Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
I already know philosophy is way over your head, I'll help you with that as we go.

--Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, I welcome your lessons on philosophy. Perhaps I can learn more than I did in college. It was my major, as well as being a continuing area of interest for the last 30 years. What can you add to my enlightenment?

A wise man learns more from a fool, than a fool learns from a wise man.
Click to expand...

The sad fact is that you do not even seem to have the basics down. Like realizing about how the vague penumbra of a word requires words to be pinned down by context. Nor do you seem to have a solid grasp of epistemology. But if you think you understand these areas better than I, then by all means enlighten me.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
6days said:
Ad hominem

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.
Urban dictionary
Click to expand...

The quality of a message cannot exceed the competency of the messenger.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
I meant this for everyone. Try to answer this then we'll go to ERV's.

The Lederberg experiment
In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by "stamping" the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.

Esther and Joshua hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure. Their experimental set-up is summarized below:

1. Bacteria are spread out on a plate, called the "original plate."

2. They are allowed to grow into several different colonies.

3. This layout of colonies is stamped from the original plate onto a new plate that contains the antibiotic penicillin.

4. Colonies X and Y on the stamped plate survive. They must carry a mutation for penicillin resistance.

5. The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, "did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin?"

The answer is no: When the original plate is washed with penicillin, the same colonies (those in position X and Y) live — even though these colonies on the original plate have never encountered penicillin before.

So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.

Now, the big question.

How did the penicillin-resistant bacteria get into the population?

Your move.

--Dave
Click to expand...

Genetic variation often creates the condition (most genetic variation is initially neutral in regard to reproductive advantage) in a phenotype prior to an environmental requirement of the condition. But once the environment puts selection pressure on the population, the specific condition (penicillin-resistant bacteria in this case) leads to a noticeable increase in organisms with that condition reproducing more.

That was easy, but still not positive evidence for your model. When will you be including that positive evidence?
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
6days said:
Ad hominem

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.
Urban dictionary
Click to expand...

You are a moron. That is not ad hominem, because it is true. And it effects the quality of your contributions. When we point out the lack of quality in your contributions, you simply ignore the criticism. So that only leaves one to surmise that you are a moron.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
6days said:
Nobody has claimed humans don't change... We do. For example human brains are shrinking from larger brains possessed by our ancestors.
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence that "human brains are shrinking"?

The rest of your post has been addressed with an accurate criticism of your claim, yet you continue to parrot that example.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
Ok, then explain how this demonstrates the evolution of man from a common primitive ancestor to both apes and man.

--Dave
Click to expand...

Again you are off in left field.

We have much supporting evidence that genetic variation occurs. We have much evidence of (artificial and natural) selection pressure. From there we have the fossil record, evidence that various flora and fauna have inhabited the earth throughout its history. We also have much evidence in other fields, that started to accumulate prior to Darwin, that the earth is much older than 10k years. Your quandary might be resolved if you actually considered the likelihood of each model given all this evidence. However, you refuse to accept the evidence you feel does not support your preconceived interpretation of a literal Genesis.

If you have evidence that falsifies genetic variation and selection pressure, or evidence that supports your model better than the currently accepted model, then now would be the time to include that evidence.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
6days said:
Thx :)
Click to expand...

From the article Doloresistere posted;

He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago and had a brain volume of only 1,100 cc. Possibly owing to said shrinkage, it takes me a while to catch on. “Are you saying we’re getting dumber?” I ask.
Click to expand...

Some believe the erosion of our gray matter means that modern humans are indeed getting dumber. (Late-night talk show hosts, take note—there’s got to be some good comic material to mine here.) Other authorities argue just the opposite: As the brain shrank, its wiring became more efficient, transforming us into quicker, more agile thinkers. Still others believe that the reduction in brain size is proof that we have tamed ourselves, just as we domesticated sheep, pigs, and cattle, all of which are smaller-brained than their wild ancestors. The more I learn, the more baffled I become that news of our shrinking brain has been so underplayed, not just in the media but among scientists. “It’s strange, I agree,” says Christopher Stringer, a paleoanthropologist and expert on human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. “Scientists haven’t given the matter the attention it deserves. Many ignore it or consider it an insignificant detail.”
Click to expand...

So I see that you accept the evidence which seems to support your model as long as it is out of context of the rest of the article. I am not surprised by your deceitful strategy.

Did you happen to catch this part of the article, which covers a "small" detail I have addressed several times in the past?

But the routine dismissal is not as weird as it seems at first blush, Stringer suggests, due to the issue of scaling. “As a general rule,” he says, “the more meat on your bones, the more brain you need to control massive muscle blocks.” An elephant brain, for instance, can weigh four times as much as a human’s. Scaling is also why nobody seems too surprised by the large brains of the Neanderthals, the burly hominids that died out about 30,000 years ago.

The Homo sapiens with the biggest brains lived 20,000 to 30,000 years ago in Europe. Called the Cro-Magnons, they had barrel chests and huge, jutting jaws with enormous teeth. Consequently, their large brains have often been attributed to brawniness rather than brilliance. In support of that claim, one widely cited study found that the ratio of brain volume to body mass—commonly referred to as the encephalization quotient, or EQ—was the same for Cro-Magnons as it is for us. On that basis, Stringer says, our ancestors were presumed to have the same raw cognitive horsepower.
Click to expand...
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
6days said:
Anti-biotic resistance to drugs is hardwired into the bacterias DNA... evidence it did not evolve.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...-Bacteria-Found-in-Untouched-Cave-041212.aspx
Click to expand...

“Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria, it could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” says Wright. “This has important clinical implications. It suggests that there are far more antibiotics in the environment that could be found and used to treat currently untreatable infections.”
Click to expand...

Did you happen to catch this part of your article? This is not evidence for what you claim.
 
doloresistere

doloresistere

New member
noguru said:
From the article Doloresistere posted;





So I see that you accept the evidence which seems to support your model as long as it is out of context of the rest of the article. I am not surprised by your deceitful strategy.

Did you happen to catch this part of the article, which covers a "small" detail I have addressed several times in the past?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what 6days is trying to prove but the overall conclusion of the paper is that the smaller size is due to our dumbing down as a species.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
doloresistere said:
I'm not sure what 6days is trying to prove but the overall conclusion of the paper is that the smaller size is due to our dumbing down as a species.
Click to expand...

That's one possibility. And then there is this part from that very article;

But the routine dismissal is not as weird as it seems at first blush, Stringer suggests, due to the issue of scaling. “As a general rule,” he says, “the more meat on your bones, the more brain you need to control massive muscle blocks.” An elephant brain, for instance, can weigh four times as much as a human’s. Scaling is also why nobody seems too surprised by the large brains of the Neanderthals, the burly hominids that died out about 30,000 years ago.

The Homo sapiens with the biggest brains lived 20,000 to 30,000 years ago in Europe. Called the Cro-Magnons, they had barrel chests and huge, jutting jaws with enormous teeth. Consequently, their large brains have often been attributed to brawniness rather than brilliance. In support of that claim, one widely cited study found that the ratio of brain volume to body mass—commonly referred to as the encephalization quotient, or EQ—was the same for Cro-Magnons as it is for us. On that basis, Stringer says, our ancestors were presumed to have the same raw cognitive horsepower.
Click to expand...

Which is a point I have mentioned several times in the past. I will reiterate that point again. The more muscle mass a species has on average, the more brain power it takes to engage that muscle, on average.

This is a well known fact of human neurology and comparative anatomy.
 
doloresistere

doloresistere

New member
noguru said:
That's one possibility. And then there is this part from that very article;



Which is a point I have mentioned several times in the past. I will reiterate that point again. The more muscle mass a species has on average, the more brain power it takes to engage that muscle, on average.

This is a well known fact of human neurology and comparative anatomy.
Click to expand...

Which is probably why we are so much more intelligent than chimps and goriillas. They have tremendous muscle power, which requires most of their brain mass.
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
noguru said:
Genetic variation often creates the condition (most genetic variation is initially neutral in regard to reproductive advantage) in a phenotype prior to an environmental requirement of the condition. But once the environment puts selection pressure on the population, the specific condition (penicillin-resistant bacteria in this case) leads to a noticeable increase in organisms with that condition reproducing more.

That was easy, but still not positive evidence for your model. When will you be including that positive evidence?
Click to expand...

The mutation is an act of nature.

The selection is an act of nature.

Thesis: Nature acts randomly.

Antithesis: Nature acts non randomly.

Synthesis: Nature acts both randomly and non randomly.

This means you can make any explanation you want and never be proven wrong.

Rationally speaking nature acts either non randomly or randomly in all it does, it's a contradiction to say it has no purpose in producing mutations that it later uses for a purpose.

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
noguru said:
Again you are off in left field.

We have much supporting evidence that genetic variation occurs. We have much evidence of (artificial and natural) selection pressure. From there we have the fossil record, evidence that various flora and fauna have inhabited the earth throughout its history. We also have much evidence in other fields, that started to accumulate prior to Darwin, that the earth is much older than 10k years. Your quandary might be resolved if you actually considered the likelihood of each model given all this evidence. However, you refuse to accept the evidence you feel does not support your preconceived interpretation of a literal Genesis.

If you have evidence that falsifies genetic variation and selection pressure, or evidence that supports your model better than the currently accepted model, then now would be the time to include that evidence.
Click to expand...

Variation
The evidence is that variation has always been there in the gene pools of all living things. Anything that has function is not there by chance, not the produce of randomness.

The mutations we see are a break down in the information process, that would be from order toward randomness. Nature cannot move from randomness toward order without purpose.

The production of mutations is an increase of information which the laws of physics says is not possible in a closed system, a cell is a closed system. Sun rays only provides heat and that can only increase entropy, it can not reverse it.

--Dave
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
The mutation is an act of nature.

The selection is an act of nature.

Thesis: Nature acts randomly.

Antithesis: Nature acts non randomly.

Synthesis: Nature acts both randomly and non randomly.

This means you can make any explanation you want and never be proven wrong.

Rationally speaking nature acts either non randomly or randomly in all it does, it's a contradiction to say it has no purpose in producing mutations that it later uses for a purpose.

--Dave
Click to expand...

No Dave, it means you cannot falsify nature. We simply discover how nature proceeds by using the empiricism of science. Would you like to falsify nature, Dave?

You do not seem to want to falsify nature when it does not conflict with your literal interpretation of Genesis. We know that the universe is stochastic (both random and non-random elements) in areas other than origins, but it does not bother you in those areas. You do not bring up the "problem" with those disciplines.

Do you think the universe should either be completely random or completely non random and that any middle ground is not acceptable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top