Worth Another Look
This came as quite a surprise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(148)
-
▼
July
(20)
- Here’s The One Dan Graur Slide You Have to Understand
- Here’s That New Fossil Study That Found a Crack in...
- Here’s One Reason Why Evolution is No Ordinary Sci...
- Squid and Octopus Coloration is Way More Complex T...
- Podcast: Professor Graur, ENCODE and Junk DNA
- Biomemetics This Time: Tunable Photonic Materials
- Octopus Perfectly Mimics a Plant
- Evolution’s Brand New Idea of Random Variation Isn...
- Evolutionist on Complexity: “To some extent, it ju...
- This New Paper on How Innovations Evolved Raises M...
- Evolutionist: We know very little about how evolut...
- Oops: “A Large Proportion of the Mammalian Genome ...
- Dan Graur Gave a Great Talk This Week
- Did a Rag-Tag Team Stumble On a Magnificent RNA?
- Here’s a New Paper on a Long Non Coding RNA
- Evolutionist: I Follow the Evidence
- Here is Carl Sagan’s Proof of Evolution
- Classic Quotes: “The Cosmos is all that is, or eve...
- Meet Professor Pedersen: Turning Science on its Head
- When I Pointed Out the Problem of Moralizing Evolu...
-
▼
July
(20)
does that prove that the octopus evolved from a rock?
ReplyDeleteMake that a plant.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere's another good video of an octopus mimicking a rock, my mistake.
DeleteIs incredulity an argument?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen a better one.
DeleteZing
DeleteScott,
Delete"Is incredulity an argument?"
Is remaining willfully ignorant to the obvious an excuse?
Is remaining willfully ignorant to the obvious an excuse?
DeleteNo, but we forgive you.
Nic: Is remaining willfully ignorant to the obvious an excuse?
Delete"it's obvious" isn't an argument either.
Scott,
Delete""it's obvious" isn't an argument either."
I wasn't asking if it was an argument, I was asking if it was an excuse. There is a difference.
So, is it an excuse?
Pedant,
Delete"No, but we forgive you."
How very magnanimous of you. I'm just curious though, why would one need to be forgiven for not remaining willfully ignorant? It's obvious evolution does not work, and I'm not remaining willfully ignorant for insisting it does, so for what are you forgiving me?
Hi Nic,
DeleteWhen you explain how your own willful ignorance allows you to believe that "it's obvious that evolution does not work," I'll try to satisfy your curiosity.
What leads you to believe that your peculiar point of view is "obvious"?
Pedant,
Delete"When you explain how your own willful ignorance allows you to believe that "it's obvious that evolution does not work," I'll try to satisfy your curiosity."
It was willful ignorance on my part which had me believing in evolution for many years. When I began to really look at the evidence and critically analyze the philosophy and logic behind evolutionary thought I began to become aware of the fact I was ignorant of what evolution actually taught.
You won't accept the fact you've been duped and I expect that. It's not until you decide to honestly study the question that you begin to admit the immense flaws inherent in the whole idea of life descending from a common ancestor via random mutation and natural selection.
Why it's obvious is itself obvious. Complex, integrated, functioning systems are rife in nature. Such systems only stem from an intelligent source. That is clearly seen in absolutely everything we observe, without exception. Evolutionists vainly attempt to argue this is not necessarily the fact. However, they are never able to provide anything even remotely approaching a complex system which originated or originates on its own.
In fact, it has become such an area of embarrassment that evolution tries desperately to distance itself from the need to ex[plain origins. It hand waves it away as being abiogenesis which it claims has nothing to do with evolution. Such an argument is palpable nonsense.
As for you satisfying my curiosity, that's already long done, and fanciful evolutionary explanations and convoluted story telling are not going to do anything to convert me back to my old religion. Sorry.
Hi Nic, hope you're doing well
DeleteNic
Why it's obvious is itself obvious. Complex, integrated, functioning systems are rife in nature. Such systems only stem from an intelligent source. That is clearly seen in absolutely everything we observe, without exception
Sorry Nic but that's just not true. We have demonstrated that the observed processes of evolution - populations with random variations filtered by selection and carrying forward beneficial heritable traits - can and do produce complexity. Every time a genetic algorithm is used to produce a complex result from a simpler precursor the process is verified.
Before you start hollering "but humans designed the computer and the software!!" understand that neither the humans nor the computer software produced the final complexity. The complexity was an emergent property of the rules being used. Now if you wish to argue that God created the natural rules that allow evolutionary processes to work that's another story, probably something for a philosophical discussion.
Bottom line - complexity per se does not require the conscious inputs of an intelligent designer.
As for you satisfying my curiosity, that's already long done, and fanciful evolutionary explanations and convoluted story telling are not going to do anything to convert me back to my old religion. Sorry.
Believing in God and accepting the solid science behind evolutionary theory aren't two mutually exclusive things Nic. There are millions of devout Christian evolutionary scientists in the world. They understand that God could easily use evolutionary processes as his tools for creating. Why do you think He couldn't?
Thorton,
Delete"Hi Nic, hope you're doing well"
For the most part I am. I'm a little depressed right now as a good friend died a few days ago and his funeral is tomorrow. We became friends while we both spent time in hospital with cancer. His was a much nastier form than mine and it eventually won out. He went through a lot of chemo, radiation and even a stem cell transplant.
It seemed as if he was doing well, but four months ago they found new tumours and determined further treatment was useless. Despite their diagnosis he seemed to be doing better. Things quickly turned, however.
How are you doing? Just 15 weeks till training camp. My Leafs made some good moves. It should be an interesting year.
We also get the bonus of the Olympics. Will be interesting to see how the US and Canada handle the larger ice surface this time. Did not go to well in Turin in 2006.
"Populations with random variations filtered by selection and carrying forward beneficial heritable traits - can and do produce complexity."
The complexity is already there my friend, and the populations never cease being what they are. That they would cease being what they are and become fundamentally different over time is what is necessary to demonstrate observable evolution from a common ancestor. This has not happened and there is no reason to believe it ever will. Wishful thinking, conjecture and unfounded extrapolation not wtihstanding.
"The complexity was an emergent property of the rules being used."
However, the 'emergent property' would not emerge on its own now would it? The emergent property is the sought after and logical result of the intelligent planning and construction. The two cannot be separated.
"Why do you think He couldn't?"
I don't believe he couldn't. I just don't believe he did.
Hey Nic,
DeleteSo sorry to hear about your friend. Sounds like he fought fate as long as he could. The Mrs. and I lost a dear friend to breast cancer 2 years ago, so we donate quite a bit to the Susan Komen Foundation. Guess we're at that age where things like this will be happening more frequently. All we can do is take care of ourselves and our loved ones as best we can.
Not much news on the hockey front. Sharks had a very quiet summer - a few minor signings, nothing earth shaking. Will always have mixed feelings about pros playing in the Olympics.
The complexity is already there my friend, and the populations never cease being what they are.
Yep. Mammals are still mammals, vertebrates are still vertebrates, tetrapods are still tetrapods. That's what you meant, isn't it?
That they would cease being what they are and become fundamentally different over time is what is necessary to demonstrate observable evolution from a common ancestor.
Except the 'fundamentally different' features you demand to see can take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Why in the world would you expect to see them in one generation?
We know the mechanism and can see the process slowly changing populations in real time. We have no evidence for any limits to potential change. We have substantial physical evidence that large scale morphological changes have indeed happened over deep time in the past.
Pretty sure I asked you before but don't recall getting an answer: why do you accept plate tectonics as a scientific theory? We know the mechanism and see plates move 1-2 mm per years, we have substantial physical evidence that have moved thousands of kilometers over deep time in the past, but no one has ever seen South America touching Africa.
This has not happened and there is no reason to believe it ever will.
Except we have a metric boatload of correlated and cross-corroborating physical evidence from dozens of different sciences that it did happen. No one from the Creationist camp will even acknowledge the evidence, never mind try to explain it in any coherent fashion.
However, the 'emergent property' would not emerge on its own now would it?
Yes, it would. That's what emergent means.
The emergent property is the sought after and logical result of the intelligent planning and construction.
The emergent property is complexity. There is no intelligent guiding what complexity will arise, only the influence of selection forces acting on the random raw genetic materials available.
The two cannot be separated.
Except scientists who use GAs separate them every day.
I don't believe he couldn't. I just don't believe he did.
OK, so you think God could have easily used evolution to shape the world. Why do you think He didn't?
As for you satisfying my curiosity, that's already long done, and fanciful evolutionary explanations and convoluted story telling are not going to do anything to convert me back to my old religion. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteDon't be sorry, Nic. If your new religion makes you happy, enjoy it in peace.
Pedant,
Delete"Don't be sorry, Nic. If your new religion makes you happy, enjoy it in peace."
I'm not sorry, I was just being polite. It does make me happy just as, it seems, your religion makes you happy.