Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Good post. How did the single celled amoeba even know what an eye and all the ocular parts pertaining to it along with the nerves from it and a brain to interpret what the eye sees and turn it right-side-up in the brain?
How did the amoeba know what a kidney is, a heart, a liver, pancreas, epidermis, hair, etc. etc. etc. all working together at the same time? I could go on and on.
Quote:
(Oh Lord: here we go again! Please don't go on and on! Your vast scientific illiteracy and thus incorrect ponderings and musings only serve to further that observation!) BTW, Evolution does not "know" where its going, silly person. You know this, or should, but still you love to mis-quote or mis-direct. Wonderful position to put on your intellectual tombstone!) And so, you come to the obviously errant conclusion, underlined thus....
|
Truly it took a Creator to make it all work. Also, if evolution is true, how did so many millions of different animals appear all at once? Did all those amoebas figure out how to make all those millions and all of a sudden they put their little brains together and created them all?
|
All of a sudden? Their brains? Huh? WTF? Only illiterate or stubborn Creationists make such a pathologically stupid claim, in fact. You
do know it took millions of years for the variations to appear, amidst the mass and relentless extinctions of many many more species or versions or particular changes that didn't "fit" the available niches, right?
(This being exactly how it works, of course...)
You do
know that, right? Or else....
hmmm... perhaps you
really are quite far gone....
Well anyhow, no:
uhmmmmm.... actually, it's
Not a good post at all. It just parrots the usual demonstrably illiterate silliness of the Genesis/Creationist crowd, with their obvious absence of even the basics of how it does, in fact, demonstrably work.
Heck: come on down to the lab and I'll quick-like show you! Or better yet, you should just do
any of the most
basic research studies yourself! But be prepared to be really depressed at the results you'll get, if you're intellectually honest.
Your silly answers and comments continue to assume there's no functioning bio-logic behind the Evolution of the "
complex" from the
"less complex". However, despite how you'd like that to be so, natural Evolution is
not the same as the evolution of the design of a car, silly person! In which, if you put your 1999 Lexus out in the field, but where it does
not have the ability to
rebuild itself time and again, over hundreds of millions of cycles even in a single given decade (much less over, let's say, 13M years...), but with minor changes to test out, and then where it goes out and finds a driver to test the latest "iterative design" against a background of automotive problems in the real world. And then, you'd have a 2012 Lexus? How silly.
But now, we open-minded humans, in fact,
do have an easily observed and functioning system of biochemical logic called "reproducing DNA", coupled with "tRNA", both of which
can and do constantly lead to mutations of the organism's genome!
(Oh BTW, Big-E, I'm still waiting for you to deny any of the KNOWN key steps and elements of functioning Evolution. Are you ever going to show me where any of it's all wrong? No? Understandable, since after all, you can't..).
So now...
where were we?
Oh yeah: DNA
always mutates, and it even does so at a more or less predictable and observed rate (basic atomic theory coupled with basic biochemistry) so it can also serve as a rather crude time-clock for the rate of Evolution!
And obviously, such random changes will be
almost always fatal, but then statistically, next in occurrence;
neutral, and on very few occasions, offering some
potential positive benefits.
Still with me, logically?
When that
does happen, of course, the DNA reliably remembers those changes, since after all the resulting improved version is more adept at survival through
whatever advantage(s) were provided by those mutations! So the organism then goes about reproducing
a few hundred million of the new test cells carrying that
improvement, and possibly some others that have lain dormant until this latest improvement facilitates them
(I called that "vectored evolution" in my own research on this topic... Dr's. Venter & Lenski called it something else, but it's the same idea.).
Knowing , of course, that the existing external ecosystem is also not static, but is in fact, quite volatile (Yellowstone, Krakatoa, some massive earthquake, changes over time in the earth's biochemical makeup which then favors some specie's "version" over another's. And thus, over time, so-called stable populations of an organism may well, and in fact have demonstrably gone extinct or just faded out, only to be functionally replaced with something that provides a better "fit". No big intellectual problem here, at least not for those of us scientifically-minded folk...)
So just being given
half a chance to go out and be tested will create a simple enough and obvious net positive effect, and
if it does offer an advantage,
voila, mai oui!, as the French might say; it
BINGO gets duly incorporated, all without some unnecessary
"Hand of God" or external designer. (This too hard for you to grasp,
Big-E?)
And the complexity thus understandably
builds, despite
your particular inability to figure out how.
Your particular and oft-demonstrated lack of scientific and technical knowledge in a rather complex subject area does
not, in any way, prevent of slow the existence or growth of complexity or improvement in anything! To that point, tell me about the "evolution" (small
"e" this time; don't go all funny on me...) of the Titan V rocket engine as they advanced the design for that macro-rocket motor over the years?
You don't understand the deep math and physics of
that either, do you?
(Heck; maybe you do, but I'm guessing not...). So... does this
therefore then establish that it must have some magic
supernatural intervention to have happened? Noting of course that it cannot try out different nozzle shapes ON ITS OWN, as DNA can.
F-1
Launch Vehicle Propulsion
Finally, since you guys all love to quote those
AiG & "Carl Baugh" cited lies & bloviations from his ridiculous
Creation Institute on the design of the eye, and it's seemingly "Irreducible Complexity" arguments… read
this if you dare. I'll even supply the fresh Lithium flashlight batteries soz you can do it under your bedsheets late at night, so no-one will have to know you're advancing your actual scientific knowledge!
Image Detail for - http://www.bedroomfurniturespot.com/bedroom/images/articles-bed/reading-under-covers.jpg
Now then...
first: this simple graphic...
Image Detail for - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Stages_in_the_evolution_of_the_eye.png/300px-Stages_in_the_evolution_of_the_eye.png
Then this article...
(No. 1: starter's version for the
super-basic thinker..)
http://noblesseoblige.org/2009/05/27...ebunked-again/
Then, moving on up in intellectual complexity...
A)
"The precursors of complex systems, when they are not useful in themselves, may be useful to perform other, unrelated functions. Evolutionary biologists argue that evolution often works in this kind of blind, haphazard manner in which the function of an early form is not necessarily the same as the function of the later form. The term used for this process is "exaptation".
The mammalian middle ear (derived from a jawbone) and the panda's thumb (derived from a wrist bone spur) are considered classic examples. A 2006 article in Nature demonstrates intermediate states leading toward the development of the ear in a Devonian fish (about 360 million years ago).[79] Furthermore, recent research shows that viruses play a heretofore unexpectedly great role in evolution by mixing and matching genes from various hosts.
Arguments for irreducibility often assume that things started out the same way they ended up—as we see them now. However, that may not necessarily be the case. In the Dover trial an expert witness for the plaintiffs, Ken Miller, demonstrated this possibility using Michael Behe's stupid mousetrap analogy. By removing several parts, Behe's nemesis Miller made the object unusable as a mousetrap, but he pointed out that it was now a perfectly functional, if unstylish, tie clip." The limited-intellectual assumption that any existing object always existed in exactly that format or with that specific intention, and could not have existed as a less-involved object, is irrational on it's face.
Or...
The Flagellum Unspun
And finally, if you
really want to set this all straight in your head, alone in your basement but where you don't want to openly and finally be seen to be agreeing with the truth, there's
this specially logical presentation by the ever-wondrous
QualiaSoup.
Esp. the comments about Michael Behe's tacit admissions in court, under oath, where he wriggled himself out of what his distorted nonsense and outright lies had posited.
Irreducible complexity cut down to size | Science | guardian.co.uk
And finally, I duly note these
truths in evidence, so far irrefutable...
"A brief Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design: Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory? No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
from:
List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In summary, I'll also add in this comment, which is so
very self-evident in discussions on this volatile topic, and yet, it's at the basis for much of the fervent and rabid denials of Evolution. It's substantive validity is, of course, obvious:
The ongoing
"argument from personal incredulity," [as such sentiments hve been appropriately described] has been a weapon of little value in the anti-evolution movement.
Anyone can state
at any time that
"they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure!"
Such statements, obviously, are entirely personal – and they say
so much more about the technological and educational
limitations of those who make them than they do about the functional limitations of Darwinian and more modern versions of the various mechanisms of Evolution.