Origins Thread

[Tiger]

I just point at the research.

You have no counter argument.

That research didn’t answer Plunkett’s question.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

He won’t. He’ll deflect ad naseum

Of course, probably a bot.

 

[Kangal]

, you spent ages reading it and finding it useful , no?

Yes!

Show me its incorrect.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

That research didn’t answer Plunkett’s question.

It was never supposed to. He can't and this is the deflection tactic

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Yes!

Show me its incorrect.

which bit did you find particularly compelling and useful?

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I just point at the research.

You mean, like one of those homeless lads they give a few bob to , to hold a shop sign with an arrow, on street corners?

Makes sense.

 

[Kangal]

which bit did you find particularly compelling and useful?

Show me its incorrect.
Spend some time on it.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I'll be moving on to the list of the most famous frauds perpetrated in the name of evolutionary science tomorrow Tank. Prepare a list of random, non relevant links for us.

Well past my bedtime

 

[Kangal]

PG can't do it. Or Tiger.

Lost people.

 

[Fishalt]

Could you tell us how natural selection knew , in advance, how to organize the suckling of baby mammals underwater, as per the needs of whale evolution?

Whales do have nipples. They are contained under kind of skin flaps which keeps everything hydrodynamic. The design hoqwever is not amazing as you seem to believe. For example, whale calves actually can't even suckle milk properly because their mouths simply don't function this way, and they cannot create any suction. What you're seeing is a kind of 'Jerry-Rigging'; a kind of ersatz nipple-feeding system that is a remnant from their ancestors. No engineer would design such a system, because it is cumbersome, inefficent, problematic and somewhat retarded.

The primary mistake you keep making is thinking that EBNS 'knows' anything. It doesn't, and it doesn't need to. Evolution by natural selection works by throwing out random mutations in a given species population, and if these accrue some kind of survival benefit in a practical, real-world setting, they persist in the gene pool simply as a matter of due process.These changes might make no difference at all and still persist in the gene pool, however.

For example, I get a snake here called the Coastal Taipan. Its venom is so potent that one bite is enough to kill 100,000 mice. It is also notorious for never dry-biting; that is, whenever it strikes, it hits its prey with everything it's got. Now I ask you, Mr Intelligent design, what exactly is the point of that? The largest thing it ever eats are bandicoots, which are very small mammals, and rats and mice. It only needs to feed once every 1-2 months, also. Venom is extremely energy-intensive to produce. There is absolutely no logical reason for this venom to be as potent as it is. It makes absolutely no sense at all.


And that's because nature is blind design. The Taipan doesn't even know it is venomous at all, let alone how venomous it is. The reason its venom is so potent is because...well, there was no reason for it not to get stronger and stronger over time, because this didn't impact its survival rate. Conversely, there was no enviornmental pressure augmenting it to get weaker, either. Millions of years later we end up with an animal pointlessly packing a nuclear weapon; an animal so deadly, for so little reason that it is equivalent to using an ICBM to kill a cockroach.

You're going from A to Z without considering everything inbetween. Whales/porpoises would have existed in an intermediary stage of evolution that was markedly different from their current forms. It's possible their common ancestor(S) were something like modern Hippopotamus, a sem-squatic mammal. Something about their environment made them evolve to become fully aquatic over an enormous expanse of time.

This article explains quite a lot.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2

 

[Hermit]

Rogans interview with Meyer is interesting.

Instead of countering Meyer’s bio molecular challenges to evolution, he spent the entire time just saying “yeah, but isn’t it possible that we could find an answer to that in the future”. This is a classic evolutionist tactic to avoid uncomfortable truths about their shallow knowledge of what is supposed to explain their existential worldview.

That's known as an Appeal to the Future fallacy, commonly used by defenders of pseudoscience.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

An interesting discussion broke out on another thread regarding the origins of humans and life in general.

I think this deserves its own thread.

The tapestry of human origins is woven with threads of inquiry, speculation and awe. A question as old as time is, where did we come from?

The traditional and deeply rooted beliefs in creationism posit a divine hand sculpting humanity, while the modern scientific discourse of evolution posits that life has arisen from natural processes.

Others believe that our existence is the result of extraterrestrial interventions, with beings from distant galaxies planting the seeds of life on earth.

So, which one is true?

Here is the place to discuss it.

A few things glaringly wrong with this post, but two stand out.

For starters, evolution doesn't concern itself with the origins of life (abiogenesis). Its sole concern is how descent with modification over very long periods of time has resulted in a vast plethora of different lifeforms.

Secondly, There is zero -- I repeat, ZERO -- conflict between accepting evolutionary theory and a belief in a higher power or purpose intrinsic to the universe.

Of course, it doesn't help that many evolutionary biologists push a version of evolution that relies on purely random processes.

Why did Darwin’s 20th-century followers get evolution so wrong? | Aeon Essays

Despite advances in molecular genetics, too many biologists think that natural selection is driven by random mutations

aeon.co

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Could you tell us how natural selection knew , in advance, how to organize the suckling of baby mammals underwater, as per the needs of whale evolution?

Whales and dolphins can't suckle that well. The evolutionary work-around has been for the nursing mothers to produce more highly concentrated milk compared to land mammals.

This ensures that the calves are adequately nourished even if some of the milk is dissipated in the surrounding water.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

That's known as an Appeal to the Future fallacy, commonly used by defenders of pseudoscience.

Says a flat earther.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Whales do have nipples. They are contained under kind of skin flaps which keeps everything hydrodynamic. The design hoqwever is not amazing as you seem to believe. For example, whale calves actually can't even suckle milk properly because their mouths simply don't function this way, and they cannot create any suction. What you're seeing is a kind of 'Jerry-Rigging'; a kind of ersatz nipple-feeding system that is a remnant from their ancestors. No engineer would design such a system, because it is cumbersome, inefficent, problematic and somewhat retarded.

The primary mistake you keep making is thinking that EBNS 'knows' anything. It doesn't, and it doesn't need to. Evolution by natural selection works by throwing out random mutations in a given species population, and if these accrue some kind of survival benefit in a practical, real-world setting, they persist in the gene pool simply as a matter of due process.These changes might make no difference at all and still persist in the gene pool, however.

For example, I get a snake here called the Coastal Taipan. Its venom is so potent that one bite is enough to kill 100,000 mice. It is also notorious for never dry-biting; that is, whenever it strikes, it hits its prey with everything it's got. Now I ask you, Mr Intelligent design, what exactly is the point of that? The largest thing it ever eats are bandicoots, which are very small mammals, and rats and mice. It only needs to feed once every 1-2 months, also. Venom is extremely energy-intensive to produce. There is absolutely no logical reason for this venom to be as potent as it is. It makes absolutely no sense at all.


And that's because nature is blind design. The Taipan doesn't even know it is venomous at all, let alone how venomous it is. The reason its venom is so potent is because...well, there was no reason for it not to get stronger and stronger over time, because this didn't impact its survival rate. Conversely, there was no enviornmental pressure augmenting it to get weaker, either. Millions of years later we end up with an animal pointlessly packing a nuclear weapon; an animal so deadly, for so little reason that it is equivalent to using an ICBM to kill a cockroach.

You're going from A to Z without considering everything inbetween. Whales/porpoises would have existed in an intermediary stage of evolution that was markedly different from their current forms. It's possible their common ancestor(S) were something like modern Hippopotamus, a sem-squatic mammal. Something about their environment made them evolve to become fully aquatic over an enormous expanse of time.

This article explains quite a lot.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2

Excellent post.

Another great example of how nature only evolves traits that are "good enough", even if very inefficient, is the sickle cell gene. One copy provides protection against malaria, while 2 copies results in sickle cell disease.

Obviously this didn't matter because the upside for a population of the sickle cell gene outweighed the downside of some individuals having sickle cell disease.

Had a better allele emerged that provided similar protection, but without the congenital illness for individuals with two copies, it would have completely replaced the sickle cell gene within a few thousand years.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Now I ask you, Mr Intelligent design, what exactly is the point of that?

The thing is though that all Christians- whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox- believe that not just humanity but the entire nature that we see around us is radically fallen, and if anything becoming more so. So what you point out there would indeed be a problem for the majority of Muslims however it is not really one for us.

 

[Hermit]

Says a flat earther.

That's both a genetic fallacy and a non-sequitur. Tell me the number one reason why you believe earth is a ball in the flat earth thread.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Whales and dolphins can't suckle that well.

Look lads, the nipple expert has spoken. Probably has his own clamped.

Behave yourself with such nonsense!

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AxqLsKmMA

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Whales do have nipples. They are contained under kind of skin flaps which keeps everything hydrodynamic. The design hoqwever is not amazing as you seem to believe. For example, whale calves actually can't even suckle milk properly because their mouths simply don't function this way

There is a reason babies get burped. Mammalian suckling usually involves breathing at the same time, and this can cause issues with liquid being inhaled/gas etc. The whale system of injecting milk, via specially adapted muscles, deep into the gullet and avoiding the breathing apparatus is genius, especially underwater. Milk going only into the mouth cavity could easily be dispersed under water also.

That's a major design win for whale infant feeding.