Originally posted by KellyJay….I'm saying without some force guiding the process along, the tendency
I'm saying without some force guiding the process along, the tendency
will be do degrade over time not become more functionally complex.
While building a structure you not only have get the proper material,
you need to get them in the proper quantities, you have to build them
in the proper order and so on.
Kelly
will be do degrade over time not become more functionally complex.
..…
No it isn’t. No such ’tendency’ exists in the process of evolution.
Can you point to any evidence that evolution causes living things to “degrade over time” over the generations?
….While building a structure you not only have get the proper material,
you need to get them in the proper quantities, you have to build them
in the proper order and so on.
..…
So? What is stopping evolution doing this?
Can you elaborate so that we all know what your argument is here?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"….While building a structure you not only have get the proper material,
[b]….I'm saying without some force guiding the process along, the tendency
will be do degrade over time not become more functionally complex.
..…
No it isn’t. No such ’tendency’ exists in the process of evolution.
Can you point to any evidence that evolution causes living things to “degrade over time” over the generations?
….Whil ...[text shortened]... opping evolution doing this?
Can you elaborate so that we all know what your argument is here?
you need to get them in the proper quantities, you have to build them
in the proper order and so on. "
..…
So? What is stopping evolution doing this?
Can you elaborate so that we all know what your argument is here?
[/b]There is no reason to assume random changes in DNA will create just
what is needed to do all the things the body requires. I know it is your
belief, but randomly changing code here and there will break down
a system before it improves one.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't think you know anything about evolution, you don't you just don't.
"….While building a structure you not only have get the proper material,
you need to get them in the proper quantities, you have to build them
in the proper order and so on. "
..…
[b]So? What is stopping evolution doing this?
Can you elaborate so that we all know what your argument is here?
[/b]There is no reason to assume random changes i ...[text shortened]... randomly changing code here and there will break down
a system before it improves one.
Kelly[/b]
Why? Your'e a creationist.
And further: an anti science creationist.
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is what selection means. Mutations that are instantly fatal are selected against. Mutations that are deleterious, but not instantly fatal are also selected against. The reproductive rate is high enough to cope with the wastage, if it is not the species becomes extinct. The fact that the rate of deleterious mutation is higher than the rate of non-deleterious mutation is not a problem for the theory.
"….While building a structure you not only have get the proper material,
you need to get them in the proper quantities, you have to build them
in the proper order and so on. "
..…
[b]So? What is stopping evolution doing this?
Can you elaborate so that we all know what your argument is here?
[/b]There is no reason to assume random changes i ...[text shortened]... randomly changing code here and there will break down
a system before it improves one.
Kelly[/b]
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe word selection actually means something is being 'picked' again
This is what selection means. Mutations that are instantly fatal are selected against. Mutations that are deleterious, but not instantly fatal are also selected against. The reproductive rate is high enough to cope with the wastage, if it is not the species becomes extinct. The fact that the rate of deleterious mutation is higher than the rate of non-deleterious mutation is not a problem for the theory.
that is a word that would be used under the conditions of ID. All of
evolution theory does this, it used ID terms yet those that believe in
the process claim that it is without a designer.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"No it isn’t. No such ’tendency’ exists in the process of evolution.
[b]….I'm saying without some force guiding the process along, the tendency
will be do degrade over time not become more functionally complex.
..…
No it isn’t. No such ’tendency’ exists in the process of evolution.
Can you point to any evidence that evolution causes living things to “degrade over time” over the generations?
….Whil ...[text shortened]... opping evolution doing this?
Can you elaborate so that we all know what your argument is here?
Can you point to any evidence that evolution causes living things to “degrade over time” over the generations? "
[/b]In the theory of evolution you can keep out anything that would be
negative, reality on the other hand isn't so kind. Processes that are
under constant stress due tend to break down, you can look up
the terms elegant degradation, and graceful degradation one has a
system slowly breaking down the other once the system degrades it
basically just stops. We know this happens in life today, because we
see these things occur where people are born with issues or die.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayID came after evolution. What did Darwin do, use a time machine to steal terms from the future? 🙄
The word selection actually means something is being 'picked' again
that is a word that would be used under the conditions of ID. All of
evolution theory does this, it used ID terms yet those that believe in
the process claim that it is without a designer.
Kelly
Regardless, your argument is retarded. You assume that selection means being "chosen by someone", when in fact it simply means that a subgroup of individuals will survive and reproduce preferentially when confronted with environmental and genetic challenges. No someone is required. Here, bone up on it before shooting your mouth off again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Originally posted by KellyJayJust for the record, systems undergoing "graceful degradation" continue to function properly, while systems undergoing "elegant degradation" fail.
"No it isn’t. No such ’tendency’ exists in the process of evolution.
Can you point to any evidence that evolution causes living things to “degrade over time” over the generations? "
In the theory of evolution you can keep out anything that would be
negative, reality on the other hand isn't so kind. Processes that are
under constant stress due te ...[text shortened]... fe today, because we
see these things occur where people are born with issues or die.
Kelly[/b]
Back to your main point. I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but evolution involves the death of less fit organisms. How precisely then does the stress absorbed by any individual organism(s) cause the process of evolution to degrade?
Originally posted by PBE6ID came from evolution, okay then why do people cry and bemoan
ID came after evolution. What did Darwin do, use a time machine to steal terms from the future? 🙄
Regardless, your argument is retarded. You assume that selection means being "chosen by someone", when in fact it simply means that a subgroup of individuals will survive and reproduce preferentially when confronted with environmental and genetic chall ...[text shortened]... on it before shooting your mouth off again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
it as if it came from creation?
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6Filters are not selecting anything, yet they do sift through things
ID came after evolution. What did Darwin do, use a time machine to steal terms from the future? 🙄
Regardless, your argument is retarded. You assume that selection means being "chosen by someone", when in fact it simply means that a subgroup of individuals will survive and reproduce preferentially when confronted with environmental and genetic chall ...[text shortened]... on it before shooting your mouth off again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
allowing some things to pass through others not, when something
is selected, that word implies a choice was made, again a term that
has to do with intent the dictionary says, "chosen from a number
or group by fitness or preference" again, it requires the use of
term that under normal conditions to mean something other than
what does to make it fit.
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6Yes, for the record they do continue but they are diminished, not
Just for the record, systems undergoing "graceful degradation" continue to [b]function properly, while systems undergoing "elegant degradation" fail.
Back to your main point. I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but evolution involves the death of less fit organisms. How precisely then does the stress absorbed by any individual organism(s) cause the process of evolution to degrade?[/b]
getting more functionally complex.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is the weakest argument you've made yet. 🙄 Are you honestly trying to say that biologists must necessarily believe in your crap hypothesis of Intelligent Design simply because the use of the word "selection" in scientific discourse must imply every possible connotation of the word simultaneously? Since you're so big on dictionaries, try reading this entry:
Filters are not selecting anything, yet they do sift through things
allowing some things to pass through others not, when something
is selected, that word implies a choice was made, again a term that
has to do with intent the dictionary says, "chosen from a number
or group by fitness or preference" again, it requires the use of
term that under normal conditions to mean something other than
what does to make it fit.
Kelly
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=selection&search=search
It's clear that definition 4 requires no conscious agent to "choose" anything. But if you want to pretend that all connotations must be implied simultaneously, I hereby rename your crap hypothesis "Intelligent Underhanded Plot" in accordance with definition 14:
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=design&search=search
How to spot a hidden religious agenda. This article was obtained from http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/?p=1904
* 28 February 2009 by Amanda Gefter published in New Scientist
* Magazine issue 2697. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* For similar stories, visit the Books and Art and Comment and Analysis Topic Guides
AS A book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.
Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
The invocation of Cartesian dualism - where the brain and mind are viewed as two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial - is also a red flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.
Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.
When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".
If an author wishes for 'academic freedom', it is usually code for 'the acceptance of creationism'
Some general sentiments are also red flags. Authors with religious motives make shameless appeals to common sense, from the staid - "There is nothing we can be more certain of than the reality of our sense of self" (James Le Fanu in Why Us?) - to the silly - "Yer granny was an ape!" (creationist blogger Denyse O'Leary). If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need science in the first place.
Religiously motivated authors also have a bad habit of linking the cultural implications of a theory to the truth-value of that theory. The ID crowd, for instance, loves to draw a line from Darwin to the Holocaust, as they did in the "documentary" film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Even if such an absurd link were justified, it would have zero relevance to the question of whether or not the theory of evolution is correct. Similarly, when Le Fanu writes that Darwin's On the Origin of Species "articulated the desire of many scientists for an exclusively materialist explanation of natural history that would liberate it from the sticky fingers of the theological inference that the beauty and wonder of the natural world was direct evidence for 'A Designer'", his statement has no bearing on the scientific merits of evolution.
It is crucial to the public's intellectual health to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the lines.
http://www.humanistwa.org.au/node/6