Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: March 12, 2008 11:17PM This short video is a good illustration of how evolution can result in complexity and functioning organisms. Smart illustration of evolutionary concepts refuting a favourite straw man argument that ID/creationist supporters tend to bring up - the analogy of a mechanical clock somehow implying an intelligent designer.
[uk.youtube.com] Cheers, J Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 13, 2008 03:06AM jose
If youf beleive in human evolution then please give me the order in whch all of the parts of the human body evolved. elnatural Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
jamielor
()
Date: March 13, 2008 04:46AM "jose
If youf beleive in human evolution then please give me the order in whch all of the parts of the human body evolved. elnatural" They evolved together serving the whole. If you believe in creationism, which did God create first - cardinals or blue jays? - N**z Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 13, 2008 07:05AM NZ
So you think they evolved together, then give me the order in wich they became complete. Example did the brain get finished before the heart, did the eyes get finished before the feet, did the lungs get finished before the blood veseles, did the muscles get finished befoore the skeloton? just give in numerical order how they became complete. LOL, no one has ever been able to answer this yet and no one ever will, LOL!!!!!!!!!!! What if I were to pay you $1000 for an answer that works, could you pull it out of the hat then? LOL.................. elnatural Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
arugula
()
Date: March 13, 2008 10:53AM > did the brain get finished before the heart
Yes, as a matter of fact it did. Cnidarians have nerve nets but not hearts. > did the eyes get finished before the feet, No. The feet came first, cf. the gastropods. >did the muscles get finished befoore the skeleton? Yes, cnidarians. >did the lungs get finished before the blood veseles No. Worms have blood vessels but not lungs. Pay up! Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: March 13, 2008 11:26AM Haha, you beat me to it arugula
Yes elnatural, by looking at our evolutionary ancestors you'll find when all these systems that you talk about first evolved, and plenty of examples of organisms with primitive hearts, brains, limbs and so on. I thought the video which I posted was quite cool since it reflects a few characteristics which real life evolution also shares, such as the relatively quick transition times between evolutionary processes (such as when the clocks jumped from 1 to 2 hands, for example) and also how from just a jumble of parts related in certain ways and through "natural selection" one can arrive at arbitrarily complex organisms. Is there anything in the computer simulation that wasn't clear or which you find objectionable? Cheers, J Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: March 13, 2008 11:45AM Hey Narz,
Good to see you around. That's a good point you raise since evolution is a highly falsifiable theory. All one has to do is find rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian and you're done Hey elnatural, a further point is that in fact evolutionary theory predicts that complexity rises as time progresses, through random mutations and natural selection, which makes sense and is backed by all the evidence since for example one can't have a brain without having some kind of nerve cells first, and then nerve bundles, and so on in increasing complexity until one arrives at some of the brains extant today. In the same way, first one needs simple unicellular organisms before one can get more complex organisms, which is what evolution predicts and the evidence shows. If you look at the evidence, it is overwhelming. ID/creationism postulates that all organisms, simple and complex, were "created" at about the same time, which is not backed up by any evidence, and in fact is clearly false when considering the geological column. Like I mentioned above, why is it that we don't find rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian? On a different note, I find ID/creationism quite a perplexing view to have, from a philosophical point of view, since in effect it is giving up looking for an explanation of the way things are, or of a deeper understanding of Nature, by just saying "God did it" (whatever that may really mean). Don't you find that the richness of evolutionary theory and the scientific enterprise in general allows us to appreciate and love Nature more profoundly, and to reach a better understanding of it? There is such a richness of ideas and realities of which we are overwhelmingly unaware being unearthed by science day in and day out that it really baffles me why anyone would not want to partake in this celebration of Nature. As a side question, do you think that all the species were created at some point in the past and have remained unchanged since then? Or do you recognise that there is DNA in cells, and that it mutates, and that even in the present day new strains of bacteria and other organisms are evolving all the time? I guess my question is, do you accept the fact that evolution is occurring incessantly even today, and if so how do you reconcile that with the belief that evolutionary processes didn't occur in the past? Cheers, J Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
jamielor
()
Date: March 13, 2008 12:44PM "Hey Narz,
Good to see you around." shhhh, I'm supposed to be banned - Jamie Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
arugula
()
Date: March 13, 2008 01:03PM Jose my friend, you are wasting your time w/ El NaturAl. He holds some exceedingly unnatural ideas that will forever remain unsullied by fact, regardless of the facts.
(hello "jamielor"!) Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 13, 2008 05:21PM arugula
You didnt win any money yet as you havent answered the question. Put in numerical order all the parts of human the order in wich you think they became finished. Contest is still open........... elnatural Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 15, 2008 01:20AM Allright just as I predicted no would be able to answer my question? No one has done it in the past and no one ever will! LOL HaHaHa
elnatural Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
arugula
()
Date: March 15, 2008 02:26AM Yes, your question has been answered. Any evolutionary biologist could do it. It's something they teach the fundamentals of in core bio 2.
List any additional "parts" I have not already addressed and I will put them in order to the best of my abilities. I have had core bio 2. Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 15, 2008 03:33AM brain
heart lungs eyes ears nose mouth skeleton stomach intestines liver kidneys nervers tounge hands feet arms legs spleen thimus apendix lymph system blood vessles esophagus reproductive system fingers toes hair joints gallbladder bladder bone marrow muscles tendons skin pituitary gland teeth good luck and im ready for a good laugh LOL Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 15, 2008 04:53PM and to add to the above list
blood Hey you evoluntion guys where are you hiding at,if you are so sure of yourselfs cough up the answer. elnatural Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: March 15, 2008 05:44PM Hey elnatural,
we answered your questions
Now it's your turn to answer mine
And then we can look at your further questions, and so on. That way we can move forward. It seems only fair don't you agree? Cheers, J Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
arugula
()
Date: March 15, 2008 10:04PM reproductive system came first.
all living things reproduce. but it gradually became more complicated sponge skin is an early development. skeletal fibers are also early mouth but no anus cnidarians mouth = anus skin tentacles planarians eyes rotifers totally separate anus some other GI organs brachiopods muscles nemerteans blood vessels heart mollusks complete GI organs (liver, kidneys, spleen, etc.) separate sexes (gonads, reproductive organs) arthropods legs lymph haikouichtys skull, teeth, bone marrow, joints, tendons lamprey skeleton arms bony fish-> amphibians->reptiles-> mammals amphibians fingers, toes, lungs mammals hair, pituitary Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: March 17, 2008 12:13AM Thanks for the list arugula, I hope elnatural responds to that and also the questions I posted earlier.
Another argument that some ID people tend to use is the fallacious assertion that the human eye is "irreducibly complex" and must therefore be "designed". Of course this argument is completely false, and one can show a sequence of events where from a very primitive light detector made of optic nerves, a very sophisticated eye arises, and each step is beneficial and selected for by nature since it confers advantages to survival. Outline of this evolutionary process: Also from the article
From [en.wikipedia.org] I hope those that believe in ID/creationism will take the time to read and learn about evolution. There is nothing to fear about learning more about the world. Cheers, J Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
arugula
()
Date: March 17, 2008 01:19AM Lens crystallin is a long lived protein, and tends to be badly damaged by glycotoxins. Just another reason to go raw.
RE: irreducible complexity, there is a similar claim for the bacterial flagellum, and a lovely youtube video refuting it. [youtube.com] I celebrate the flagellum! Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 17, 2008 09:51PM well, most of this is interesting. thanks to the open minded crew for the info, great reading. little is always so interested in this stuff. Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
arugula
()
Date: March 18, 2008 12:18AM I think the last thing (or one of the major last things) in human development was the outrageously oversized neocortex. Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
jono
()
Date: March 18, 2008 05:46AM Hmmm... will elnatural respond to these thoughtful and intelligent answers to his/her questions? Will he/she look at the science more carefully or continue to ignore all views but his/her own? Can you feel the suspense? Find out next time on a brand new episode of The Watchmaker! Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: April 17, 2008 04:16PM For those interested in learning more about evolution, you may be interested in knowing that all of Darwin's work is available for free online viewing here [darwin-online.org.uk]
Cheers, J ps I do hope elnatural will respond and be open to these ideas based on the evidence provided. Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
musicbebe
()
Date: April 26, 2008 12:35PM No new DNA information has ever arisen due to random chance or unguided processes. Mutations are always a result of LOST or jumbled DNA information.
And lets play nice here. The creationists shouldn't call the evolutionists idiots and vice versa! We all have a worldview and a way that things make sense to us. If we present our ideas in a kind way, others will be more open to hearing them. By the way, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I can just sense the tension on this topic... Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: April 27, 2008 06:37AM Oh please, blaming evolution for eugenics is like blaming creationism for racism (many to this day still believe the "mongrel races" are the descendants of Cain).
That Creationism museum still makes me chuckle. I always picture it next to a house of mirrors and a haunted mansion in an amusement park. This graph pretty much says it all. Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: April 27, 2008 01:18PM more people have been brutally slaughtered in the name of religion than anything else there ever, ever was. where anyone gets off writing that article above is beyond me, justify much? yikes. Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: April 27, 2008 10:51PM <<But it is not out of bounds to point out that the modern times articulator of evolution ( evolution has been believed throughout time, in various forms), Darwin himself, accepted eugenics.>>
When you make assertions like this you should at least provide some evidence. Do you have any? A good place to get you started on this topic is the following article, with references therein (you can read all of Darwin's works online in the reference I provided a few posts aog)
From [en.wikipedia.org] The whole evolution/eugenics thing which you bring up is a complete canard of course, but let us expose this fallacious argument one more time. Firstly, eugenics has NOTHING to do with evolution. Let me try to illustrate your illogical thinking with an example. For millennia, farmers have known that if you breed two large cows together, for example, you will tend to get more large cows, and if you breed cows that deliver lots of milk, then you will tend to get more cows that deliver lots of milk. Likewise, farmers learnt that if you crossed two plants which bore sweet fruit, then future generations of that plant would tend to bear sweeter fruit. And so sweeter hybridised fruits were developed, as well as hybridised animals which were artificially selected to possess "desirable" features. This has been know for millennia, long long before Darwin. These are examples of how ARTIFICIAL SELECTIO can affect the evolution of a species. This ARTIFICIAL SELECTION process is what eugenics is based on, ARTIFICIALLY SELECTING, by either forced sterilisation or other means, "desirable" traits for future generations. The genius of Darwin was to recognise that there can also be NATURAL processes which can mould the evolution of a species. This NATURAL SELECTION, the pressures on the individual by the environment, is what creates the evolution of the species, and in general the great diversity and complexity of life that surrounds us. So for example, a random mutation that resulted in fish with slightly better eyesight (see example a few posts above) would give those fish higher chances of survival in their environment, be it because they could hunt for food easier, escape from predators easier, whatever. They would therefore pass on their genes with a higher probability, and eventually that eyesight mutation would become prevalent as more and more of those better seeing fish multiplied and survived, and so the whole species would evolve and change. As I hope you can see from the above examples, eugenics has everything to do with ARTIFICIAL SELECTION (which was known long before Darwin), and NOTHING to do with NATURAL SELECTION (which was the great insight that Darwin put forward and which is the foundation of evolutionary theory). As a further question, why do you feel it necessary to believe in an imaginary entity? Do you not think that you can be the exact same nice and benevolent person you are without having to rely upon some imaginary construct? Why not just forget about "God" and be good and eat raw foods anyways? I'll never understand why people find it necessary to believe in God in order to be good. It seems to me that is a particularly bad reason to be good, as you either expect a reward for being good, or you fear punishment from not being good. I think a better reason for being good is for reducing unnecessary suffering, recognising that other people (and animals) have emotions and feelings just like we do, since we are all related by this incredible evolutionary process. I have already written quite a lot of about how it is preferable to choose reason and evidence over imaginary and dogmatic belief systems, but it is also interesting to read about how Darwin himself, which once studied to become a clergyman, was able to realise the falsity of the Bible and other scriptures by examining the evidence and geological record and "seating reason firmly on her seat", as Jefferson so aptly puts it.
From the same wiki article as above. Cheers, J Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: April 28, 2008 12:39AM jose, dude, you are SO my hero. Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: April 30, 2008 11:49AM Hey coco, thanks, just trying to clear up a few things which people sometimes fall for.
This article describes how this religious professor has a more reasonable stance on evolution, and claims that it is more compatible with religious faith.
From [www.nytimes.com] The thing he hasn't quite grasped, I don't think, is that while he recognises that claiming God made things directly would render him "a sadist", "an abortionist" and "a lousy engineer", which are valid points, he still claims that God essentially created the evolutionary process, and if claims to God's omniprescience are to be believed, then God would still be directly responsible for these accusations, as God must have therefore known how evolution would turn out. It is these kinds of logical fallacies that are brought about by believing in irrational thought systems such as the Abrahamic religions. At least he makes it quite clear to religious believers that evolution is a more rational explanation for the complexity of life than any contrived intelligent design proposal. I disagree with him on his contention that science and religion are non-overlapping realms of knowledge though. This is another point that is well made in The God Delusion. Firstly, I don't see religious "knowledge" as being knowledge at all, just mere speculation at best. Secondly, if a religion makes claims on the physical world, such as the theistic Abrahamic religions do (which claim that God can and does directly intervene in the world on a regular basis through prayer, etc...), then clearly these religions are making claims on realms in which science can very well judge them on their merits. And of course there is no evidence to support a theistic belief system, as for example the experiments on prayer have repeatedly shown. Cheers, J Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
musicbebe
()
Date: May 10, 2008 01:11AM ugh...I have had the worst case of morning sickness! I felt nauseous around any food and even when I even looked at a tv or computer! Sorry I delayed so long in providing the quote that I said I would. You are right Jose, I really need to document an accusation like that. And was it community builder who said I was hypocritical for attacking Darwin when people attack and misrepresent the bible? I do see your point, but I thought I could make a much bigger case against Darwin than someone could the bible. But perhaps it would be better (at least for me at this point without being able to do much research)to argue on the actual merits of evidences for creation and evolution than how these philosophies are used. Anyhow here is the quote I was referring to:
Taken from Darwin’s “Descent of Man” "We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." That was what I had seen and why I was so positive of his support on eugenics. But I kept looking for more and came upon the REST of the passage on an intelligent design site. Immediately after the previous passage I quoted Darwin writes: "The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil." That leaves me a little confused as to what he was actually saying. I really want to do more personal research into actual evidence of Darwin's support of eugenics before I say anything else. Others say there is much more evidence of Darwin's involvment with eugenics but it's no use me supporting that until I can see the evidence myself. Commentary on the Intelligent Design forum had some interesting comments on the intent of what Darwin really meant. Others pointed out more connections of evolution to eugenics, some which hit VERY close to Darwin's home. One of the most interesting to me anyhow was this one: DaveScot wrote: Practioners of eugenics and their sponsers were animalistic in behavior. While I agree fully, and I applaud your calling attention to America’s role in this dark chapter of world history, I must also point out that the sponsors in question include: 1. Francis Galton - Charles Darwin’s cousin, pioneer of modern eugenics and founder of the Eugenics Society. 2. Leonard Darwin - Charles’ son, Galton’s successor in the Eugenics Society. 3. Francis Darwin - member of the Cambridge Eugenics Society. 4. Horace Darwin - member of the Cambridge Eugenics Society, Darwin Medalist 1912. 5. George Howard Darwin - Charles’ son, member of the Cambridge Eugenics Society. 6. Charles Galton Darwin - Charles’ grandson, Eugenics Society life fellow. I would hope that Charles Darwin would be displeased with his close relatives being so entangled with the eugenics movement if had lived to see it. That seems pretty damning, but technically stops short of more proof of Darwin himself supporting eugenics. Here is a link to this board I was talking about. People argue both sides. [www.uncommondescent.com] Re: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Posted by:
Jose
()
Date: June 04, 2008 03:14PM Excellent article describing one of the most important and significant experiments providing support for evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope this will dispel any lingering doubts or myths surrounding evolution and natural selection.
The rest and a short video here [scienceblogs.com] Cheers, J Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|
|