tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6799106221904247067..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New Book (Doesn’t) Explain How Eyes Evolved; The Bible Versus Evolution; Evolutionists Say “We See”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77475769214702798122012-01-10T07:38:50.423-08:002012-01-10T07:38:50.423-08:00Irrespective of all naivety of some ID bloggers an...Irrespective of all naivety of some ID bloggers and their arguments, abusus non tollit usum, my dear colleagues. So, please show us:<br /><br />1. how semiotic state systems spontaneously organised themselves.<br />2. how formalisms came into being by themselves.<br />3. how nature decided to follow routes to optimise utility.<br />4. how genuine cybernetic control is introduced into physicality.<br /><br />To facilitate your efforts, please show us at least one example of each of the above to prove that spontaneous bona fide self-organisation is possible (not to be confused with low-informational redundant fractal-type regularity that can occur spontaneously). <br /><br />Note that formidable efforts of really outstanding scientists have so far failed to provide adequate answers. Neither the edge of chaos by Kauffman, nor Prigogine's dissipative structures, nor Eigen's auto-catalytic and replicating hypercycles present adequate responses to the cybernetic challenge outlined above.aftermathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199331331264071971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54962562804164703662011-12-23T11:42:55.122-08:002011-12-23T11:42:55.122-08:00Please, please Cornelius, weigh in -- you have let...Please, please Cornelius, weigh in -- you have let the Darwinists make fools of themselves long enough. None of your biblical-related comments related to biology whatsoever, rather, to the willing 'blindness' of learned parakeets who recite Darwinian lore. You let them degrade themselves to the point that they invent, then ridicule, their own straw-man arguments about "biblical genetics" -- finally hitting bottom with the "bible as a science textbook" canard. <br /><br />This whole string is too rich. Have respondents noted the title of your blog? The title words "religion" and "God" might have provided a clue as to the point of your post. I only hope that comments section of your blog is not under copyright, for I have seen no better illustration of the vapidness of Darwinian logic (pardon the oxymoron). <br /><br />Thank you, Cornelius Hunter, for the Christmas gift.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13399094901469350695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33990983604806411852011-12-23T00:12:35.592-08:002011-12-23T00:12:35.592-08:00velikovskys
S'okay. For some reason that happ...velikovskys<br /><br />S'okay. For some reason that happens to me a lot on this blog. Dunno why.Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3830308697354908322011-12-22T17:43:14.162-08:002011-12-22T17:43:14.162-08:00Thorton,
The tree branch story at that website is...Thorton,<br /><br />The tree branch story at that website is hilarious. <br /><br />Did you notice that the story goes from "speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat" to "all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs" to "stripes" on the branches to "young that were streaked or speckled or spotted" and "streaked and dark-colored animal" to "stronger females" and "strong ones"?<br /><br />What a convoluted mess.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26064218986560551962011-12-22T14:34:39.774-08:002011-12-22T14:34:39.774-08:00Sorry Venture FreeSorry Venture Freevelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22999972840864164282011-12-22T05:56:06.867-08:002011-12-22T05:56:06.867-08:00CH has finally come out of the closet and is now o...CH has finally come out of the closet and is now open about his "Bible is a science textbook" beliefs. I wonder if for the next chapter he'll explain <b>Biblical genetics</b>, where you can get sheep and goats to produce streaked and spotted offspring merely by having them mate in front of tree branches cut with stripes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30%3A25-43&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Biblical tree branch genetics</a><br /><br />How about it CH? How do the Bible’s descriptions hold up on that one?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57751958032267834832011-12-22T03:45:02.477-08:002011-12-22T03:45:02.477-08:00Thorton,
We should thank Mr. Byers for his comedi...Thorton,<br /><br />We should thank Mr. Byers for his comedic input.<br /><br />velikovskys,<br /><br />I didn't say that. You're quoting Venture Free.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65684458895661788382011-12-22T00:30:41.635-08:002011-12-22T00:30:41.635-08:00Delighted as I am to see Cornelius finally admitti...Delighted as I am to see Cornelius finally admitting his belief that wisdom can be found in the Bible, am I the only one left gawping at his playing fast and loose with the term 'prediction'?<br /><br /><i>Blind guides and straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel?<br /><br />Men loving darkness rather than light?<br /><br />Men heaping up teachers to turn away from the truth and turning to fables instead?<br /><br />The blind saying “We see”?</i><br /><br />How in the name of Satan's knickers do these qualify as 'predictions', particularly as scientists understand the term?<br /><br />They are only predictions in the sense that religious people like to understand them - ie, they are phrases which they can view purely as metaphor and then apply to whatever situation de jour they fancy, and then retroactively claim the phrase to be a 'prediction'.<br /><br />It's so weak and transparent it's embarrassing.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42366917920587708882011-12-21T19:51:52.681-08:002011-12-21T19:51:52.681-08:00Thorton
thanks to ID challengers this blog provi...Thorton<br /><br />thanks to ID challengers this blog provides an interesting place for discussion. Of course, thanks to Cornelius for allowing opponents to freely challenge ID.<br /><br />Most of us here are looking for knowledge, explanations,clarifications. <br /><br />How will looking for and maybe gaining knowledge help us during our short pity lives on this rock flying towards Leo at 400 km/s (CMB as a reference)? <br /><br />Sometimes I think it would be easier to be bacteria in a little pond showing off my fancy flagellum at full speed.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11166200633775601552011-12-21T12:46:35.355-08:002011-12-21T12:46:35.355-08:00Cornelius,
Anyone who reasonably doubts is ridicu...Cornelius,<br /><br /><i>Anyone who reasonably doubts is ridiculed, dismissed and blackballed.</i><br /><br />No. But you can bet that people who think that the bible make better predictions will be ridiculed. Especially when such a religious person's sctick is that evolutionists are themselves religious when they end up comparing real science to the bible-thumpers "knowledge".Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68369093964412388722011-12-21T11:50:02.342-08:002011-12-21T11:50:02.342-08:00Eugen said...
Thorton
you ruining your m...<i>Eugen said...<br /><br /> Thorton<br /><br /> you ruining your monitor made my morning.<br /> :)</i><br /><br />Glad to return the favor and bring a smile! I for one appreciate your mild and good humored fun-poking at both sides in these discussions. You're sorta like a C/E board's Switzerland. ;)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52735244255319421492011-12-21T11:01:53.016-08:002011-12-21T11:01:53.016-08:00Thorton
you ruining your monitor made my morning....Thorton<br /><br />you ruining your monitor made my morning.<br />:)Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14066880603225254792011-12-21T08:37:30.660-08:002011-12-21T08:37:30.660-08:00Geoxus said...
I'm sad to tell you the buffa...<i>Geoxus said...<br /><br /> I'm sad to tell you the buffaloes with compound eyes are apparently extinct today.</i><br /><br />(goes to get monitor cleaner to remove sprayed coffee!)<br /><br />LOL! That made my morning.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7840317891461608062011-12-21T08:34:00.963-08:002011-12-21T08:34:00.963-08:00geoxus:
It's like that old saying about a day ...<b>geoxus:<br />It's like that old saying about a day versus a lifetime. How's it go again? Oh yeah: "Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." Words of wisdom, </b><br /><br />I heard it as<br /><br />Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.<br />Teach him how to fish and he will sit<br />in a boat and drink beer all dayvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-804653222105311462011-12-21T08:08:15.927-08:002011-12-21T08:08:15.927-08:00Robert Byers,
From your use of language I gather ...Robert Byers,<br /><br />From your use of language I gather you come from some ancient time. I'm sad to tell you the buffaloes with compound eyes are apparently extinct today. I bet they were magnificent creatures.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36327969088073616242011-12-21T07:35:09.001-08:002011-12-21T07:35:09.001-08:00Thumper says:
Your interpretation is wrong...
I&...Thumper says:<br /><br /><i>Your interpretation is wrong</i>...<br /><br />I'm terribly sorry. Will you explain yourself or shall we guess ad infinitum?<br /><br /><i>and your alleged predictions don't have anything to do with random mutations that you cannot name.</i><br /><br />Second guess: you want a test of the randomness of mutation.<br /><br />Example: If you grow several parallel lines of initially genetically identical bacteria, and test phage resistance in many samples of each line, you'll see great variance in the number of resistant colonies between the parallel lines. This is explained because the phage resistance mutation appeared at different moments during the growth of each line, by random mutation. If the variance is small, the alternative explanation is that the phage resistant mutations appeared after the introduction of the phage as a non-random response, yielding similar numbers of mutants between lines.<br /><br />Prediction: You'll say you didn't mean that either, and will phrase some other nonsense pretending to explain yourself, so that your question remains unanswerable.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13510651841293973362011-12-21T06:13:48.034-08:002011-12-21T06:13:48.034-08:00Kilo Papa, please tone it down. There's no re...Kilo Papa, please tone it down. There's no reason to insult all Christians because of the actions of a few moronic IDC pushers.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33396726322503932022011-12-21T04:25:36.206-08:002011-12-21T04:25:36.206-08:00Thorton said:
"As the average temperature of...Thorton said:<br /><br />"As the average temperature of the planet continues to rise not all areas are affected uniformly."<br /><br />AGW deniers obviously think that AGW means that every square inch of the Earth should be getting warmer every single day. They don't (or won't) understand that AGW affects the climate in different ways in different places. They also don't understand that it doesn't take a massive rise in warming to cause severe detrimental effects in many places. <br /><br />And one more thing they don't understand is that AGW and the detrimental effects cannot be reversed overnight.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19762766707643710482011-12-21T02:14:15.039-08:002011-12-21T02:14:15.039-08:00If farmers ate their seed corn they'd immediat...<em>If farmers ate their seed corn they'd immediately end their short-term hunger too. Most think it wise to invest resources in the long term big picture of the health and well-being of society.</em><br /><br />It's like that old saying about a day versus a lifetime. How's it go again? Oh yeah: "<em>Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.</em>" Words of wisdom, no doubt.Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25920017841000650012011-12-21T01:45:55.016-08:002011-12-21T01:45:55.016-08:00The eye ius a classic objection to evolution and p...The eye ius a classic objection to evolution and perhaps why some guy did a book on this as if to deaden the simply understood concept that eyes are too complex to be from selection on mutation.<br /><br />Eyes in origin issues matter too me as I had/have serious issues with eyesight.<br />The thing, as noted in the thread lead, that catches me about eyes is how they are all after the same model in sio many creatures.<br />As if the eye was perfected and later evolution turned bugs into buffalos but kept the eye design intact.<br />Surely unlikely.<br />The few differences in eye design are for insects or sea creatures and even there there is serious overlap.<br /><br />This great sameness in eyesight design hints not only at a single creator but hints strongly that all eyesight is a single equation in biology.<br />The seeming differences are just clues to a greater, still not understood, single law in how biology uses light to bring sight.<br /><br />If so then it could be creationism that could lead to healing of blindness.<br /><br />If a creature needs a certain way of seeing then it will have it.<br />So squids, unlike other sea creatures, are like us simply cause they need it. Eyes are unrelated to a trail of biological heritage.<br /><br />The sameness of eyes indicates a like biological reaction for like needs.<br />The differences hint at the mechanism of how eye types are picked.<br />The greater law of sight from light is is still in the dark yet this law seems to be there.<br />Everyone's eyes woks the same way.<br />"mammal/reptile" or insects etcare not different kinds of eyes.<br /><br />A single creator likely has a single idea for eyesight.<br />Fugure this out and we could help people like me.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16289768695177887162011-12-20T19:40:36.748-08:002011-12-20T19:40:36.748-08:00Thumper: Yet they do not know how or even if rando...Thumper: Yet they do not know how or even if random mutations can produce opsins.<br /><br />Thumper, <br /><br />You seem to be having difficulty seeing the forrest for the trees. <br /><br />One cannot perform a magic trick unless you have the knowledge of how to perform that trick. Otherwise, it would actually be magic or the spontaneous generation of knowledge. The origin of the magic trick is the origin of the knowledge of how to perform it. We create knowledge of how to perform magic tricks via conjecture and refutation. <br /><br />In the case of the biosphere, eyes represent adaptations. Eyes cannot be constructed in the absence of the knowledge of how to build them. Otherwise this would be spontaneous generation of knowledge, or "magic". As such, the origin of adaptations is the origin of the knowledge that was used to build them, as found in the genome.<br /><br />Evolutionary theory explains the creation of this knowledge via genetic variation and natural selection, which is a form of conjecture and refutation. <br /><br />In other words, all predictions of evolutionary theory are based on a specific, underlying explanation for how the knowledge used to build the specific adaptations we observe was created. Specifically, that it was created over time and that it was a form of conjecture in that variations were undirected in regards to function and refutation by natural selection. Unlike people, natural process cannot create explanations, which we use as a criteria for performing tests via observations. <br /><br />For example, how do you explain why life appears in the order of least complex to most complex? If the knowledge of how to build each species had always existed, there would be no need to start out with the least complex forms billions of years ago, with the more complex forms only appearing in the last 500 million years or so. In fact, all forms of life could have been created simultaneously as the knowledge of how to create them would have existed simultaneously.<br /><br />On the other hand, complex adaptations cannot be constructed until the knowledge of how to build them was created. We explain this particular order in that the knowledge of how to build more complex adaptations did not always exist and was created over time. Nor could the mechanism choose to discard specific genetic variations because, unlike people, it cannot create explanations as to how genetic variations create specific features. <br /><br />So, if you want to falsify evolutionary theory, this would entail falsifying evolution's underlying explanation for the creation of knowledge used to construct the biosphere. Better yet, provide a better explanation for how this knowledge was created. <br /><br />Note: a being that was "just there", complete with the knowledge of how to build each species already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more simply state that each organism "just appeared" compete with the knowledge of how to build each species, already present in their DNA. It merely pushes the problem into some unexplainable mind that exists in some unexplainable realm.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58020868437920991372011-12-20T19:20:56.424-08:002011-12-20T19:20:56.424-08:00thumper said...
T: "It is not necessary ...<i>thumper said...<br /><br /> T: "It is not necessary or useful to rehash Genetics 101 basics in every paper."<br /><br /> It is if genetics 101 is based on an untestable assumption. And seeing that genetics 101 is the issue I would say it is necessary to start there.</i><br /><br />Any local college or university should be able to help you. You may even find some introductory Biology 101 or Genetics 101 night courses at a local community school. There are also numerous online tutorials that could explain the basics to you.<br /><br />I personally won't waste my time with anyone who is unwilling to learn. Go study and understand what you're criticizing <b>first</b>, then come back and try to make a coherent argument. Your "I personally don't believe it!!" doesn't carry any weight at all.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17980685787084924532011-12-20T19:09:15.627-08:002011-12-20T19:09:15.627-08:00thumper said...
Universal common descent is n...<i>thumper said...<br /><br /> Universal common descent is not a well established anything. </i><br /><br />Actually it is. Sorry I can't help you with the personal incredulity thing if you refuse to read and learn.<br /><br /><i>The random wrt fitness is a nonsensical evo-term and odes not address the issue if the mutations were goal oriented or just happened.</i><br /><br />Mutations being random with their effects on evolutionary fitness is an empirically observed fact. That's just the way reality is thumper.<br /><br /><i>Also the paper you linked to was just comparative genetics, meaning there wasn't anything about how any vision could have evolved.</i><br /><br />LOL! I guess that's why the paper was titled <b>Eye Evolution</b>, because it had nothing to do with the evolution of vision systems, right?<br /><br /><i>The whole "how" part is missing. And given the paper on waiting for two mutations, that would put a damper on any idea that random mutations could A) put together a regulatory network to B) allow for the development multi-protein systems, like the vision system.</i><br /><br />Another LOL! PaV/Lino just got his butt handed to him while quote-mining and misrepresenting that exact paper. His big idiotic faceplant was in claiming that low probabilities for two <b>prespecified</b> mutations somehow means that <b>any</b> two mutations must be low probability. You want make the same dumb claim too? <br /><br /><i>So if all you have is comparative anatomy and comparative genetics, you don't have anything to support the claim evolutiondidit, never mind randommutationdidit.</i><br /><br />I've got all of anatomy, and biology, and botany, and genetics, and paleontology, and a hundred other sciences providing my positive evidence. What do you have?<br /><br /><i>You want us to believe that random mutations put together a light to electric signal transducer?</i><br /><br />No, I don't. I agree random mutations alone won't create such a system. But an iterative process of genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable variations will do it quite nicely. <br /><br /><i>You will believe anything as long as you think it refutes design. </i><br /><br />Nah, I stick to the consilient empirical evidence. You ID chaps should try it some day.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7331418319405564452011-12-20T18:49:21.232-08:002011-12-20T18:49:21.232-08:00It is not necessary or useful to rehash Genetics 1...<i>It is not necessary or useful to rehash Genetics 101 basics in every paper.</i><br /><br />It is if genetics 101 is based on an untestable assumption. And seeing that genetics 101 is the issue I would say it is necessary to start there.thumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068349264687584718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88279041350740564172011-12-20T18:47:16.628-08:002011-12-20T18:47:16.628-08:00Thorton,
You want us to believe that random mutat...Thorton,<br /><br />You want us to believe that random mutations put together a light to electric signal transducer?<br /><br />You will believe anything as long as you think it refutes design.thumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068349264687584718noreply@blogger.com