipples in rebuttal to this well-thought out posting. Puh-lease! While we're at it, why do human females have orgasms? Why do we have tails as fetuses that eventually shrink?
There are lots of unanswered questions, although ones that could certainly be guessed at, RC. The challenge put forth to you in this post is to consider and then critique the points which were brought up....something which you did not even attempt to do.
Karyn
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I've come of age on 2think.org!! Re: Re: I disagree -- Karyn Top of thread Archive
Posted by: RC ®
09/24/2002, 05:50:47
Author Profile Mail author
As for the men's nipples, that was meant to be funny :) If you didn't think it was, sorry. (In all seriousness, why do men have nipples, Karyn?)
As for answering the critiques posed by Randy, I think he talked a lot about probability. (Perhaps I mistakenly read that in his post, but I don't think so.) Now, I don't claim to know a lot about probability and I think Barbarian better addressed the whole post and I admitted that elsewhere (see my post below), but I did respond to his understanding of probability. As a matter of fact, I believe that was the point of my post. So, why attack me? I made a joke and pointed out that as probabilities go, (even though I used Mormon beliefs, which may be why you are attacking me), Randy doesn't have much of an argument.
If you don't like my point or my post, fine. But where are your answers? Your post seems limited to a attack on my post.
In light of the often observed (and carefully avoided on my part) bickering on this forum, I think being attacked may make me an official forum member. Whoopee!! I feel loved.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I've come of age on 2think.org!! Re: I've come of age on 2think.org!! -- RC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Karyn ®
09/24/2002, 06:17:21
Author Profile Mail author
Why do men have nipples, well, I personally believe its because boys and girls develop identically until 10-15 weeks of age, by that time the nipple tissue has already been formed, and then sexual characteristics continue to appear. Boys have the nipples which do nothing, girls develop breasts at puberty.
But of course I could be mistaken.
I disagree. I think in terms of probabilities, the numbers swing strongly in favor of the fact that there is a Spiritual Being who created the universe. How involve he/she/it was, we may never know.
I did not provide answers in my post because I did not believe Randy's post was asking any questions! :)
Since I remember your name from the last time I was heavily engaged on the board, I'd definitely say you're an official member. Besides its not often I take to the board anymore to attack anybody, so you should feel really honored!
(I'm kidding, in case you didn't catch my sarcasm. I really didn't mean to attack you, just cause you to reconsider your ideas.)
Karyn
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
PG rated response Re: Re: I've come of age on 2think.org!! -- Karyn Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Barbarian ®
09/24/2002, 09:23:11
Author Profile Mail author
But all girls have "penises"; the clitoris is the same structure. They also have a scrotum, in the form of labia. And men have traces of ovaries and so on.
Hormones, mediated by a tiny region of the male chromosome, do it all.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: PG rated response Re: PG rated response -- Barbarian Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Karyn ®
09/25/2002, 01:40:02
Author Profile Mail author
Karyn
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Decorative and sensual Re: Re: I've come of age on 2think.org!! -- Karyn Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/03/2002, 04:08:55
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: I disagree Re: Re: I disagree -- Karyn Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
09/24/2002, 08:46:43
Author Profile Mail author
I can easily understand people not accepting any particular religion as correct. I can understand people who believe that they can't understand the nature of God. However, I do not understand people who claim that there is no creator (or God) because the more knowledge science gains the more obvious it becomes that there was intelligence behind it.
We watched a series of shows on TLC recently that discussed the changes that are going on in the teenage body and mind (girls and boys). It was fascinating. I couldn't help but reflect on how perfectly it is designed to work. (Granted, there are aberations from time to time, for the most part it all works admirably well.)
The body and mind go through a truly amazing series of transformations from birth to death.
Randy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
"Perfectly!" What utter nonsense! Re: Re: I disagree -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/26/2002, 20:43:56
Author Profile Mail author
You write: "We watched a series of shows on TLC recently that discussed the changes that are going on in the teenage body and mind (girls and boys). It was fascinating. I couldn't help but reflect on how perfectly it is designed to work."
What a fatuous assertion!! What truly execrable thinking!
If the human brain was "designed perfectly", such changes would never be necessary at all! What terrible reasoning! If humans were "designed" (let alone perfectly), children would have the same cognitive abilities as adults! But they don't!
I would love to see you attempt to justify why "God" deliberately and "perfectly designed" the human brain to be so INCAPABLE of full cognitive and reasoning faculties until adulthood!!
Sheesh, what shallow thinking!
The human brain and body is a kludge that OBVIOUSLY was never designed at all! Hell, it is of such a third-rate, error-prone construction that it barely lasted 30-40 years during 99% of its history until modern medicine!
Your views are clearly uninformed.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Sep 26, 2002, 20:44:37
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: "Perfectly!" What utter nonsense! Re: "Perfectly!" What utter nonsense! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
09/28/2002, 08:25:07
Author Profile Mail author
Randy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Examples of kludgy, inept "design"! Re: Re: "Perfectly!" What utter nonsense! -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/28/2002, 09:27:36
Author Profile Mail author
You're kidding, right? Since when does belief in Design have anything at all to do with credible evidence?
There is NO such evidence that could reasonably lead an informed person to credibly hold such a belief! That is intellectually dishonest.
I excerpted these examples of kludgy, inept, third-rate "design" from a page on Talk.Origins (I STRONGLY recommend you read their Must Read FAQs at: Must-Read Files...
From: Matthew P. WienerClearly, the facts point only to naturalistic evolution!Detorted gastropods are another example of brain-dead design. Gastropods are famous for the 180 degree twist they do to their larval bodies, so that their rear ends are sticking out over their heads. So far, this is just weird. What is moronic (were it design) is the fact that some of the gastropods (the detorted ones) then do an untwist, and straighten out their body afterwards.
Note that had Garstang been right about the reason for the twist--it's a survival mechanism for larvae, protecting their heads--then twisting and untwisting makes good design sense. But experiment shows that torsion makes no such difference ... it only makes for good poetry.-----------------------------
From: Paul Keck
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: design in living organismsI've read that 1 in 3 men will need to have prostate surgery in their lives. Now, everyone look left.. now look right.. One of you will be the lucky man! Can you say endoscopy? How about razor blades?
Chris, you left out the even worse design of having the testes form inside the abdomen, then have to pass through the abdominal wall and down to the scrotum, thereby leaving a weak spot (two, actually) in the wall. This spot, called the inguinal canal, can herniate, allowing the intestines to slop out under the skin. Herniation both screws up the intestine and cuts off/slows the blood flow to the affected testis. Great design.
-----------------------------
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Bad design and vestigial organsIn my article on vestigial features, I had promised to omit the animal kingdom, in the expectation that others would have superabundant animal-kingdom examples. That expectation only partially fulfilled, I will now give some animal-kingdom examples. I hope it is good FAQ material :-)
The wings of flightless birds. For most flightless birds, the wings are non-functional, aside from possible display functions. The only major exceptions are diving birds, like penguins, whose "wings" serve as control surfaces. In some cases, the wings are very small, as for kiwis. The effect is to reduce the number of usable limbs from 4 to 2, which can hardly be called an improvement.
Bird-teeth genes. All the living birds, and all the known Cenozoic fossil birds, are toothless. Most Mesozoic birds and dinosaurs possessed teeth (any toothless Mesozoic birds?). A recent experiment in growing chicken-embryo jaw tissue next to some mouse/rat jaw tissue in a mouse's eye revealed that teeth formed. And the teeth did not look like any rodent teeth, but were peg-shaped with a conical top, just like the fossil bird teeth. The ability to grow teeth was thus preserved for over 65 million years, perhaps as a side effect of certain growth-control genes specifying more essential things.
Extra toes of ungulates. Various hoofed mammals typically have toe bones in addition to those that bear the hooves. This is readily evident on the feet of artiodactyls (cows, deer, pigs, etc.). For equids, two splints are sometimes present alongside the main toe bone. Also, domestic horses are sometimes born with three-toed feet. Relatively recent fossil equids, however, often had three-toed feet, indicating that the one-toed feet of the extant equids is a development of the last couple million years, but that the animals still have the ability to produce three toes per foot.
Solid-color equids having genes for making stripes. The living equids are the domestic horse, its wild progenitors, the donkeys, and the zebras and quaggas. Matings of different breeds of solid-color equids (horses and donkeys) sometimes produce offspring with zebra-like stripes. It is as if the genes for making stripes, which are expressed in zebras, are switched off in the solid-color equids, only to re-emerge in certain circumstances.
Flies growing legs instead of antennae on their heads, and mosquitoes with legs for mouthparts. These "homeotic mutations" suggest that these appendages were originally legs, but that they were specialized to different functions. Removing or disabling genetic instructions which roughly translate into "A limb on this segment is to become an antenna" and "a limb on this segment is to become a mouthpart" leaves the limb following a default instruction that goes something like "a limb on this segment is to become a leg" (it's not even that simple, because insect legs on different segments are often specialized differently). There is another mutation that causes fly larvae to start growing legs on the abdominal segments; this mutation is lethal, but if it was not, then an adult fly would emerge from the pupa with lots of extra legs down its body. The results of these limb-growth-control mutations are consistent with the hypothesis that the original arthropod had essentially identical, unspecialized limbs, which were specialized to different functions, or even suppressed, among its descendants. These limbs would have been specified in cookie-cutter fashion, and the various specializations and suppressions would have resulted from later add-ons to the growth instructions. Interestingly, trilobites and the Burgess Shale arthropods show relatively little evidence of limb specialization/suppression, so the earliest fossils are consistent with the overlaid cookie-cutter hypothesis.
Crab tails. Under their broad, flattened bodies can be found small tails. These are clearly a leftover from when their ancestors had long, thin bodies, as lobsters still do.
Ancestral wing configurations reappearing. Flies sometimes grow a second pair of wings instead of halteres (balancing organs); most other living insects have two pairs of wings. Cockroaches sometimes grow a third pair of wings, like some fossil insects.
Fetal teeth missing from adults. Baleen whale fetuses have teeth and fetal calves have upper front teeth; adult (and probably newborn) baleen whales are toothless (the baleen is not teeth), and cows lack upper front teeth. These teeth never erupt and are resorbed as the fetus grows.
Snakes with vestigial limbs. Boa constrictors have small vestigial hind legs; these may aid in copulating. However, most other species of snakes lack this feature, and seem to do fine without them.
Cetacean hipbones. Some whales have hipbones deep inside their bodies, attached to no limbs. One possible purpose is to serve as an attachment point for muscles that move the penis, however.
Mammal tails, at least in many cases. These are much reduced from the reptilian ancestral form, and when they serve a function, it is usually for whisking away flies (as for horses) or for signaling (consider dogs wagging their tails). New World monkeys, however, use them as an extra limb, and kangaroos have big tails for balancing, so mammal tails sometimes do have important new functions, however. There are some with very tiny tails, like elephants, and some which lack them, such as bears and apes/humans. The ancestral ape was probably capable of brachiating (moving around in trees suspended from tree limbs that one is holding), which gibbons and siamangs still do today. This would have made a tail a nuisance, thus leading to its suppression (the same thing may have happened to the ancestor of the frogs and toads). The disappearance (or only near-disappearance?) of bear tails is less easily explainable, however. But even there, evidence of tails is sometimes present, as in human embryos having tails for awhile. A side effect of a brachiating ancestry may be our ability to point our arms straight upward (in the direction of the head), an ability not as critical for our species as it is for gibbons and siamangs.
Flounder eyes. On sea floors, there live these fish that lie on their sides. They have two eyes -- on one side of their heads. But they start off life with eyes on both sides of their heads, and one eye moves to the other side. Why two eyes instead of one? And why originally on both sides of the head?
Original embryonic eye positions. In human and dog embryos, as in most other vertebrate embryos, the eyes are originally on the sides of the head. However, the eyes move forward as human and dog embryos grow, to make possible binocular vision. One human birth defect is for this process to be incomplete, making the eyes too far apart. Among the vast majority of the animals with backbones, the eyes are at the sides of the head; the main exceptions I know of are the bats, the primates, the carnivores, the owls, and possibly some of the more cerebrally endowed small carnivorous dinosaurs. In their family trees, they are surrounded with eyes-on-the-side animals, suggesting that binocular vision evolved several times.
Giraffe neck lengths. Baby giraffes start out with necks whose relative length is similar to those of other ungulates; it is as they grow that they acquire the relatively long necks that the species is noted for.
Human toes. Our feet have toes, one of which is big and slightly separated from the others. For walking, there is no special need of having a split front end of the foot; it should not be surprising that the toes are small. But they are there, and in most primate species they are much more prominent. In some species at least, the big toe points outward, just like a thumb. Interestingly, in some early hominid species, the toe bones were relatively longer than in our species.
Wisdom teeth. Our jaws are a bit small for these late-erupting teeth; some people have them, while others do not.
Outsized hind legs of some four-legged dinosaurs. Stegosaurus, especially, had hind legs much bigger than its front legs. This is probably a byproduct of being descended from a two-legged ancestor that went back to walking on all fours. Many of the dinosaurs walked on their hind limbs only, with the front limbs remining at various levels of development. In Tyrannosaurus, they are very small, though still there, which has led to the suggestion that they are vestigial. The earliest dinosaurs known, like Herrerasaurus, were like this. Transitional cases? Possibly! Iguanodon or some other such dinosaur apparently walked on two legs when juvenile, and on all fours when adult (and a lot heavier).
[My memory runs out at this point...]
Good sources for some of this material: Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and Stephen Jay Gould's essays, notably Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. In addition, studies of embryonic development often reveal an abundance of vestigial features, some examples of which are given here.
On the molecular level again....
An abundance of "pseudogenes" have been discovered, which are not prefaced with a "start" codon, but which have a resemblance to known genes that is too improbable to be coincidence. These are most likely the results of gene duplications and mutations that turned the "start" codon into something else. Thus the DNA-to-RNA transcription system does not "know" that here is a gene to be expressed.
-----------------------------
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Chris Colby wrote:You can find bad design everywhere in the human body (the wiring of the photoreceptors in the eye and the structure of the knee leap immediately to mind (perched rather precariously for such a supposedly important structure)).
It can hardly be said that the human knee is well designed for kneeling. Prolonged kneeling can lead to an expansion of the bursa in front of the patella, a condition known as housemaid's knee. (Perhaps that's why housemaids are almost extinct.)
Likewise, there's a design flaw in the human elbow. At the knob on the lower end of the humerus the ulnar nerve is exposed just under the skin. A sharp blow by a hard object causes that numbing, painful sensation called "striking the funny bone" (a pun on the name of the bone).
There are some additional design flaws that appear in the manufacturing process of humans: the fetal lanugo, the grasping reflex, the Moro reflex, and the fontanelles. Even the adult human skull is too thin to provide adequate protection to the gigantic brain and the absence of brow ridges leaves the eyes poorly protected.
When can we expect issuance of the recall notice?
-----------------------------
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: More vestigial features...Fused bones. These are bones that start out separate and become knitted together for added strength. Human examples are the skull and the pelvis; birds have several bones in their front limbs (wings) fused.
Bird alula or "bastard wing". A much-reduced digit on the front limb. The two others are retained, though they are fused into one piece.The Hoatzin chick's claws. The claws on their wing limbs enable them to climb away from potential predators; their presence indicates that all the clawless-winged birds have the potential of growing claws on their wing limbs, which is inherited from their clawed-limbed land ancestors, which were probably small theropod (carnivorous) dinosaurs.
Hollowness of dodo and penguin bones. It is not critical for ground birds to reduce weight with hollow bones of the sort that flying birds have.
Animals which make teeth as fetuses, then resorb them: Baleen whales, anteaters, and some ungulates (cows have upper front teeth which they later resorb).
Gill bars of tetrapod (land-vertebrate and descendant) embryos. The cartilage gill bars appear, only to disappear or be reworked with later growth. Of these animals, only amphibians have gills, and that only in the larval (tadpole) stage. Most adult amphibians and all the rest are air breathers; even the aquatic ones do not grow gills to use underwater.
Aquatic-tetrapod air breathing and land breeding. Largely aquatic animals like sea turtles, Galapagos iguanas, sea snakes, crocodilians, water birds including penguins, phocids (seals, sea lions, and walruses), and cetaceans (dolphins and whales) all have to come up to the surface to breathe; all of them but the sea snakes and the cetaceans lay eggs or give birth on the land. Though the sea snakes and cetaceans are completely aquatic, giving birth in the water, they still have to breathe air, which is a limitation for a completely aquatic animal.
Jaw origins from gill bars. In jawed-vertebrate embryos, the jaws are formed from the gill bars closest to the mouth. In jawless fish (lampreys and hagfish), these gill bars stay gill bars. This circumstance indicates an origin of jaws from gill bars.
The mammalian amniotic sac. This is a vestigial eggshell that surrounds the fetus. Live birth evolved out of retaining an egg inside.
Tadpoles. Immature frogs go through this phase, in which they look and act much like fish.
The aquatic embryos of land salamanders, which live on the land from hatching.
Tails of human embryos. Though tails are a nearly universal vertebrate feature, and are present in all the embryos, they are lost in later growth in our species and the most closely related ones (the apes), leaving only a tiny bone on the pelvis, the coccyx.
Rudimentary legs of some snakes (boas, etc.). Other species of snakes seem to do fine without them.
The small lung of snakes with only one lung significantly large. It is an inheritance from two-lunged ancestors.
Small wings of flightless female moths in certain species. In most other species, as with winged insects in general, both sexes, and not only the male, have functional wings.
Stumpy tails and other such features of some domestic animals bred to have none.
Nonfunctional pistils in male flowers. Since the predominant configuration of flowers is to have both sexes of reproductive organs (stamens and pistils), the pistil of a flower with only stamens functional is vestigial.
Certain plants [Serophulariaceae (Darwin's Origin of Species)] have reduced stamens.
Please also respond to my posts: Inquiry for Non-Evolutionists: Astle/Weller/Karyn
and
Why Creationism is ANTI-CHRISTIAN!
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, Sep 28, 2002, 09:32:15
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Examples of kludgy, inept "design"! Re: Examples of kludgy, inept "design"! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
10/06/2002, 22:35:40
Author Profile Mail author
Actually, I'm not kidding about the design bit. No man understands everything. However, just as you think it is illogical for someone to believe it was designed, I find it illogical to look at the amazing complexity of various living systems (of living organisms and the systems within those organisms) and deny the existence of a creative intellect in the development of those systems.
That God may use evolution/Natural selection, I can accept. Truthfully, I don't know one way or the other. Barbarian's statements demonstrated that they theories have evolved (pun intended) quite a bit themselves and I need to see where they currently are.
However, mankind with all its wonderful modern technology still cannot create systems that are a fraction as complicated as those we find in nature. To believe that such systems developed as a series of fortuitous accidents over time is the height of absurdity. Your examples are interesting, but hardly on point: assuming that a creative intelligence exists still doesn't explain the purposes and methods that such an intelligence might utilize. We can't assume that human ideas of perfect form and function or that human motivations are even slightly related to the ideas and motives of such an intelligence.
I noted that Barbarian, while having a great deal of knowledge of biology still is Christian. There are many scientists of many different religions who maintain that their scientific learning strengthens their belief in a creator.
And BTW, belief in design isn't credible evidence, but then neither is belief in accidents.
Randy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Examples of kludgy, inept "design"! Re: Re: Examples of kludgy, inept "design"! -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/07/2002, 17:30:12
Author Profile Mail author
Your post reveals that you simply do NOT understand what you're talking about. It also reveals that you can't provide any credible response to even the very, very short list of examples which prove that IF life forms were designed, they were designed by an IDIOT.
Furthermore, you seem to lack the intellectual honesty required to realize that the IDIOCY apparent in the reputed "design" of life not only refutes the idea of intelligent design, it is enormously compelling evidence in FAVOR of purely naturalistic evolution via selection! In other words, the evidence which you cite for Creationism is actually overwhelming, devastating evidence against Creation or Intelligent Design!
You write: "However, mankind with all its wonderful modern technology still cannot create systems that are a fraction as complicated as those we find in nature."
That is simply FALSE! True, no scientist has created life from non-life in the lab, but that is because no one can wait a billion years for the experiment to run its course! Furthermore, most large computer programs such as operating systems as well as artifacts such as the Space Shuttle are far MORE complex than many life forms, so your assertion is underinformed and is not at all the case.
You then write: "To believe that such systems developed as a series of fortuitous accidents over time is the height of absurdity."
I agree entirely! But as you've been informed over and over again but REFUSE to learn, THAT IS NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS!! You seem to be quite pathetically committed to your ignorant straw-man fallacy based on the Cartoonish misrepresentation of real science promulgated by the intellectually dishonest frauds who deny evolution!
You then quite ignorantly and foolishly write: "Your examples are interesting, but hardly on point: assuming that a creative intelligence exists still doesn't explain the purposes and methods that such an intelligence might utilize. We can't assume that human ideas of perfect form and function or that human motivations are even slightly related to the ideas and motives of such an intelligence."
IRRELEVANT! The construction is terrible! It shows not a hint of foresight and foreknowledge, and is as rickety and idiotic as only blind nature can possibly explain! Life is often more Rube Golbergian than Rube Goldberg's cartoon creations!
And your astonishingly poor reading comprehension skills obviously remain unimproved, since you foolishly and quite ignorantly proclaim that because The Barbarian is a sincere Christian, he is some kind of Creationist!! Why can't you understand the simple fact that there is absolutely NO CONTRADICTION between accepting scientific evolution and believing in God?? As Pat indicated, to deny evolution is to deny God, for to deny evolution and other scientific facts is to deny the truth!
Your thinking is deeply -- but I hope not irreparably -- flawed and uninformed.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
"Puh-lease" indeed! Re: Re: I disagree -- Karyn Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/26/2002, 20:31:29
Author Profile Mail author
What was "well-thought out" in Astle's rather ignorant post? Nothing! And the only "excellent" feature of his post is that it was singularly free of cogent, rational thinking and genuine understanding of the issues!
Your incredibly naive assertion to the effect there could possibly exist any natural evidence of a non-naturalistic cause of the universe and the evolution of life is the same old shallow thinking for which you are so deservedly infamous. Nothing natural can EVER provide valid evidence of a non-natural cause! Your thinking on this issue is philosophically quite unsophisticated; as hopelessly naive as Astle's.
(You ask why females have orgasms. The overwhelming majority of species' females don't!! Furthermore, I have explained the evolution of the human female orgasm at length several times over the years. It can ONLY be understood by evolution by natural selection!)
As we have seen over and over in the past, Karyn, you -- exactly like Astle -- egregiously lack the correct information and knowledge necessary to grasp that evolution is a completely unassailable FACT, as certain a FACT as that the sun shines!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: "Puh-lease" indeed! Re: "Puh-lease" indeed! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Barbarian ®
09/27/2002, 10:01:37
Author Profile Mail author
"You ask why females have orgasms. The overwhelming majority of species' females don't!! "Really? I've never known one well enough to know for sure, that didn't. :D
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I really shouldn't do this Re: Re: "Puh-lease" indeed! -- Barbarian Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/27/2002, 10:20:27
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki Inquires: Perhaps the more interesting question would be not "why do females have orgasms" but why do they fake it?
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Sep 27, 2002, 10:24:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I really shouldn't do this Re: I really shouldn't do this -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
09/27/2002, 10:31:26
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I disagree Re: Re: I really shouldn't do this -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/27/2002, 10:43:28
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
LOL Re: I disagree -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
09/27/2002, 10:48:03
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: "Puh-lease" indeed! Re: Re: "Puh-lease" indeed! -- Barbarian Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/27/2002, 11:30:15
Author Profile Mail author
Cheers,- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I'm a midwesterner, too... Re: Re: "Puh-lease" indeed! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Barbarian ®
09/29/2002, 13:52:38
Author Profile Mail author
C'mon, fess up. Midwesterners like to appear practical and solid, but inside those parkas...
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: I disagree Re: I disagree -- RC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
09/24/2002, 06:13:17
Author Profile Mail author
I am not exactly surprised at disagreement with what I posted -- not on this site anyway. If I thought you would agree with me I probably wouldn't have taken the time to post it.
You are correct, there is much that we don't understand. And you can properly apply that argument to the theory of evolution. However, most people who favor evolution favor teaching it as fact. They also usually state that they adhere to evolution because it is hard science. The reality is that it is not hard science.
There is no hard proof of evolution. There are lots of different facts that people have used to conclude that evolution occurred. Others, such as myself, see the proof of the existence of a creator in those same facts.
I don't have any objection to someone saying that they believe in the theory of evolution. It is just inconsistent for them to criticize religious people for their faith when they are also exercising faith.
Not surprisingly, I likewise disagree with your conclusion that there is proof of evolution and none for God. While I am definitely not as well-versed as many on this site on a wide variety of subjects, I can say that for every issue that I've investigated, there are alternative explanations and people who support those explanations. Usually, I find that the "facts" that tend to support a conclusion are emphasized and those that don't are ignored. (This is true for people on the religion side as well -- it seems to be a human trait.)
I simply don't accept that evolution is the only explanation for men having nipples, etc. Obviously, I can't explain everything that people use to support evolution, but I can accept through faith, that if we knew everything it would all make sense.
As for probabilities, IMO, the probabilities of several of items I pointed out is zero (not an extremely small number). I can't prove it. Mankind doesn't know enough to calculate the number. All I can do is compare it to what I do know.
I am continually amazed at the complexity of living things (plants or animals, big or small). And there are layers and layers and layers of complexity. If you examine the smallest cell or large ecosystems, you find that everything tends work together to create generally stable (but extremely adaptable) systems. Systems interact with other systems to create even larger systems.
It is absolutely amazing that they exist at all. That such complex systems are thought to have developed accidentally is hard to believe. Mankind is no where close to being able to create such systems. And, in fact, outside of living systems, experience teaches us that entropy rules.
There was a time (high school) when I thought evolution might be a serious challenge to a belief in God. However, the more I've learn of science, the more convinced I am of the existence of a creator.
Obviously I think the probability of God appearing to Joseph Smith to be extremely high. :-) Likewise for the Book of Mormon:
As you so eloquently pointed out, just because there are holes in a logical proof, doesn't mean it isn't true. At one time we thought that the city of Troy was mythical. Men once thought the world was flat. The Bohr model of the atom was considered to be "correct" for many years. In the mid 1800's some people thought that mankind had learned all that could be learned. Recently, I heard supposition that the speed of light isn't the absolute constant that it was previously thought to be.
In my experience, there are a variety of facts that can be interpreted to mean that the cultures that existed on the American continent do not reflect the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. There are other facts that can be interpreted to support the Book of Mormon. (And there are some facts that fall into both camps.) Basically, it becomes a matter of interpretation.
Ultimately, I don't base my faith in the existence of God, the reality that Joseph Smith is a prophet, or that the Book of Mormon is a history of a people on the American continent on an imperfect understanding of a limited number of "facts". If fully investigated, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate to any reasonable mind that these things are possibilities. Beyond that, every man or woman must find out directly from God by revelation whether these things are correct. That revelation comes to anyone who diligently seeks the truth and sincerely asks God.
BTW, I apologize for this somewhat disjointed response.
Randy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I think you probably meant to say... Re: Re: I disagree -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Kevin ®
09/24/2002, 07:17:09
Author Profile Mail author
You stated:
"There is no hard proof of evolution. There are lots of different facts that people have used to conclude that evolution occurred."
I don't mean to quibble on terminology (especially after the whole "agnostic" thread! Yikes!), but I'm assuming you meant, "There is no hard proof of natural selection or some other non-design mechanism of evolution." Was that the intent of your statement?
I ask this because many people call any of the few mechanisms of evolution by the generic term "evolution".
However, in this debate this tends to muddy the water very quickly.
"Evolution" has been observed many times in the past (particularly micro-evolution -- evolution within a species), and is continually being observed in the present. So, "evolution" per se is an established, observable fact. No one questions that evolution happens in bacteria, plant life, insect life and animal life.
What may be disagreed upon is the mechanism for evolution -- ie. Natural Selection, random genetic fluctuations, divine intervention, etc., or even the degree of evolution (micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution).
Just a suggestion, but in the future it will greatly facilitate your arguments if you don't use the term "evolution" so loosely.
On the other hand, if you truly did mean that "evolution" has never been observed (ie. the alteration of a species), then that is an untenable position, and one that you should stay clear of.
Just my two cents.
Modified by Kevin at Tue, Sep 24, 2002, 07:25:46
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I think you probably meant to say... Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Kevin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
09/24/2002, 08:40:48
Author Profile Mail author
Instead of evolution, I prefer the term adaptation. To me this is yet another indication of the intelligence of the creator.
However, by evolution I mean the theory that an amoeba turned into a fish which turned into a frog, etc.
Randy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I think you probably meant to say... Re: Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Barbarian ®
09/24/2002, 08:48:23
Author Profile Mail author
Cartoon Theory of Evolution again. The real one doesn't say that amoebas became fish. I suggest that you might be well advised to read The Evolution of Vertebrate Design Leonard Radinsky, U. of Chicago Press, for a good, readable description of the way vertebrate evolution went.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I think you probably meant to say... Re: Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Barbarian Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
09/24/2002, 09:18:00
Author Profile Mail author
I was just picking random animals to make the general point of progression from simpler to more complex lifeforms. Please read my response your earlier post.
Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation. I'll have to get it. Can I understand it, or do I need to read more basic books first?
FYI: I design and develop computer applications for a living. I'm not a scientist though I enjoy learning about it a great deal.
Randy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I think you probably meant to say... Re: Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Barbarian ®
09/24/2002, 09:26:52
Author Profile Mail author
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary.asp
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks Re: Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Barbarian Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
09/24/2002, 09:55:44
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: I think you probably meant to say... Re: Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Darr ®
09/24/2002, 13:48:12
Author Profile Mail author
What determines a simpler or a more complex lifeform? Where does the line of demarcation lie? Does the number of genes determine complexity? If so, how? If not, why not?
Is French more complex than English? Is German? Where is the missing link between German and Middle English? Can you determine at what point English stopped being Middle English? Evolution is much like the change in language in that gradually a species differs from its ancestors and becomes a new but related one. A dog will always be a canine, just as that first ancestor that we designate as a canine was. However that first canine is not a dog, nor is it necessarily less "complex."
And yes, I realize my example is wholly inprecise.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I think you probably meant to say... Re: Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/26/2002, 20:51:20
Author Profile Mail author
There are at least two others of us here whose career is software enginering, Darr and myself. However, unlike you, we're nevertheless informed, intelligent and rational enough to know that evolution is an utterly indisputable FACT! It is as certain a fact as that the sun exists and that it radiates energy!! You certainly do NOT need to be a scientist to know that evolution is a fact!
Furthermore, even your talk about "simple to complex lifeforms" is inconsistent with a correct understanding of evolution.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I think you probably meant to say... Re: Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
09/28/2002, 08:31:58
Author Profile Mail author
However, for all your self-vaunted excellence in thinking and criticism of mine, you have missed my point entirely.
And, while Barbarian certainly pointed out that my knowledge of current evolution theory is behind, he basically substantiated my point.
Nothing I've heard on the forum has led me to believe that the fundamental assertion that there has to be a creator isn't correct. (BTW, you should know that throwing aspersions on people is a poor substitute for an argument.)
Randy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Do you have ANY respect for the truth? Re: Re: I think you probably meant to say... -- Randel Astle Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/28/2002, 10:02:27
Author Profile Mail author
You have already demonstrated that reason and logic and science and accurate observation means almost NOTHING to you on this subject, and your refusal or inability to answer some important posts of mine (particularly, Inquiry for Non-Evolutionists: Astle/Weller/Karyn and Examples of kludgy, inept "design"! among others) demonstrates that you couldn't care less about any rational arguments!
And your ignorance of what Pat the Barbarian wrote is POWERFUL evidence that you have no interest in the truth at all! Pat did NOT say that there had to be a creator!! He was simply voicing his personal religious belief, and he would be the very FIRST to say that such is NOT a scientific view or opinion at all!
If you had actually read him with any respectable degree of intellectual effort, you would have known that Pat argued persuasively that EVOLUTION IS A FACT! Whether it was supernaturally instigated or not is NOT RELEVANT! Evolution is a FACT as well as a theory! See: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Evolution is not an "apparent" fact, it IS an utterly unquestionable fact, as unquestionable a fact as that the sun radiates energy!See Must Read FAQ and rigorously answer my post: Inquiry for Non-Evolutionists: Astle/Weller/Karyn
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, Sep 28, 2002, 10:38:37
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Do you have ANY respect for the truth? Re: Do you have ANY respect for the truth? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Randel Astle ®
10/06/2002, 22:46:20
Author Profile Mail author
The intellectuals of the world have a long history of asserting things as fact that were later disproved. They have even gone to great lengths to develop complicated theories to "prove" their initial assumptions.
Later evidence has frequently "proven" them wrong.
If you noted my posts as carefully as you say I should have noted Barbarians, you will recall that I stated I don't know if evolution is a tool that God sometimes (or always) uses. Neither science nor religion has any opinion on such things.
And, it appears that I may not have explained myself as well as I would have liked in my original post. This was in part at least because of my lack of familiarity with current evolution theory. I also acknowledge that I am not the most eloquent person around.
I should have also stated that I can understand someone believing in a creative intelligence (God) and in evolution. I just can't understand someone believing in evolution without a creative intelligence. The very complexity of life and of living systems are evidence to the contrary.
Randy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
