14 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatYour computer has several different pieces in it making it function for you.
What have you done to find the answers yourself??
Which science books have you read that discuss the development of cellular structures and more complex structures?
Which lectures have you followed?
I know you read the bible to tell you how to live your life, but how about you stop expecting be spoon fed everything, and actually do some leg work yourself?
Each of those parts are stand alone, there are video boards, keyboards,
monitors and so on. Just getting them hooked up together does not mean
they will function there has to be an operating software that will allows them
to all function and function together. You can have a great keyboard but if it
isn't able to function with your system it will do you no good unless you get
the required software for it.
So if this is true with things as simple as computers why would it also not
be true within living systems? You wish to think forms and functions
automatically go hand in hand, so why? The software or whatever you
want to call what drives each part of a living system to act the ways they
do are not because they are shaped a certain way, there has to be more to
it.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayYou clearly haven't been reading peoples posts. There are hearts that do not beat, and there are light sensitive cells that do not see. These exist in nature and can be studied directly so your 'you weren't there to see it' excuse just doesn't cut it.
That is a fair point just because you get a heart why would it beat? Just
because you get an eye why would it see? The form is just the form the
function is quite another topic all together, the evolutionist seem to think
that it just goes with the form an eye automatically means sight.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJaySo if this is true with things as simple as computers why would it also not
Your computer has several different pieces in it making it function for you.
Each of those parts are stand alone, there are video boards, keyboards,
monitors and so on. Just getting them hooked up together does not mean
they will function there has to be an operating software that will allows them
to all function and function together. You can have a gr ...[text shortened]... ct the ways they
do are not because they are shaped a certain way, there has to be more to
it.
be true within living systems?
Because a computer isn't the same thing as an organism. Stop pretending that because it doesn't work for a computer it also can't work with biological systems. You're making a fool of yourself.
You wish to think forms and functions automatically go hand in hand, so why?
The only one in this thread who is arguing that the current form of the human heart and its current way of functioning happened instantaneously is you. Multiple people are busy telling you that this is not true, but you're just ignoring it, because you feel it strengthens your case for there having to be "a designer" (KellyJay: Let's call that designer "God" ).
Cognitive dissonance at its saddest.
14 Jan 15
1 edit
Do you know what DNA is, KellyJay? How about RNA? Do you know the differences? Do you know what DNA-primers or "oligos" are? Have you heard of PCR? Do you understand what happens in a PCR reaction? Did you know the term SNP before I told you? Do you know what linkage drag is? Do you know what alleles are? For that matter, do you actually know what genes are? Do you understand what mutations are? Do you know mutations can be induced and can be followed? Heard of genotypes? Phenotypes? The link between geno- and phenotypes?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by C Hess
It's been explained to you many times now. I guess the most important thing to remember is that there is no forethought involved in evolutionary development, so when those first few cells for what would evolve into a heart formed, they were either useful to the organism in some other way, or they got to piggy ride with other traits that made the organism in question successful. But they weren't "meant to be" the beginnings of a heart specifically. Every biological change is of this nature. There's no direction or end goal to evolution.
That's much too hard to believe for me.
If some primitive proto - heart beat once for some reason, how much time elapsed before an offspring of that creature had a similar heart that beat, ie. twice or more ?
I don't think there is enough time in the universe to allow for this to tumble out of the mix randomly with no "look ahead" to a goal from any intelligence.
I mean I am to imagine that the very first heart beat was a result of a mutation. But somehow a mechanism to beat repeatedly evolved.
Was this a beat once, beat twice, beat thrice ... eventually beat repeatedly for the rest of the organism's life development ? And the same scheme was held in place over many different and diverse species of animals ?
Do you realize how much faith that calls for to believe that with - "no direction, no end goal"?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Jan 15
6 edits
Originally posted by Great King RatIn discussions on biology with evolutionists I find often they are credentialists. I mean if I post a quote raising problems with the theory, they immediately Google up to see if the backround of the one speaking puts them in the camp of evolutionist enthusiasts. If they are not already in the camp they are dismissed as not having proper credentials.
Have you bothered to see what the scientific community has to say about the development of the heart?
IE. To have proper credentials to discuss evolution you have to agree with evolution.
I also find that digging down into the minute details of certain things does nothing to address concerns I have with the overall big picture of it. The big picture is grasped by me even if the behavior of some amino acid I have not mastered like the professional specialist.
The scoring of points on very minute details of biological systems doesn't do much to address skepticism I have for the overall big picture which I think I grasp quite well as anyone else.
The third thing I have noticed is that evolutionists evade the origin of life as if that is not a problem to the theory. "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life" is an excuse that I have grown tired of. You cannot dismiss the origin problem to some other discipline if evolution at large took place.
These three maneuvors I expect to take place in most discussions here on Evolution.
1.) Only believers in evolution are qualified to say anything about it.
2.) Distractions on minute details of bio-processes do not justify the overall big picture of the proposed process.
3.) Evasions to how the origin of life can be explained by evolution, I think, are unjustified.
14 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipSo that would be a "no". You have not looked up anything about how the heart may have developed.
Unrelated stuff
What you have done is decided to make up a story about what "evolutionists" believe with regards to the development of the heart ("A mutation caused the first heart to beat once, a second mutation caused the heart to beat twice..." ) and then you claim that that story - thought up by yourself or perhaps your poppy and mommy or your pastor - is false.
So I say that Christians actually believe that Jesus was a talking fish, and seeing how fish can't talk, I can safely say that Christians have it wrong; Jesus did not exist.
Yes, I see how easy it is to convince yourself of how the world works, when you think like that.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonshipNo belief is required, only education.
That's much too hard to believe for me.
If some primitive proto - heart beat once for some reason, how much time elapsed before an offspring of that creature had a similar heart that beat, ie. twice or more ?
Pay for and read the article I quoted in my first post in the thread. I believe it gives you answers to your question. If you don't want to pay for it then I suggest you do some research on the topic for yourself.
I don't think there is enough time in the universe to allow for this to tumble out of the mix randomly with no "look ahead" to a goal from any intelligence.
And why do you not think that? Did you just base in on intuition? Do you have enough knowledge of the topic to make a good guess?
I mean I am to imagine that the very first heart beat was a result of a mutation.
Yes.
But somehow a mechanism to beat repeatedly evolved.
I am not sure if it repeatedly evolved. It may have only happened once, I haven't studied it in detail. Why do you think it happened repeatedly?
Was this a beat once, beat twice, beat thrice ... eventually beat repeatedly for the rest of the organism's life development ?
No, its beat repeatedly during the organisms whole life time. The mechanism involved already existed and was used in the digestive tract.
And the same scheme was held in place over many different and diverse species of animals ?
Yes, as can be seen in life today.
Do you realize how much faith that calls for to believe that with - "no direction, no end goal"?
No faith required, just education.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonshipOh, you do, don’t you? Really? You think the big picture of the development of the heart is that one mutation caused the primordial heart to beat once, and then a second mutation in another organism allowed that organism to have two heartbeats instead of one, giving that organism a slight advantage over the first organism?
the overall big picture which I think I grasp quite well as anyone else.
You’d say that that it more or less “the big picture”, right? “Sure, there are some small details to work out, but we’ve pretty much nailed it.”
Is that it?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King Rat
So that would be a "no". You have not looked up anything about how the heart may have developed.
I could of course read more on the heart specifically. But it is a generic concept that is the problem. Whether heart, or eye, or liver, or brain, etc. the generic scheme is the issue.
What you have done is decided to make up a story about what "evolutionists" believe with regards to the development of the heart ("A mutation caused the first heart to beat once, a second mutation caused the heart to beat twice..." ) and then you claim that that story - thought up by yourself or perhaps your poppy and mommy or your pastor - is false.
I have no poppy and mommy pastor. I have some common sense.
And if you want to now distance yourself from the proposed effects of random variation and natural selection on mutations to cause organ function that's your problem and not mine.
So I say that Christians actually believe that Jesus was a talking fish, and seeing how fish can't talk, I can safely say that Christians have it wrong; Jesus did not exist.
What would be easier would be to just admit that evolution is your religion.
This is not a problem to me because I admit up front that I have a faith.
You insist you have facts scientifically proved.
Now you can take a minute to show how the first heart was exempt from the evolutionary process of natural selection of a beneficial mutation. If my assumption about the first heart is a deliberate misrepresentation of the ability of the evolutionary process, explain why the first heart should be an exception.
14 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI will write it in bold and caps so that you can't miss it:
Now you can take a minute to show how the first heart was exempt from the evolutionary process of natural selection of a beneficial mutation. If my assumption about the first heart is a deliberate misrepresentation of the ability of the evolutionary process, explain why the first heart should be an exception.
HAVE YOU READ TWHITEHEAD'S POST - THE SECOND POST OF THIS THREAD - CONCERNING THIS VERY QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING??
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatTwice.
I will write it in bold and caps so that you can't miss it:
[b]HAVE YOU READ TWHITEHEAD'S POST - THE SECOND POST OF THIS THREAD - CONCERNING THIS VERY QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING??[/b]
Want me to read it again ?
I didn't understand all of it and I don't think you do either.