• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

I don't think it sounds "crazy", Edge, but it sounds like you don't understand physics at all. Making these claims when you have no evidence for them, and you lost the "magic driver" that could have changed the world of physics, is a little on the crazy side though. The bend point could have been analyzed and it could have been proven that the metal had been heated, or not, at this point.

I think you should carefully consider if perhaps somehow, not sure how, you could be mistaken about the "rubbery" nature of the metal. I'm trying my best here to help out.:confused:

That reminds me, my wife and I had a similar experience. We had a set of car keys we both used occasionally, for a car only about a year old. We hadn't dropped them, stepped on them, damaged them or done anything unusual, and the locks all worked easily.

I put the key in the trunk to open it one day, it worked normally and the trunk opened right away, but my wife pointed out as soon as I let go that the key was bent. I pulled it out, and sure enough, it was obviously bent to one side. The trunk had unlocked easily so I knew I hadn't put any more than normal light pressure on the key.

We both thought, "huh," decided that at some point the key had been damaged or turned harder than normal even though we didn't remember it, and bent it back with a hammer on cement. I'd forgotten about the whole incident until now.

Same kind of mystery. Yet it didn't have the context of a paranormal situation--no frustration or emotion, no shock, just a mild puzzle. Misremembered damage? Weak metal? The ability to bend keys with my mind before an average grocery trip? Who knows.

I think it shows, though, that a lot of odd stuff happens in life, but the incident itself isn't as significant as the person's reaction to it.
 
Last edited:
The viable alternate explanation I was referring to is the ID one. I find the dogmatic rejection of an ID alternative explanation unjustified.


BTW'
Here is a view which tries to reconcile the concept of an iD with current cosmological and evolutionary theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feX...eature=related

ID isn't a valid alternative, as there isn't any specific evidence in favor of it and it has no predictive abilities. Heck, the discovery institute put together a group of scientists just to publish research into ID, but has only published one paper and it has nothing to do with biology, or ID.

Oh, and your link is broken.
 
Last edited:
The viable alternate explanation I was referring to is the ID one. I find the dogmatic rejection of an ID alternative explanation unjustified.

It's not dogmatic. It's evidence based.

Formulate a hypothesis by which to test ID, and I'll listen.
 
The viable alternate explanation I was referring to is the ID one. I find the dogmatic rejection of an ID alternative explanation unjustified.

It's not rejected as much as unnecessary.
We have a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for the diversity of species. Not only does it work but, and it can't be stressed too much, thousands upon thousands of individual observations, from genetic to embryology to the fossil record to ecology... have yield results that are perfectly consistent which what one would expect if the TOE was correct.

In other words, to use an example from a previous post, our wallet has disappeared, but the window beside it is open. Not only that, but a rope ladder still dangles from the building roof down to the window. And footprints are observed by the side of the window that matches the one found on the top of the ladder, on the building roof, close from where the empty wallet is found.
In these circumstances, creationists are reduced to arguing that the thief actually really flew in by the window...
Sure, I can't 100% prove that he didn't, but kleptomaniac man-bird is not going to be my first suspect...
 
Last edited:
Sorry about the link.

It's really a pretty simple question, I don't understand why you are avoiding it. Can you at least answer why you refuse to answer? Are you afraid it's some kind of trap? I assure you it isn't a trap, it's like asking what's the rate of acceleration of gravity or the mass of the moon, it's not a dangerous question.

How many mutations do you think there are between your parents and you?

I'll even give you multiple choices.

a) 1 or less
b) 10
c) 100
d) 1,000
e) 10,000
f) 100,000 or more
 
The viable alternate explanation I was referring to is the ID one. I find the dogmatic rejection of an ID alternative explanation unjustified.


BTW'
Here is a view which tries to reconcile the concept of an iD with current cosmological and evolutionary theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feX...eature=related

Evolution by natural selection is the more parsimonious theory (assuming you actually consider ID a 'theory', which it isn't in the scientific sense).
 
The viable alternate explanation I was referring to is the ID one. I find the dogmatic rejection of an ID alternative explanation unjustified.
Would you be so kind as to present the ID Hypotheses and the evidence to support this hypothesis?
 
The viable alternate explanation I was referring to is the ID one. I find the dogmatic rejection of an ID alternative explanation unjustified.

That would be true if there truly was a dogmatic rejection of ID. But the thing is that ID gets rejected as a science because of two reasons.
1: It is non-predective. What good is a scientific theory if you cannot use it to make predections and design experiments?
2: There is no evidence for ID. None whatsoever. Every single piece of evidence presented here or by the adherents in general has been clearly shown to be fully explainable by naturalistic means.

That reduces the ID theory as it currently stands to the unsupported opinion of a few individuals, and while everyone is free to have their own opinion, without any evidence there is no reason to give it equal credibility with a theory that is supported by evidence and can be used to predict.
 
The viable alternate explanation I was referring to is the ID one. I find the dogmatic rejection of an ID alternative explanation unjustified.


BTW'
Here is a view which tries to reconcile the concept of an iD with current cosmological and evolutionary theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feX...eature=related

The problem with ID is that none of the biological design is 'intelligent',

take the eyeball for example, why put the blood vessels in front of the retina.

The ToE has an exlpantion, why would an 'intelligent' designer do that?

I do not reject it dogmattically , tell me which part of design is intelligent and we can discuss it.
 
I disagree with you; here is the actual quote (please note that it did not originate from Radrook but from another source, so he did not produce but merely adopted the misrepresentation at his own:
Radrook said:
Here is a quote I find interesting: Not saying it isn't somehow flawed, just interesting.
Feel free to object or crticize.

I don't think this can really be described as adopting as his own - but it's not that important...

Simon39759 said:
Let look at it again, in particular this sentence:


This is the crux of the problem. The quote use the terms: mutation and natural selection, which are, indeed part of the evolutionary theory.

Okay we can agree it bears some passing resemblance to something which might be described as an evolutionary theory.

Simon39759 said:
At the same time; it take care to precise 'the habitat of an animal (or person).

The fuller quote is :
the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits...

There is clear disagreement between "person", singular and "them", plural; "animal" is potentially ambiguous - it could refer to an individual or act as a group noun.
In the process of reading through the text, it is possible to correct this disagreement by either ignoring the parenthetical inclusion, or substituting "it" for "them". Given that the function of parentheses is to provide
additional information not central to the substance of the sentence, the former was my, subconsciously, preferred option. It's now clear that others felt otherwise.

Obviously, natural selection applies to population and not person. On the other, Lamarckism idea is about individual reinforcing trait and organs they are using.
It seems that the source misunderstood the theory of evolution as being something similar to what Lamarck actually described and then misuse terms that he knew were use to the theory of evolution to described these concepts.

I think it was poorly proofread...which isn't to say there aren't a lot of actual misunderstandings going on to. But I can at least where your point is coming from.

Indeed, the following example is about one individual person reinforcing his ability to dive through constant practice (Lamarck's "adaptive force") and then passing it to his descendant (Lamarck's "soft inheritance").

I don't see any specific mention of reinforcement. I can read the same thing and interpret it in terms of a consistent selective pressure.

The quote makes it quite clear that it is not about populations (which is what evolve in the theory of evolution).

It discusses a population, an admittedly very small population, for Gedankenexperiment-type purposes, but nonetheless it is discussed in the context of a population.

It also makes no mention about member of this population out-performing and out-reproducing competing members (the actual natural selection).

Okay, but that would make it not specifically Darwinian - it doesn't demonstrate it's Lamarckian.

The quote also mention that it is the constant diving and underwater activity that bring the appearance of gills ("evolutionists (sic believe that in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills") which is a Lamarckian concept ("la fonction crée l'organe").

As vaguely phrased as it is, it's not a specifically Lamarckian concept. It's a long climb up a fitness slope from no gills, to gills. In Darwinian terms the force driving the population up the slope is provided by natural selection in the context of the environmental influences.

In Darwinian theory, such a mutation (let's pretend that such an organ could emerge through one single mutation) would be just as likely to happen to such a future pearl-diver than to a nomad in the desert. The difference, of course, being that it would only be selected in the diver population.

This is getting complicated - but let me try and tease this apart.

The idea of a fully functional complex organ appearing de novo, as a result of
a single mutation isn't Darwinian, it's Goldschmidtian, (Gould has a few caveats on that, but none that I think are particularly relevant.)

If it were Darwinian, Radrook's post nevers mentions differences in likelihood between pearl-divers and nomads, so this can't be used as an argument to show it's anti-Darwinian.

Then again, without the assumption of a single mutation, a whole sequence of mutation-selection-mutation events are required. That is more likely to happen in a situation where selection acts in favour of the possession of gills, than in one where it's selected against.

So, yes, I agree with the other posters, the quote seems to be describing Lamarckism rather than the actual theory of evolution such as originated from Darwin.
The quote does indeed make use of the word "natural selection" that is indeed part of the theory but, in its explanation of the phenomenon, does not describe anything like it...
To me, what is being described and criticized is indeed Lamarckism.

Thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking response to the question I posed. I may disagree with the conclusions you and others have drawn, but I appreciate the effort you've put into expressing them clearly. If I now had to attach an epithet to the evolutionary 'theory' described in Radrook's post I'd put it down as Buffonian, which would put it nearer 200 years out-of-date. The mechanism is simply not explained in sufficient detail to characterise it as anything more substantive than that.
 
Last edited:
@Sphenisc: I understand your point in your current post. Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my prior tone of my posts.
 
@Sphenisc: I understand your point in your current post. Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my prior tone of my posts.

No problem, I apologise for the tone of mine. I'll work on the basis you're not strawmanning, if you work on the basis I'm not trolling. Deal? ;)
 
With great pleasure!
Somebody mentioned the evolution of the lung and limb and I do not believe it has been answered yet.

The story of the evolution of the lung is actually quite ancient and start in the middle of the silurian, around 420 million years ago.
At that time, Osteichthyan are just on the verge of branching out between the actinopterygians (ray-finned fishes) and the Sarcopterigian (lobe-finned fish).

This is also the time were fish are colonizing fresh waters for the first time. It's a new environment, and quite a rich one at that, so it is a pretty good move, but there is a problem with that...
You see, freshwaters mean shallower bodies of water and these can become quite hot and the ideal gaz law tells us that warmer temperature contain less dissolved oxygen than cooler one. So, the fish were often confronted to oxygenation problem.
One thing they did to compensate that, and contemporary fish are still doing it, is to go to the surface to "gulp" some air. Air above the surface was at a roughly constant level, one significantly higher than in the hot waters.
So the fishies swallowed big gulp of air. This air came into contact with the mucosa of the digestive track and started to diffuse into the blood vessels, after all, the mucosa had already evolved as an optimal area for the diffusion of small molecules from nutrients.
Clearly, that wasn't a very efficient way to do so, but it allowed the fish enrich their blood-stream in sweet, sweet oxygen and that gave them an advantage.

Over time, the digestive track started to invaginate, slowly, into a pocket. This allowed to keep more air at a time, and allowed more gaseous exchange to take place.
Not surprisingly, this invagination took place rather high in the digestive track, just by the heart, in order to provide this very important muscle in oxygen.

As you'd predict, this innovation was selected upon for many generations of fish that stayed in shallower water; mud ponds or swamp environments. Indeed, some probably started to wonder at the surface, maybe to escape predators, or to go look for some food they wouldn't have to share with other fish species, or to move away from a pond that started to dry up and into a safer one. Progressively, their primitive lungs grew and became more vascularized allowing them to stay for longer and longer periods of time.
And, the fish that did best at staying out of the water did better, they could find more food, or avoid predators better (remember the old joke, 'I don't have to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun YOU'; these fish didn't have to stay out of the water all their life, they just had to stay longer than the neighbor and only get back when the big bad predator was no longer hungry...).
Today, several species of catfish have adopted a similar behavior, wandering, sometime for miles at a time, in the night. Some other species, such as the Australian mudfish, are able to bury themselves in the mud and wait for several weeks for the return of the rains...

On the other hand, some among these fish actually moved away from these shallow waters. They did not loose their "proto-lung", however, instead, in these species, the organ took a different evolutionary root and started moving toward a more dorsal position.
There, it allowed the fish to equilibrate himself in the water without having to constantly swim. Not only was it great to save energy, it allowed the fish to become more stealthy, wonderful for ambushing preys.
This was so useful that this swim bladder soon become dominant among bony fishes (the condrichtyan, sharks and rays, and the agnathean don't have it, though, as the organ appeared after their split from the osteichthyan lineage).
After a while, however, one more evolutionary innovation took place in the swim bladder. Rather than going to the surface to gulp air, some fish started reversing the initial gas diffusion process. Rather than a breathing organ where the gas diffused from the organ to the blood stream, the same diffusion laws allowed the gas to diffuse from the blood stream toward the organ. This allowed the fish to adjust its swim bladder without going back to the surface (and also allowed the 'closing' of the swim bladder, hence isolating from pathogens). This is the beginning of the physoclistic fish but, even among them, the organ start, during the embryological stages, as an invagination of the digestive track.
Neil Degrasse Tyson wonders in his funny examples of stupid design video about why the design of our respiratory track is such that we can choke on our food, but there is a very good reason for that and, as usual, the reason is evolutionary.





The story of the limbs is actually quite boring in comparison, I think.
As we have seen, we had fish using their primitive lung and starting to wander in the muddy banks of the swamp they live it.
It is also likely that some species did not actually live the
These fish had most of the features required to make a reasonably efficient land animal, they had ribs, they had a pectoral girdle and they had limbs connecting to this pectoral girdle. More importantly, they had little predators to worry about and only had to out-compete their cousins.
So, the pectoral girdle reinforced itself, and the hyelomedular bone decreased in size, allowing for a better mobility of the neck. More strikingly, the fins reinforced itself, gaining new bones allowing for a better support, and these bones progressively evolved into something strikingly similar to ours:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/tiktaalik_limb_lg.jpg

Edited by LashL: 
Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.



Tiktaalik is probably a good example of what the first primitive tetrapod limbs looked like...

Most of the post hidden for brevity:

Thanks for that; there is a recent discovery which I find an interestingly mirror image of that, which is that the tongue of common musk turtles has evolved an analogous function to gills. Again similar reasoning can be applied, with lots of fine blood vessels near a tthe organ, allowing diffusion of oxygen into the blood stream.


cool evolution story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8693000/8693794.stm


One type of turtle possesses an extraordinary organ that allows it to breathe underwater and stay submerged for many months.

The common musk turtle has a tiny tongue lined with specialised buds, scientists have discovered.

Rather than use this tongue for eating, the turtles use it to exchange oxygen, solving a mystery of how these reptiles can remain submerged for so long.

Details are published in journal The Anatomical Record.
 

Back
Top Bottom