Eye Gouge Psychology - Soldier's Story on TV

1. 'The Walking Whale'- does not prove transition. The fossils are found in complete forms. They are similar but they are many similar "complete" things. Rats, squirrels, possums, raccons, dogs, and bears are similar in build and look but they are complete forms. Not a transitional representation. Nike and Reebok make very similar shoes, just because the shoes are similar doesn't mean they come from the same company.
2. "Talk of Fusion"- How does fusion happen between chromosomes?

3. "Bacterium Flangellum"-The argument "Individual parts have no function of their own." He gave no diagram or anything of this accept the original which supported the argument, but in fact he changed it. (The first diagram had a big molecule, with arrows going to the "individual" molecules...The second diagram that was suppose to prove the first wrong was again a large molecule with arrows to smaller/lesser molecules, with arrows to "individual" molecules.) His diagram did not explain how these "individual molecules" become the small group of molecules OR acknowledge the individual molecules. He even said that "since darwin they knew that the "individual" molecules did not do anything but the small cluster had specific jobs." Does this not go against all he is trying to prove wrong! He did not even test if "individual" molecules did anything, because he knew they did nothing. I say this because he took away 40 of 50 individual parts and left 10 parts! These are not individual parts. Individual parts are single (in other words 1 at a time), He left 10, which was a system. Individually (alone) they were not proven to do anything because he tested 10. He tested the "Type 3 Secretory System" which is made of 10 parts. He tested nothing "individual".

4."Blood Clotting"-All of the examples shown were different things (humans, vs. dolphins, vs. puffer fish). He claims to have "Collapsed Intelligent Design as a scientific theory"...When in fact he has only collapsed evolution as a scientific theory. All of these components that these different species had in their blood was simply all they have! It does not show what happens when the components that "exist" are missing. He said himself! "Blood will not clot in us [humans] if missing "Factor XII". So he did not "cave/collapse" anything about Intelligent Design but in fact reassures them. Dolphins do not have it because it was never in them! The puffer fish wasn't missing anything either! What they have is all the components in them and all that has and will be in them! If infact the puffer fish or the dolphin ACTUALLY looses one of the components THEY have, then the blood will not clot. He changes things and goes around them but he refutes none of them. We all know that the components of water is H2O. But without the hydrogen or oxygen we do not have water. Without 2 parts hydrogen we do not have water. H1O is not water! But if it is just 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen we have water if one of these is missing then we do not have water. Water does not have anything but H2O, So to say that water is missing 1 part iron is ridiculous because it never had it! Just as these things do not add up to water nor does saying that water has anything but H2O make any sense...neither do any of his examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

Aww…now this is an actual mutation, not like down syndrome, or the production of sperm/eggs, as this one deletes data. (it would also be a mutation if it rearranges data). How is this helpful having damaged T cells? What effect do damaged T cells have on the body?

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008...ral-selection/

These are not examples of evolution happening. These things cannot cross the species barrier therefore they cannot be used as evidence of evolution. All you have is proof that natural selection happens and cannot cross the species barrier (or else we would see it today). But proof of evolution...I think not!

I have other questions that need to be answered in order for me to further my knowledge of evolution...Okay here we go...Carbon dating at its best, only goes back 40,000 years. (We have no human fragments or writings beyond 3500 BCE. Which was written by the Sumerians.) Knowing this when did man evolve? And what did he evolve from? How are we different today than those back then?...

 

No, you haven't.

Also, do not refer to creationist propaganda web sites while discussing science?

This is nonsense. We are cousins of other apes (in fact, humans ARE apes!), and there IS morality.

You do realise that morality exists in all social animals, such as chimps, not just humans, right?

Can you define a transition fossil for me?

Irreducible complexity does NOT talk about individual parts!

Irreducible complexity says all parts of a system must be together, otherwise there is no function. It makes the prediction that if JUST ONE part of the system is removed, there would be no functon. Well, the experiment was done, and 40 parts were removed, but the system STILL WORKED. So the claim is false.

Yes they are.

Can you define a species for me please.

 

First up I suggest this gets moved to the off topic section.
I'd like to continue talking with B 'n' B.

Second..I'm currently reading a book by Steve Jones (Y: The descent of Men).
In it he says "man...had evolved from apes. His (Darwin's) claim is now a truth universally accepted except by those determined to delude themselves".
I think it's very apt.

what does something such as “0.01% more amylase” produce? What effect does it have?

It was just an example I made up. I think amylase helps digest fat (dredging my brain for old GCSE biology). So producing 0.01% more would help me digest fat better perhaps?
My point is that mutations can be very small (as many are) and still be benficial enough to be naturally selected over time.

Okay you should have further explained that you meant this earlier… “The example of sperm production is to show how mutation “can” be introduced into the gene pool.” Okay then, mutation “can be introduced”...that means nothing. Just because mutation “can” be introduced, doesn’t mean that mutation will happen. “You can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.”

Right. You quoted someone (a creationist I think) saying mutation is very rare. I linked to the In our time episode where Steve Jones says that mutation is so common that the three male members of the panel will in fact produce mutations in the thousands over the course of the 45 minute show.
Bear in mind that this is a geneticist (the people that define what a mutation is or isn't) describing mutation.
This isn't the spurious "mutations can only re-arrange or delete information" definition you give it (which obviously does prohibit evolution).

A geneticist...saying mutations are VERY COMMON.
Just take that away with you.
A person who's very job (his life's work in fact) it is to study, track, define, catalogue and understand mutation, evolution and their effects on animals.
Saying mutations happen ALL THE TIME.

What you need to understand is that what we define as a species today is a snapshot. Being a species is not a barrier per se.
EVERY species at any time in history could be a transitional species, a final species, an evolutionary dead-end or whatever.
It's only creationist and people that like putting things in boxes (the discontinuos mind as Dawkin's calls it) use "species" in the way you do.
Biologists are less concrete in their use of species and use it as a useful convention to work out the relationships between animals.

A really useful idea to understand is a "ring" species.
In the UK we have two species of Gull that never interbreed in the wild (which incidentally is the only real concrete way I've heard a species defined). Lesser Black backed gull and the Herring Gull (Ithink). Two distinct species.
However if you travel around the planet Eastwards (into northern Europe, Russia, on into Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Iceland) the Herring Gull gets less and less Herring Gull "like" and more Lesser Black backed Gull "like". At no point do birds stop being able to mate with each other. Neighbour can mate with neighbour.
Hey presto by the time you have got all the way back around to the UK again the Herring Gulls are now so Black backed Gull "like" that they now are actually Lesser Black backed Gulls that can't (or won't) mate with Herring gulls.
Once you understand that concept the idea of "species" and "transitional fossils" start to recede in importance. You'll start to see that life is not as divided and defined as you would like and never has been.
For example you'll understand that this quote you posted "we find no halfway species anywhere! All are distinct and different" is not just wrong but flat out stupid.
I also know of two examples (two species each of a fish and a Grasshopper) that can be "fooled" into mating with each other by changing things artifically (colour in the fish and song in the Grasshopper).
That is not distinct and different.
Creationists want everything in a box so they can say "Here is the man box"..."It is not the same box as the ape box".
Biologists don't really do that. Biologists are far more fluid in how they define things becasue they don't have a pre-existing agenda to adhere to. They just use the data and see what it says.

 

Hey! Guess what!...A new documentary-like series now comes on the "History Channel" called Evolve...I record it...and last week they talked about the "evolution of the eyes"...This being the History Channel I expected it to be full of information trying to explain evolutionary theory...But sadly I was disappointed because I thought they would talk about "human eyes"...but they only talked about predators like hawks and wolves...I guess I was expecting too much from an hour long show...

Then in that case, YOU should not refer to evolutionist propaganda web sites while discussing science. (but...I guess that would end your side of the conversation?)

You missed the point...The point was that creationalist get flammed for having these ideas when infact Darwin himself had the same ideas.

Really?!...What kind of morality does a chimp have, if any?

Transition fossil- a fossil that shows change from one to the next such as, the growing of new legs,(not deformities like a six legged cow) or the development of new organs. Or better a middle species leading to the "end result" (what we see today).

No...The "Intelligent Design claim" was that individually these parts that make up the components were useless. To start with one theory (I.D. claim), then jump to another theory (Irreducible complexity)...does not prove that the first theory was wrong nor right, nor does it even address the first theory.

This is opinion. haha

Okay I may be getting species mixed up with genus...But I think, do not hold me to this, that a species is one group to its self. (Like a dog is a species, and a cat is another species) Basically a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. (i.e. 2 humans will only have a human, a dog will only have a dog, a cat will only have a cat....Humans cannot mate with animals and produce anything.)

That'll be fine, what do you suggest we name it?

This is my very problem with evolution...too many things are "made up".Too much "guessing"...too many "ifs" too many "perhaps"...Too many facts are missing, too much evidence is absent...Darwin was not a biologist but he saw that some animals were similar, and figured that since these are similar then all things must have originated from the same thing. (wtf?) He had no proof, but yet ppl followed him by the droves, because it was what they wanted to hear...(i.e. social darwinism)

How can something not be concrete when dealing with science?...it either is or it isn't...(i.e. H2O always has been and always will be water, In biology nothing living ever came from something non-living, nor will it ever happen in the future, dirt is dirt, oxygen is oxygen)...
These things are concrete, why can't this be?

 

Okay then...what is their definition of mutation?

"changes in the nucleotide sequence"-rearrangment?..."copying errors"-deletion?...hmmm..."variations in the gene pool"...hmmm..."AT repeats"-what! nothing new?...hmmm..."multiple copies"-still nothing new!?...hmmm...what about a benefitial mutation?...here we go:

Hmmm..."it is a deletion mutation of a gene"-deletion?....hmmm...these things are very fascinating...

So how exactly is the definition I gave for mutation wrong?...Was it because I left something off?...Okay then I apologize, I will fix it...

"Mutation- the replication, rearragment, or deletion of existing information." There that's better!

Also what type of "immunity mutations" can be passed on? If none then how can "mutation" of a bacteria against certain chemicals be proof for evolution?

Yeah that's so strange that things have to be put in seperate boxes, How come we can't put H2O (water) and Fe (iron) in the same box? Why do they have to be in their very own box on the Periodic Table, why can't it just be one big happy Periodic Box! How come rape, molestation, abuse, and consentual sex can't all be in the same box? I sometimes wonder why we have all these boxes in life...

Oh really!...but you just said...

Hmmm...Isn't spending your life trying to understand and prove evolution a "pre-existing agenda" or does this not fall in that "box"?...

Also no one answered my question...It was a lot there so it was probably overlooked so here it is again...What did humans evolve from? When did they evolve? How are we different today than they were back then?

 

I'm not referring to "evolutionist propaganda" web sites. I'm referring to respectable scientific sites that present the facts as they are.

Who cares. You're making a Tu quoque fallacy. What matters is the validity of the arguments.

Social animals, including chimps, do have a moral system.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/PrimateMorality.htm

Here's a video about morality in Chimpanzees (about 2 mins in):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw0eC6oDM5g"]The Root of All Evil - The Virus of Faith (Part 5-5) - YouTube[/ame]

Okay... and I have given you examples of such creatures:

Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil between fish and land animals. it has both fish characteristics, tetrapod characteristics, and characteristics which are a mixture of these! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik)

Fish
- fish gills
- fish scales

"Fishapod"
- half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
- half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region

Tetrapod
- tetrapod rib bones
- tetrapod mobile neck
- tetrapod lungs


And there is also Archaeopteryx, which is a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

ID and Irreducible complexity are not distinct. Irreducible complexity is used as proof for ID. In fact it is virtually the only argument they have, and it is wrong!

Irreducible complexity claims that the system needs all part to be in place together, otherwise the whole system has no function. This claims if wrong, because the components of the larger system DO have other functions.

I think you're thinking of species by the creationist claims of 'kind'. Species are not just 'kinds' of animal (i.e. 'beetle' is not a species, there are in fact 5-8 million different species of beetle.)

Listen to this short series of podcasts: Evolution 101 (http://www.drzach.net/podcast.htm)

Here a download link/stream to each episode: http://www.podfeed.net/episodes.asp?p=10&id=5807&ct=1

You might be interested in these episodes:
What is evolution: http://www.podfeed.net/episode/101+-+What+is+Evolution/250244
What is NOT evolution: http://www.podfeed.net/episode/102+-+What+is+NOT+Evolution/250243
What is species: http://www.podfeed.net/episode/104+-+What+is+Species/250241
What are transitional species: http://www.podfeed.net/episode/115+-+What+are+Transitional+Species/236078
Random or nonrandom: http://www.podfeed.net/episode/105+-+Random+or+Nonrandom/304355
What is irreducible compexity: http://www.podfeed.net/episode/117+-+What+is+Irreducible+Complexity/251133

 

How is this a problem. Tentative explanation are not a problem. Other than facts, we're never 100% certain. You're trying to apply your religious need for certainty/closure onto science, but it doesn't work that way.

The theory of evolution is well evidenced and well established. Yes, there are unanswered question, things we don't know, but these are not the things creationists commonly talk about.

He made an observation and formulated a hypothesis - that is how science works! That hypothesis was later tested and was proved to be right.

Darwin collected specimens of birds from the Galapagos with different sized beaks, but he though they were all different. It was only when he got back to Britain were expert ornithologists told him that they were all finches, hence him formulating his hypothesis of common descent: all the finches derived from an original common ancestor finch, and evolved to their different environments.

Actually, eugenics was around before Darwin's published his work. People later used a bastardized interpretation of evolution by natural selection as a justification for their pre-existing prejudices.

You do realise that social darwinism is the ultimate contradiction of evolution, right? Eugenics is based on ARTIFICIAL selection, whereas evolution is based on NATURAL selection.

You're confusing theories with facts.

Theories are explanations of facts.

For instance, you have the FACT of gravity (things fall) and the THEORY of (why and how they fall). Likewise, you have the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of evolution, which explains that fact.

Facts are certain by definition, theories are never certain. The theory of gravity is never 100% certain, but doesn't mean gravity is not real. Similarly, the theory of evolution will never be 100% certain, but that does not mean evolution does not happen. If it turned out the theory of gravity was wrong, it would not mean gravity is not true, just our explanation of it was in error, likewise, if the theory of evolution turned out to be wrong, it would not mean evolution itself does not happen, it only means out explanation of it was in error.

You have already been showed evidence of new information. Don't just ignore it then continue to assert your ignorant claim! The fact you may not be able to understand that evidence is not an argument for saying there is not evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

 

How am I trying to apply my religious need for certanity/closure onto science? I haven't said anything about religion. I have ONLY used science to refute evolutionary theory...Where have I ever used religion to "go against science"???

What are some of these things then?...What are these things that creationists don't commonly talk about? (Please stop insisting that I am a creationist...I am merely an anti evolutionary-pro science-christian.)

Yes I realize that prejudices existed waaaayyy before Darwin. I was just saying that the ppl jumped on the "Evolutionary Band Wagon" because it was what they wanted to hear, something they had been waiting for.

Please explain how the theory of gravity is never 100%?...Then surely something must be done to correct the theory of evolution, since it is clearly flawed.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN SHOWN EVIDENCE OF NEW AND I SAY AGAIN NEW INFORMATION!!! This is such a bogus claim! Even this site, which YOU have provided me does not say this...and it is PRO-Evolution! (There you go again using pro-evolutionist propaganda websites to discuss science...)

My/Science's definition of mutation: "Mutation- the replication, rearragment, or deletion of existing information."

You are thinking of "adding information" as something new...When in all truth and fact, NOTHING NEW IS ADDED!!! The information added is done by replication, not a new substance!

I have not ignored anything...In fact you have been ignorant to facts/truth, holding instead to your evolutionist agenda...What you have done is flat out reject reality and substitute your own! (not very good when discussing science)

 

These "so called scientific sites" only talk about prooving evolution...hmmm...sounds like evolutionist propaganda to me...

Which were very valid to prove my claim. See how you just flat out ignore truth..."Who cares."...hahahahahaha...comical

Oh...I see, you account social activity and hierarchy as morality...I have a simple question...If humans evolved from apes then why are there still apes today? Why have they not evolved into humans, or greater things? Why have we not evolved? Why are we the same as the Egyptian, Summerians, Assyrians? Should we have not evolved?

You must be thinking of someone else, because you have never showed me this...hmmm...Its very strange that these Tiktaalik look just like Muddskippers...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper Same anatomy, same look, oh and they have enlarged gill chambers, that could be mistaken for lungs.

Really! They haven't found the rear fins and back tail...hmm...You know mudskippers don't have rear legs, that's probably why they haven't found them. Why are mudskippers still here? Shouldn't they have evolved into tetrapods?
And even better than that!!! Here is an actual animal that looks EXACTLY like the picture of the Tiktaalik! Check it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Freakin Amazing!!!

Also:

Where do they get this number from? What method of "aging" was used to tell this time?



And there is also Archaeopteryx, which is a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Nope! I was thinking of the scientific claim of species.

[/QUOTE]

I apologize but it is now 12:11 a.m. and I will have to look at this some other time. I have to get up at 4:30 in the morning and that is quite a bit of podcasts!...(My job schedual was changed)...but I WILL LOOK AT THEM!!!

 

Well...lots going on there.

This is my very problem with evolution...too many things are "made up".

You completely missed my point. I made up an example as an illustration.
I didn't "make up" amyalse nor that it's production can be controlled by genes.
It was to illustrate how very small mutations can still matter.
I could equally have used the giraffes neck as an example.
A mutation that makes the early giraffe's neck 5% longer would be a beneficial mutation.

How can something not be concrete when dealing with science?...it either is or it isn't...

That's precisely why you are having such a hard time understanding evolution.
How tall are you now?
5' 10" or so?
Have you always been that tall?
Will you remain that tall forever?
No to those questions?
Because you change and transition in height as you grow?
Such is the essence of evolution. Change and transition.
Organisms are not concrete but pliable and fluid over time.
If you continue to maintain that something either "is" or "isn't" you'll never understand evolution.


"Mutation- the replication, rearragment, or deletion of existing information." There that's better!

Yes that is better. Using that definition evolution is not prohibited.
Evolution is fine with that.
So using that definition you now see that mutation and evolution go hand in hand right?
Once you have life it evolves using that principal.
I do hope you aren't mixing up the begining of life with evolution.

Hmmm...Isn't spending your life trying to understand and prove evolution a "pre-existing agenda" or does this not fall in that "box"?...

Depends how you approach it. Whether you approach it scientifically and embrace new knowledge even if it goes against your personal desires or whether you continue to ignore any new knowledge that undermines your previous standpoint.
I know which approach Steve Jones tries to use.

What did humans evolve from?
Humans evolved from APE-LIKE ancestors.

When did they evolve?
Humans have been evolving since life began on this planet.
However our last common ancestor shared with Chimps was around 7 million years ago (give or take).

How are we different today than they were back then?
Some of us are white. Some black. Some are resistant to malaria. Some of us can digest milk. Some of us are tall. Some of us are short. Etc etc etc etc.

I have a simple question...If humans evolved from apes then why are there still apes today? Why have they not evolved into humans, or greater things? Why have we not evolved? Why are we the same as the Egyptian, Summerians, Assyrians? Should we have not evolved?

That is a simple question. But simple as in "stupid" rather than simple as in "easy".
Organisms either evolve and survive (but slightly changed) or die out over time.
So long as their enironment (by which I mean everything htat effects them during life) stays stable they will remain fairly stable themselves.
There are apes today because they are perefectly suited to the niche they live in. Change that niche and they will evolve or die out.
As it stands apes have evolved.
And so have we.
It's only you saying they/we haven't.

An interesting example I heard about was elephants on Malta (I think it was Malta...an island in the Med anyway).
As the Mediteranean filled up after the last ice age Elephants became stranded. As this happened over such a long time they had time to evolve to become smaller and smaller. As the land they lived on became more scarce large animals became penalised in life's struggle and smaller elephants evolved.
As it turns out these mini-elephants died out but you can imagine that if a land bridge linked Malta to Africa again they'd never be able to mate with African elephants. They had become a new species.

 

Because you were talking about uncertainty as if it is a bad thing. Other than facts, nothing in science is certain. Religion however seems to talk in certainties and you seem to be applying that requirement into science.

You're using the same complaints as creationists. Whether you call yourself a creationist or not is irrelevant.

Problems that creationists talk about that are not even problems (or are irrelevant to evolutionary theory):
- How could the eyes evolve.
- Irreducible complexity
- Evolution cannot explain the universe, life, etc.
- Etc.

Actual issues that are under discussion include:
- Does evolution primary take place at the level of the gene, individual, the group, or the species.
- Does evolution take place constantly and gradually, or does it go in bursts (know as punctuated equilibrium).
- Is natural selected the central mechanism of evolution, or are there other mechanisms? What role do they play; are these other mechanisms as important or even more important?
- How to define a species (there are many definitions, all with there own problems, and no single agreed definition).

Because it is a theory, and so is never ever 100%. Newtons work on gravitation theory was later added to by Einstein. With the discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, some even suggest the theory of gravity needs to be slightly revised.

No, you THINK it is flawed based on your misunderstanding of the theory.

Yes, you have. You're ignorance is not a reason to saying it isn't true.

The web site lists some of the evidence and then says this: "If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

We're discussing science, and that is a scientific web site. They talk about the evidence. The evidence just happens to support evolutionary theory.

Here you are conceding that information is added! How it is added is irrelevant. New information IS added, as you just admit!!

If, for example, all flower petals were red, and the alleles in one flower changed turning the petals white, then we would have NEW INFORMATION. The fundamental data may very well be the same (after all, all life is made from the same stuff/structures), but that same data can produce new information that was not present before.

If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? You realize how stupid that argument is, right?!

Humans ARE apes. We did not evolve from apes (or monkeys), we evolved from a common ancestor, which would have been a ape-like creature.

6. If humans evolved from apes then why are there still apes?
Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/If_we're_descended_from_apes,_why_are_there_still_apes_around%3F

Even Answers in Genesis agrees that this is an argument creationists should defiantly not use!

Not necessarily. Evolution is caused by selective pressure of the environment. If their environment provided no pressure to evolve, they wouldn't have.

Scientists predicted that around 375 millions years ago fish evolved into land animals, so they went to the strata of that period (they went to Canada where the strata was exposed), and started digging. They would have obviously used various techniques for aging the fossil itself.