The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

which bit of 'evolution' are these two FLIES supposed to illustrate?

Well, do you think both creature are flies? Think carefully about it now...

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...to produce one fly without wings and another apparently 'on its last legs' ... sounds like 'devolution' by mutation to me!!!:eek::)

What a moronic statement :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution means,say, single-celled ocean life changes over time to land-life and eventually to man. Not the same thing as mutating viruses. Or only in your dreams.

Ah yes Wolfsbane, but biological life never evolves into non-biological non-life. So therefore evolution doesn't happen.

That is what your arguments sound like. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I didn't. I asked if your example was a colony or an independent organism.

Define both those things and I'll tell you which one it was.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, so show me a fly (any sort) evolving into a non-fly. Or any other organism you care to select, into anything other.

We already have, numerous times. Every time you simply changed what you meant by terms like "non-fly".

So again, define "fly" and "non-fly" and I'll try and find you a specific example of one evolving into the other.

Otherwise any example I give you will simply be met by you saying "ah but that isn't a non-fly as I'm defining it"

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I see plants die all the time. None of them increase in complexity. All function according to the genetic information they possess, and then die.

You see plants grow all the time, they are increasing in complexity.

If this broke the 2nd law of thermodynamics it would be impossible.

It doesn't, demonstrating that increasing in order and structure does not break any law of thermodynamics.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In your world, the fittest pass on their superior abilities and not only do we get tougher flowers, we may end up with intelligent ones that will build space craft and populate the universe.

Can I take that this changing of subject means you accept that increase in complexity has nothing to do with thermodynamics?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yet this is supposed to lead to an abundance of life, and of life vastly more complex than the original. Sounds like life, like the non-living matter before it, must have 'magic' inherent in it to overcome such difficulties.

So when I build a computer I'm magically breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Think about that for a minute ...

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah yes Wolfsbane, but biological life never evolves into non-biological non-life. So therefore evolution doesn't happen.

That is what your arguments sound like. :rolleyes:



Define both those things and I'll tell you which one it was.



We already have, numerous times. Every time you simply changed what you meant by terms like "non-fly".

So again, define "fly" and "non-fly" and I'll try and find you a specific example of one evolving into the other.

Otherwise any example I give you will simply be met by you saying "ah but that isn't a non-fly as I'm defining it"


You see plants grow all the time, they are increasing in complexity.

If this broke the 2nd law of thermodynamics it would be impossible.

It doesn't, demonstrating that increasing in order and structure does not break any law of thermodynamics.



Can I take that this changing of subject means you accept that increase in complexity has nothing to do with thermodynamics?

What a time-waster you are!

I ask for examples and you ask for definitions, as if you don't know already. I broaden the range to ANY, and you still can't come up with one.

But OK, a fly, let's take the Drosophila melanogaster. A non-fly, let's take the wasp: The term wasp is typically defined as any insect of the order Hymenoptera and suborder Apocrita that is neither a bee nor ant But feel free to include bees and ants.

All we've seen so far are extra or missing wings.

Are plants increasing in complexity? Increase in complexity is not the same as growth. At least not the complexity we are talking about that leads from molecules to man. As far as I can see these plants are just fulfilling their genetic program. Where's the more complex program? Where is the increase in sophistication? Or is man no more complex than the supposed first self-replicating molecule?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

So when I build a computer I'm magically breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Think about that for a minute ...

No, you are using energy to do so and applying intelligence to the task. Your evolution can use energy, but not intelligently. The intelligence has to come from the material itself, in the form of magic or chance retarding entropy over billions of years. Matter does not self-organise into increasingly complex forms over billions of years.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

What a time-waster you are!

I ask for examples and you ask for definitions, as if you don't know already. I broaden the range to ANY, and you still can't come up with one.

Yeah funny that consider the last time I gave you examples you simply changed the definitions :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

But OK, a fly, let's take the Drosophila melanogaster. A non-fly, let's take the wasp: The term wasp is typically defined as any insect of the order Hymenoptera and suborder Apocrita that is neither a bee nor ant But feel free to include bees and ants.

All we've seen so far are extra or missing wings.

Groan. You are apparently missing the point. Saying "a wasp" is pointless. I need you to define the properties of a fly so that I can try and give you an example of something that, based on these properties, is no longer a fly.

Saying a "wasp" is stupid because I've no idea what properties of a wasp you are considering to be a wasp.

For example most people would think that a fly that doesn't have wings isn't a fly. But not you apparently. Apparently an organism with wings is "a fly" and one without wings is still "a fly". Which is like saying a human is just a self replicating molecule with lots of other stuff.

So what are the properties of a fly that can be lost so you will say it is no longer a fly. What if it had no wings and no legs? Still a fly?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are plants increasing in complexity? Increase in complexity is not the same as growth.

It's not?

You don't think plants arrange disordered material into ordered material as they grow? You don't think a plant's leaf is ordered?

wolfsbane wrote: »

At least not the complexity we are talking about that leads from molecules to man.

And that complexity would be what exactly?

Perhaps you want to point out the part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that talks about the complexity that leads from molecules to man?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As far as I can see these plants are just fulfilling their genetic program. Where's the more complex program? Where is the increase in sophistication?

Sophistication??

What does that have to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Is a plants leaf more or less ordered than the materials used to construct the leaf?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, you are using energy to do so and applying intelligence to the task. Your evolution can use energy, but not intelligently. The intelligence has to come from the material itself, in the form of magic or chance retarding entropy over billions of years. Matter does not self-organise into increasingly complex forms over billions of years.

And what does any of that have to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Intelligence has nothing to do with thermodynamics. I can no more break the 2nd law than a rock can.

You would have saved a whole lot of time Wolfsbane if you had just admitted at the start that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

AtomicHorror

Still ignoring my questions, huh J C? Maybe I should just add them to the list of 30 or so that you routinely have no answer for.

J C wrote: »

...if you are arguing that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' then the observed 'direction' of mutagenic 'change' is very important indeed!!!

No it isn't. Selection takes care of that. Variation happens in multiple directions at once, selection determines what is carried forward.

J C wrote: »

If creatures are observed to be degenerating under Mutagenesis then we can scientifically conclude that they weren't generated by this mechanism ...

On the contrary, we'd expect a proportion of the panel of variants produced at each generation to be "degenerating". We'd also expect a proportion to be advantageous, and we'd expect a range of levels of fitness in between. This is a prediction of evolution by natural selection. If we didn't see this we'd know we were wrong about our model of variation.

AtomicHorror

I tried to explain the fly to non-fly thing here before. The confusion over it really does come down to definitions and the old linear evolution misconception. Creationists will often demand to know when humans stopped being apes. They never did. Just as apes never stopped being primates, and primates never stopped being mammals. Furthermore- and this one will really make the creationists incredulous- mammals never stopped being fish. They just no longer have the very few key traits we traditionally use to define what "fish" means, and possess some we don't think of as fish traits.

If we take 'flies' to be a perfect group, flies can certainly become non-flies in the same sense that mammals became non-fish. That is, in some non-scientifically-defined colloquial sense. A fish without fins, scales or gills is not a fish by most people's definitions. A fly with no wings is not a fly, following that understanding of the concept "fly"- or perhaps they need to lose more features? Just how many though? There's the trouble with these slippery definitions of organisms that we use colloquially. Scientifically, biologically, a fly will always be a fly, albeit a fly without wings. In a million years when it is two feet long, four legged and covered in a chitin-derived orange fur, it will still be a fly. Just one that is no longer easily recognisable as such.

The sentient emoticon creature that J C's descendants will have evolved into will probably be sneering at the concept that the Chitin Tiger is a form of fly without wings.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... and flies losing wings and legs ... aren't going in the right direction !!!!:eek::eek:

Eh? The "fly" on the right has got legs. She/he (I'm sure I could work it out from the eye colour but can't be bothered) just doesn't have wings. And is quite happy without them.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

All I'm asking if for any observed example of just a little bit of that - flies or anything else evolving over many generations into something other.

Why don't you look at the picture? That's a "non-fly" from a "fly" in a single generation.

AtomicHorror

doctoremma wrote: »

Eh? The "fly" on the right has got legs. She/he (I'm sure I could work it out from the eye colour but can't be bothered) just doesn't have wings. And is quite happy without them.

Looking closely, it does indeed appear upbeat!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
which bit of 'evolution' are these two FLIES supposed to illustrate?



doctoremma
Well, do you think both creature are flies? Think carefully about it now...

...ah yes ... I see one can't fly!!!!:D

... I get the joke ... but the real question is do YOU get the joke ... that is Evolution!!!

Both flies are 'on their last legs' ... so I guess they both won't be flies much longer ... when they die!!!

... but they also won't be anything else either !!!!:eek:

I guess it should be called 'Evolution to destruction'!!!!

... so we have billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth ... and the Evolutionists call it a record of life and deny that it is a record of death caused by a world-wide water-based catastrophy!!

... and now we have flies that are 'mutating' into increasingly crippled creatures that are losing various parts of their anatomy ... and the Evolutionists claim that this is how Pondkind developed the mega-bit extra CSI necessary to become Man ... rather than proof that mutagenesis always lives up to it's name ... and causes the destruction of CSI and therefore degeneracy and death.

... and these are the guys who are demanding ... and being given ... legally enforced access to every child to fill their heads with this nonesense ... and even the four year olds, who are being subjected to this stuff, wouldn't believe if they just take one second to think about it!!!

... Evolution is the ultimate 'buck naked' Emperor ... and Evolutionists are all mouth ... and no trousers!!!!
...and their flies are ... er ... 'flying low' ... if at all !!!!:):eek::D:P

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I tried to explain the fly to non-fly thing here before. The confusion over it really does come down to definitions and the old linear evolution misconception. Creationists will often demand to know when humans stopped being apes. They never did. Just as apes never stopped being primates, and primates never stopped being mammals. Furthermore- and this one will really make the creationists incredulous- mammals never stopped being fish. They just no longer have the very few key traits we traditionally use to define what "fish" means, and possess some we don't think of as fish traits.

If we take 'flies' to be a perfect group, flies can certainly become non-flies in the same sense that mammals became non-fish. That is, in some non-scientifically-defined colloquial sense. A fish without fins, scales or gills is not a fish by most people's definitions. A fly with no wings is not a fly, following that understanding of the concept "fly"- or perhaps they need to lose more features? Just how many though? There's the trouble with these slippery definitions of organisms that we use colloquially. Scientifically, biologically, a fly will always be a fly, albeit a fly without wings. In a million years when it is two feet long, four legged and covered in a chitin-derived orange fur, it will still be a fly. Just one that is no longer easily recognisable as such.

The sentient emoticon creature that J C's descendants will have evolved into will probably be sneering at the concept that the Chitin Tiger is a form of fly without wings.

OK, I see where you are coming from.

We are still the first self-replicating molecules, just look a bit different. Or the first thing that crawled on to land, but reorganised.

So of course you can't point to any evolution of a fly into a non-fly.

However, it may surprise you that I was thinking in terms of scientific definitions and delineations. The families and orders I linked to. Silly of me I know. But I took it you meant evolution outside of these parameters had been observed.

I gather you really meant a loss/gain of wings or eyes. Ah,well.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

Why don't you look at the picture? That's a "non-fly" from a "fly" in a single generation.

Fly - flying. I get you. Ryanair on a bad day.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...it appears that the original CSI has the ability to sequester the algal chlorophyll ... and thereafter is able to reproduce the chlorlphyll ... its like a living 'App'!!!

You really are talkign nonsense now. What does "the original CSI has the ability to sequester...." mean (if anything)?. "CSI" isn't a physical entity, it's a function of a physical entity (the existing, tangible, measurable DNA sequence). So, do you mean that the "original DNA" (presumably of the slug's founding "kind") has the ability to sequester DNA i.e. the slug's DNA can change. Brilliant JC, but you're probably two hundred years behind standard science knowledge on this feature of DNA (if you take inferences about Mendel's work into account).

So, apart from stating the bleeding obvious - DNA is plastic - what is your CSI point? Is CSI a direct function of the actual DNA or is it the potential for DNA to change?

I think that's checkmate.There's no way you can legitimately argue either option that you've backed your way into.

J C wrote: »

Once I have established its alphabet and that it is a functional language, I can measure it's CSI, irrespective of whether I understand it or not.

But you can't do the first (measure complexity) without the second (understanding how it works) and all of this relies on the ability of YOU to understand, for YOU to make the call that it has to be designed. And no offence, but you're not exactly qualified to make those calls. How do you establish the alphabet of something that appears non-functional? How do you establish functionality when you don't understand something? How do you go about sorting out the alphabet in Russian if you've never even heard of the Russian language?

Honestly, how can you legitimately make this argument and not die a little bit inside?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

And what does any of that have to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Intelligence has nothing to do with thermodynamics. I can no more break the 2nd law than a rock can.

You would have saved a whole lot of time Wolfsbane if you had just admitted at the start that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

I've been thinking about how we seem to be missing something in our/my use of terms, and have done some research. I hope to return soon with a new approach to the entropy/order/complexity issue - if I can pin down what's bouncing around in my head.

Later.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

Both flies are 'on their last legs' ... so I guess they both won't be flies much longer

No they're not. Perhaps you share your expertise as a Drosophila general practitioner and tell us why you think they are both about to keel over...

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've been thinking about how we seem to be missing something in our/my use of terms

If it's "delete as applicable", let's cross out "our" in that part.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I hope to return soon with a new approach to the entropy/order/complexity issue

One which is based on the actual terms and conditions regarding physical laws?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
Variation by mutation.

Originally Posted by J C
...to produce one fly without wings and another apparently 'on its last legs' ... sounds like 'devolution' by mutation to me!!!

...any more 'evolution' or 'variation' ... and they'll both be dead!!!

Wicknight
What a moronic statement :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy)

... what's moronic about observing that mutagenesis always destroys CSI ... and then concluding scientifically that mutagenesis didn't provide the CSI necessary for NS to supposedly 'evolve' Pondkind to Mankind???

... the real 'morons' are those who believe in the magical powers of mutagensis ... to turn 'flies' into physicists ... while sensibly avoiding mutagenic agents themselves!!!!
The sheer hypocracy of it all takes some beating!!!!:eek::):D

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... what's moronic about observing that mutagenesis always destroys CSI

Slug DNA + algae gene = mutagenic event which increases slug's complexity and functionality.

How is this destroying CSI? Even in your world of made up terms, how is this destroying CSI?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, I see where you are coming from.

We are still the first self-replicating molecules, just look a bit different. Or the first thing that crawled on to land, but reorganised.

So of course you can't point to any evolution of a fly into a non-fly.

That's the crux of it. It's subsets within subsets. Families and whatnot are not particularly meaningful to the way we think about life these days- they don't for example define a consistent measure of discreteness or difference or similarity or however we might like to go about delineating life forms. We've got boundaries such as productive breeding capacity, which we've directly observed to emerge evolution by natural selection. We've got clades, which can be of any size and cross any range of similarity at all- so it's not much good observing evolution across clade boundaries (we have). And we've got various measures of similarity.

I guess that's what you're really interested in? Have we seen evolution generate difference between ancestor and descendant comparable to what we'd expect to see between the families or orders or genera? The problem is that- as I said above- there's no consistent definition of these things and no consistent genetic difference. But would this be a fair summary of the evidence you're looking for?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

... what's moronic about observing that mutagenesis always destroys CSI ...

You've already admitted you don't have a way to measure that, so this is a baseless assertion. When we show gain of function, even through addition of genetic material, you say it was pre-existing and that CSI reimains unchanged. When there is loss of function, even when the context makes it advantageous, you say CSI is lost. But still you give us no way to measure the change.

J C wrote: »

and then concluding scientifically that mutagenesis provided the CSI necessary for NS to supposedly 'evolve' Pondkind to Mankind???

No scientist says anything about CSI, except when they're showing it to be an ill-defined concept.

J C wrote: »

... the real 'morons' are those who believe in the magical powers of mutagensis ... to turn 'flies' into physicists ... while sensibly avoiding mutagenic agents themselves!!!!
The sheer hypocracy of it all takes some beating!!!!:eek::):D

The sheer irony of anyone spouting this sort of nonsense whilst labelling others as morons takes some beating!!!!:eek::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
Variation by mutation.

Originally Posted by J C
...to produce one fly without wings and another apparently 'on its last legs' ... sounds like 'devolution' by mutation to me!!!

...any more 'evolution' or 'variation' ... and they'll both be dead!!!

Originally Posted by Wicknight
What a moronic statement

Originally Posted by J C
... what's moronic about observing that mutagenesis always destroys CSI ...
... the real 'morons' are those who believe in the magical powers of mutagensis ... to turn 'flies' into physicists ... while sensibly avoiding mutagenic agents themselves!!!!
The sheer hypocracy of it all takes some beating!!!!

AtomicHorror
The sheer irony of anyone spouting this sort of nonsense whilst labelling others as morons takes some beating!!!!:eek::):D

...Touché!!!:D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Slug DNA + algae gene = mutagenic event which increases slug's complexity and functionality.

How is this destroying CSI? Even in your world of made up terms, how is this destroying CSI?

...it isn't destroying CSI ... the sequestration of algal genes by the Slug DNA isn't mutagenesis ... it is the aquisition of algal CSI by the Slug CSI ...just like the aquisition of an 'App' by your phone isn't a random non-intelligently directed phenonenon like mutagenesis either !!!:eek::)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...Touché!!!:D

Misrepresentation, quotation out-of-context and unproductive one-liners, all on the same page. Classic J C. Inadvertently advancing the evolutionist argument one dodged question at a time. Take a bow.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Perhaps you share your expertise as a Drosophila general practitioner and tell us why you think they are both about to keel over...

... the fly without wings looks distinctly contorted ... if it was a dog you'd euthenase it ... and put it out of its misery!!!! :eek:

...its certainly evidencing a serious loss of CSI (the ability to grow and use wings)!!!

... like I have said, an example of devolution ... rather than evolution in action!!!

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... the fly without wings looks distinctly contorted ... if it was a dog you'd euthenase it ... and put it out of its misery!!!! :eek:

...its certainly evidencing a serious loss of CSI (the ability to grow and use wings)!!!

... like I have said, an example of devolution ... rather than evolution in action!!!

I know its pointless but why not.

JC, what if I started breeding flies in an enclosed space. I cover the ground with food and I hang electric fly killers from the roof.

The flies have no need to fly, in fact flying is hazardous to their health. Over many generations the flies who inherit 'bad-flight' genes have the advantage for survival here. (Warning: Not actually a good experiment)

Eventually flies with 'no-wings' genes become the norm because its advantageous to their survival.

Well ?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... like I have said, an example of devolution ... rather than evolution in action!!!

Devolution is the transfer of power from a centralized government to smaller localized governments

If you are going to make up words try and pick ones that don't already have definitions :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as de-evolution, something un-evolving. Such a statement displays such a misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution (independently of whether it is correct or not) as to show utter ignorance.

Tell us again what your science degree was in JC? :P