INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#421 Post by animist » December 14th, 2016, 12:51 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Pahu wrote:
Fully-Developed Organs 1
All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).
I am starting to wonder what "fully developed" means, and therefore what "partially developed" means. Yes, it is not surprising that we don't find fossils of animals with eyes which just don't work (since if these organs were crucial to their survival, few of these animals would have survived or bred others similarly deficient); but, if you bothered to read biologists like Richard Dawkins, you'd see that a highly developed organ like the eye is not a matter of all-or-nothing; we know of many animals with eyes which are both inferior and superior (or just different) to human eyes, and some animals have receptors which can sense light or dark but nothing more. AFAIK Paley is not mocked by modern biologists, any more than Aristotle is mocked by modern philosophers; he was a genuine scientist and thinker working in an age which simply did not know what we know today

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#422 Post by animist » December 14th, 2016, 1:14 pm

Pahu wrote:Duplicate post deleted by Admin.

Please try to be more careful in future, Pahu.
Pahu, I often do things like this! I wish you a happy Xmas and wonder how you plan to celebrate it

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#423 Post by animist » December 14th, 2016, 1:33 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:
Pahu wrote: I believe the evidence is self evident. Logically the universe had a beginning before which there was nothing from which it appeared.
it is not at all self-evident that universe had a beginning, and many people have believed that there was no beginning. The universe that we know originated not from nothing but from the Big Bang of incredibly dense material
Hasn't this all been explained to Pahu before?
probably, but TBH we humanists are scarcely more unanimous on such things than are theists like Pahu, and he'd probably enjoy more diverse, if infidel, responses

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#424 Post by animist » December 15th, 2016, 10:41 am

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:Duplicate post deleted by Admin.

Please try to be more careful in future, Pahu.
Pahu, I often do things like this! I wish you a happy Xmas and wonder how you plan to celebrate it
Alan, as I said, I have a few times posted the same thing by mistake. Is it possible for users to delete (rather than adapt) duplicate posts within the time limit?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#425 Post by Alan H » December 15th, 2016, 10:56 am

animist wrote:
animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:Duplicate post deleted by Admin.

Please try to be more careful in future, Pahu.
Pahu, I often do things like this! I wish you a happy Xmas and wonder how you plan to celebrate it
Alan, as I said, I have a few times posted the same thing by mistake. Is it possible for users to delete (rather than adapt) duplicate posts within the time limit?
I'm fairly sure you can.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#426 Post by animist » December 15th, 2016, 11:32 am

Alan H wrote:I'm fairly sure you can.
ok thanks, I assume that means that you don't know how to :smile:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#427 Post by Alan H » December 15th, 2016, 12:26 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:I'm fairly sure you can.
ok thanks, I assume that means that you don't know how to :smile:
No, because I have admin rights, I don't see what a normal user sees. However, I've just checked the settings and users are able to delete their posts up to two hours after posting:
2016-12-15_12h22_55.png
2016-12-15_12h22_55.png (7.7 KiB) Viewed 7350 times
There should be a prompt or an X that will allow a user to delete a post.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#428 Post by animist » December 16th, 2016, 10:48 am

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:I'm fairly sure you can.
ok thanks, I assume that means that you don't know how to :smile:
No, because I have admin rights, I don't see what a normal user sees. However, I've just checked the settings and users are able to delete their posts up to two hours after posting:
2016-12-15_12h22_55.png
There should be a prompt or an X that will allow a user to delete a post.
ok thanks

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#429 Post by Pahu » December 21st, 2016, 2:05 pm

Fully-Developed Organs 2

There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism].  Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, [i]Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on December 21st, 2016, 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ETA quote tags
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#430 Post by Alan H » December 21st, 2016, 3:03 pm

Alan H wrote:This could get quite boring, Pahu.
Alan H wrote:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#431 Post by animist » December 21st, 2016, 3:45 pm

Pahu wrote:
Fully-Developed Organs 2

There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism].  Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, [i]Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Pahu, I would consider it a personal favour if your New Year's resolution were to read books like Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker", and for you to realise that Charles Darwin, great as he was, wrote about 150 years ago. In return, I undertake, as my own Resolution, to read a book of your choice

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 634
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#432 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » December 21st, 2016, 6:02 pm

Pahu wrote:
Fully-Developed Organs 2
[quote/]
Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? [/color] Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.
You may want to have a look at this:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/What_use_i ... _an_eye.3F
"Half an eye" can easily be a useful detector of light, just as pit vipers have useful detectors of infrared.
What does "half an eye" look like? Eagles have incredibly acute vision, far more so than human beings; from an eagle's perspective, do humans have only "half an eye"? The question tries to give the impression of an eye which has been physically cut in half and which would be completely useless for vision. If the question is posed as "Would 50% of current vision still be useful?" then the problem simply does not exist.
This is an overgeneralization of evolutionary theory. Rudimentary eyes could be produced with chance beginnings, like the ability to notice changes in light through a rudimentary retina in an animal — not a blind slug one day growing half an eye.
One of the most rudimentary eyes known belongs to single-celled marine plankton known as warnowiids (family Warnowiaceae). In warnowiids, the eye-like ocelloid evolved from organelles: the lens/cornea evolved from mitochondria and the photorceptor evolved from a chloroplast. Due to the extremely small size of the photoreceptor and the wavelength of light that it receives, it is estimated that the photorceptor is roughly equivalent to one screen pixel. Besides being able to detect changes in light, the photoreceptor may also be able to detect changes in polarization.[41][42]
There is a documented progression from light-sensitive spots through the light sensors of clams to the human eye and further to the octopus eye, through at least five different lines of development. The octopus eye is arguably more developed than the human eye, as the human eye has blood vessels and nerves in front of the retina, obscuring it and giving the 'blind spot' — the octopus eye has neither problem. Despite octopi having highly-developed eyes, they also simultaneously have use for primitive eyes: their skin contains photoreceptors that enable them to cue camouflage changes.[41][43]
In those organisms that live in dark environments, especially caves or the deep sea, their eyes have become nonfunctional because these organisms are no longer subjected to evolutionary pressures that require them to respond to visual stimuli from their environments. Many of these blind organisms, especially cave-dwelling salamanders, still retain their eyes, even though they can no longer see with them. For more information on the topic, see vestigial features.
Many humans can not see color, yet their eyes otherwise benefit them enormously.
Himmelfarb is just wrong. Rudimentary eyes, like imperfect or defective vision, may be very useful.



I notice too that Gould is being quote-mined again. Here is a link to his piece about Hopeful Monsters:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/ ... sters.html
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#433 Post by Pahu » December 28th, 2016, 12:32 pm

Distinct Types

If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. In fact, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.”

Image
Figure 5: Duckbilled Platypus. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group (a). Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.  Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

“The fact that all the individual
species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic
[evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution.” Denton, p. 132.

b. “...no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on December 28th, 2016, 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Quote tags added.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#434 Post by Alan H » December 28th, 2016, 12:38 pm

Alan H wrote:This could get quite boring, Pahu.
Alan H wrote:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#435 Post by animist » December 28th, 2016, 7:48 pm

Walt Brown: "If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats." What, Walt?? Why??

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#436 Post by Pahu » December 28th, 2016, 8:40 pm

animist wrote:Walt Brown: "If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats." What, Walt?? Why??
Because that is the definition of evolution.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 634
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#437 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » December 28th, 2016, 8:59 pm

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crocoduck

It's crocoducks all the way down, isn't it?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#438 Post by Lifelinking » December 28th, 2016, 9:01 pm

:pointlaugh:
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#439 Post by Lifelinking » December 28th, 2016, 9:23 pm

Hey Pahu, been looking at your thread. As I like to be polite I thought I would introduce myself to you :wave: As a returning member of this forum, may I answer the overall assertion of your thread in my native Glaswegian.

Naw Pahu, it disnae.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#440 Post by Alan H » December 29th, 2016, 12:46 pm

:hilarity: :laughter: :pointlaugh:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#441 Post by Tetenterre » December 30th, 2016, 10:55 am

If I may quote to what @Lifelinking posted elsewhere on these forums:
Image
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Post Reply