Arguments against evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I published my objection to the current theories above. Which one of the lame-brained ideas do you want to deal with in detail? The idea that wind-dispersal structures had to be folded, and this one-muscle operation somehow, within one generation, became a multi-muscle powered lifting device complete with self-righting control software? Or do we go back to standard non-articulated gliding structures and posit an equallty-impossible multi-structural leap (with software, never forget, with fully developed software) from there? I’ll be glad to deal with any one of them, but you choose. Wind dispersal structures have minimum possible cubic loadings, and there are plenty of examples of wind-dispersal strcutures in the animal kingdom. We can examine them in detail, and we know which ones have proven successful: non-articulated ones. The wind-dispersal theory goes back to the “horn/leg” analogy. It catches air, therefore it must have a lot in common with a powered wing. Again, this is the sort of argument made by someone not working in flight mechnisms.

Also, earlier, I wanted to get into it over the “10^9 generations” issue, but no one has taken me up on that. I’m not going to insist that anyone does, but I am going to say that it’s quite apparent to me that if a system of the low-order of complexity of the system being studied in the Behe paper requires those orders of magnitude in population size and time to produce that modification, then this entire thread, this entire topic is settled because the modifications being debated here are multiple orders of magnitude less likely by involvement of so many genes - and this in organisms whose populations and generational cycle times are known…and do not support that.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
There’s a reason I’m sticking to an area of biophysics I know somethign about.

Above, a couple of people are suggesting that non-functinoing wings had some evolutionary fucntion that gave organisms possessing them a competitive advantage. Wonderful. Someone, please take the next step and tell me what good limp bee wings do on a ground-dwelling or plant-dwelling insect. Thanks.
Click to expand...
That is an argument to ignorance, since your claim is the stronger one that evolution of a system for flight is impossible in theory, and not just the weaker claim that it didn’t in fact happen. Your claim that a fully-functioning system could not possibly have evolved step-by-step because it would not have been functional for flight until every component was in place was successfully undercut by the theory that these components could have different competitive advantages which would be selected for. Saying that is impossible because you don’t see what those advantages might be is simply an argument to ignorance. The burden of proof would be upon you to prove their impossibility.

Now, if you were only making the weaker claim that evolution of flight, while theoretically possible, didn’t in fact occur, and that there was insufficient evidence to believe that it did, then it might be legitimate to ask for evidence of pre-cursors to a flight system with a competitive advantage.
 
And that is an absolutely impossible standard. If questions cannot be answered (what is the possible purpose of a flight system if not flight?) then intellectual progress is halted. Holding out the possibility that this specialized component system has some other potential purpose in whole or in part is a mere formality, and I’m of the opinion that everyone here is aware of that.

The problem (the big one) with this debate is as follows:

Both sides look at the same data of transitioning forms. Both see the before and after in the fossil record, both infer multiple mutations which presumably did not happen simultaneously (if they were random), and therefore infer long periods of time in which these new strcutures were maintained.

On side looks at the structures that arise in order, and asks the question “Are these structures capable of serving a competitive purpose in transition?”. I ask this, because if that answer is no, then these structures were not preserved by selection. I’m perfectly fine with whatever did preserve them, I don’t care what it was, because the question has no ultimate religious significance. I don’t see a problem with this line of reasoning, so I employ it.

The other side has already answered the question a priori. Selection is the only answer to the question “why were these partial component structures maintained” and all other possible answers are cast aside. No matter how fantastic the narrative, the only answer is that selection pressure maintained these structures, and therefore the structures granted competitive advantage.

This simply isn’t logical. The usefulness of possibly intermediary structures is data which should (in a perfect world) influence the conclusion.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
The idea that wind-dispersal structures had to be folded, and this one-muscle operation somehow, within one generation, became a multi-muscle powered lifting device complete with self-righting control software? (Emphasis added)
Click to expand...
Where did you get the idea that this change happened in one generation? This sort of complex change happens over many generations.
Also, earlier, I wanted to get into it over the “10^9 generations” issue, but no one has taken me up on that. I’m not going to insist that anyone does, but I am going to say that it’s quite apparent to me that if a system of the low-order of complexity of the system being studied in the Behe paper requires those orders of magnitude in population size and time to produce that modification, then this entire thread, this entire topic is settled because the modifications being debated here are multiple orders of magnitude less likely by involvement of so many genes - and this in organisms whose populations and generational cycle times are known…and do not support that.
Click to expand...
You should read more of the Behe paper; this comes from the Discussion section:Our model is restricted to the development of MR features by point mutation in a duplicated gene. We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes (such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations) would be more or less efficient.
  • Behe and Snoke (2004)
    That paper only looks at one possible mechanism for evolution. It omits many other possible mechanisms. In particular it omits the effects of sexual reproduction - insects can inherit different beneficial mutations from four grandparents while bacteria only have one grandparent. The paper suffices to show that IC systems can evolve; as the paper itself says, it is less trustworthy on how long evolution of a given feature takes.
rossum
 
ipwnuathalo said:
I published my objection to the current theories above. Which one of the lame-brained ideas do you want to deal with in detail?
Click to expand...
Yeah, thats what we call an abstract :rolleyes:, did you read the full paper?

I have very little time right now, however in 10 days i will be free to discuss your unfounded objections.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
“why were these partial component structures maintained” .
Click to expand...
Because they are not partial component structures. Take the hand as an example, is every hand without an opposable thumb a partial component structure? Just a because a structure can become more refined so to speak, does not mean it is not fully functional in regard to the organism.

The problem is you are looking at 2009’s structures without a grasp of the basics of evolution. This is not meant as an insult but how can you begin to forum meaningful objections on a subject you have openly admitted you have limited knowledge of.

Would you take a biologist seriously that started making unfounded objections areas of engineering that he knew nothing about?

Maybe next time my car breaks down i wont take it to the garage, think I’ll take it to the dentist :p.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
And that is an absolutely impossible standard. If questions cannot be answered (what is the possible purpose of a flight system if not flight?) then intellectual progress is halted. Holding out the possibility that this specialized component system has some other potential purpose in whole or in part is a mere formality, and I’m of the opinion that everyone here is aware of that.
Click to expand...
That’s because the bar of claiming something as absolutely impossible in theory is a very, very high bar, often extremely difficult to meet; because, as you see, the claim can be rebutted by something else only theoretically possible. Perhaps you may wish to restrict yourself to the less stringent claim about whether evolution of flight actually happened, rather than whether it is theoretically possible.
The problem (the big one) with this debate is as follows:
Click to expand...
Both sides look at the same data of transitioning forms. Both see the before and after in the fossil record, both infer multiple mutations which presumably did not happen simultaneously (if they were random), and therefore infer long periods of time in which these new strcutures were maintained.
Click to expand...
OK.
On side looks at the structures that arise in order, and asks the question “Are these structures capable of serving a competitive purpose in transition?”. I ask this, because if that answer is no, then these structures were not preserved by selection. I’m perfectly fine with whatever did preserve them, I don’t care what it was, because the question has no ultimate religious significance. I don’t see a problem with this line of reasoning, so I employ it.
Click to expand...
It’s perfectly fine to ask the question.
The other side has already answered the question a priori. Selection is the only answer to the question “why were these partial component structures maintained” and all other possible answers are cast aside. No matter how fantastic the narrative, the only answer is that selection pressure maintained these structures, and therefore the structures granted competitive advantage.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you propose another possible answer then?
This simply isn’t logical. The usefulness of possibly intermediary structures is data which should (in a perfect world) influence the conclusion.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is, but I just don’t see why it is so implausible that in this case intermediary structures could have a competitive advantage.
 
jackfrost10 said:
We have observed speciation countless times…

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Click to expand...
I am less then impressed…
Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation. Part 6 is a list of references.
Click to expand...
Come on now.

Can’t you show me a single example?

I read through the entirety and found multiple experiments trying to breed various animals into a new species, but none that can propogate.

I would thing the ability to propogate would be a required in order to continue a species.
 
jackfrost10 said:
Again your are looking at this from a warped perspective.
Click to expand...
That is one opinion. And you are welcome to it.

However, as warped as my view may be, it has served well.

But I believe it would be more warped to call something that has not been proven a fact.

I see numerous holes in the theory, the specialization is one. Complexity of systems is another, and there is also that mysterious abscence of an observable transitional species.

Fill those holes in and then try to sell me on the theory.
You may be suprised at the reception.
 
Would you take a biologist seriously that started making unfounded objections areas of engineering that he knew nothing about?
Click to expand...
Welcome to teh interwebs, that’s exactly and precisely what my objection is. The evolution of mechanical structures has engineering and biochemical components. I see great, great liberties being taken with the engineering, by the biochemists.

I’m here, and I’ll be glad to respond to someone who grasps that biochemists are not qualified to answer questions about the potential advantages conferred to organisms by partially completed flying strucutres.
 
jackfrost10 said:
Why don’t you go and read some papers on the subject? I’m sorry to be the one that has to break this to you, but when it comes to biology your professional knowledge is meaningless.
Click to expand...
And with that, we should all throw out the argument.

Sorry, I am not buying that. Before I commit to any theory, I want clear answers to reasonable questions.

This buy in to higher knowledge that no one understands that questions the subject is the stuff that cults are made of…not scientific theory.
 
jackfrost10 said:
Would you take a biologist seriously that started making unfounded objections areas of engineering that he knew nothing about?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that is exactly what is happening.
Every time a biologist discusses evolution theory without addressing these real engineering questions.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
Welcome to the interwebs, that’s exactly and precisely what my objection is. The evolution of mechanical structures has engineering and biochemical components. I see great, great liberties being taken with the engineering, by the biochemists.
.
Click to expand...
But animals are NOT engineered! In order to understand why to some they appear to be, you have to have a basic knowledge of evolution, you clearly don’t.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
Welcome to teh interwebs, that’s exactly and precisely what my objection is. The evolution of mechanical structures has engineering and biochemical components. I see great, great liberties being taken with the engineering, by the biochemists.
.
Click to expand...
Especially for you ipawuathalo…

youtube.com/watch?v=9uzVYgPVtjQ

fill your boots, it seems you many be one of the engineers that failed to understand darwinin evolution, you should watch all five it addresses a lot of your issues…
 
jackfrost10 said:
But animals are NOT engineered! In order to understand why to some they appear to be, you have to have a basic knowledge of evolution, you clearly don’t.
Click to expand...
Through the years on this forum, I have seen many, many threads discussing evolution.
Through these, I have become familiar with many things I did not previously know about the theory, but I have found nothing substantive enough to sway my opinion one way or another.

However, I have discovered that those who are proponents of evolution have at an alarming rate brought out this argument that we obviously do not understand it.

The thought process here is that if we simply took the time to read and understand we somehow would be swayed into agreement.

This is simply false logic.

I said it before, and it is worth repeating:
This argument towards the ignorance of the opposition is something religious cults are made of, not scientific theory.
 
vz71 said:
Through the years on this forum, I have seen many, many threads discussing evolution.
Through these, I have become familiar with many things I did not previously know about the theory, but I have found nothing substantive enough to sway my opinion one way or another.

However, I have discovered that those who are proponents of evolution have at an alarming rate brought out this argument that we obviously do not understand it.

The thought process here is that if we simply took the time to read and understand we somehow would be swayed into agreement.

This is simply false logic.

I said it before, and it is worth repeating:
This argument towards the ignorance of the opposition is something religious cults are made of, not scientific theory.
Click to expand...
If you have found nothing substantive enough then you clearly have not looked for, or not understood the evidence. For there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

Also you must understand that if you deny evolution then you in effect deny all science, however given the above i doubt you will accept that either.
 
jackfrost10 said:
Also you must understand that if you deny evolution then you in effect deny all science, however given the above i doubt you will accept that either.
Click to expand...
You should try to explain that to some the FOUNDERS OF SCIENCE who accepted biblical creation, the list is many and their belief did not hinder their science. A denial of the philosophy of evolutionary speculation, extrapolation and storytelling is not a denial of science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top