Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mikie · 06-07-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingreaper

point out some of these mistakes, I'm sure Oolon would be glad to know them, otherwise see above

Sure: Nautilus eyes

Whilst on eyes... is it not strange that the creator, having given the nautilus (Nautilus pompilius) an otherwise very good pinhole camera eye, chose not to give that eye a lens?

Not strange at all. There is no reason to believe that the pinhole camera eye doesn't function fully for the fish. The fish sees fine. Why the assumption that it's an inferior design? It's like saying "Gee, a jet airliner gets you where you're going much more efficiently than a hot air balloon, why would anyone use a hot air balloon to fly?" The point here is that you shouldn't assume that more sophisticated is "better".

Useless eyes: burrowers

The non-functioning eyes of burrowing animals, such as marsupial moles (order Notoryctemorphia: no lens or pupil, reduced optic nerve), golden moles, amphisbaeneans and naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber).

See above post - the assumption here is that eyes were never needed. This can't be shown to be true. It's possible that at one time the eyes were needed and functioning.

There's lots more, but I've got to go...

Mageth · 06-07-2004, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

All I'm saying is that it's too easy to believe that there was a mistake made by God, so that must show that God didn't do it.

What?

Quote:

The better question is, how did those fish eyes develop in the first place, and why? Why did a trait that was not needed in the darkness develop through natural processes?

The blind cave fish are descendants of surface fish. Once trapped below ground, without selection pressure to maintain "seeing eyes", fish that couldn't see so well survived, and reproduced, just as well as "good-eyed" fish (if not better than, if "good" eyes are detrimental in complete darkness in any way). Over time, the population lost its "good eyes".

Quote:

The best explanation is that the fish was created with eyes, and at one time needed them. It's a better explanation than they "evolved" in darkness, since their would be no reason for them to evolve in the darkness right?

And no one claims that "bad eyes" evolved from no eyes in total darkness.

Quote:

And if they did evolve, it must have been because the fish needed them, right? So either way you look at it, evolution or God, the eyes must have been useful at one time.

Exactly. Surface fish "needed" good eyes. Once some fish were trapped in total darkness, good eyes were no longer needed, and thus were no longer selected for.

Quote:

The blind fish is not a good argument for evolution.

Blind cave fish are perfectly compatible with natural selection/evolution.

Mageth · 06-07-2004, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

Sure: Nautilus eyes

Whilst on eyes... is it not strange that the creator, having given the nautilus (Nautilus pompilius) an otherwise very good pinhole camera eye, chose not to give that eye a lens?

Not strange at all. There is no reason to believe that the pinhole camera eye doesn't function fully for the fish. The fish sees fine.

If you don't know that a nautilus is not a fish, you have some very basic biology to catch up on.

Kingreaper · 06-07-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

Sure: Nautilus eyes

Whilst on eyes... is it not strange that the creator, having given the nautilus (Nautilus pompilius) an otherwise very good pinhole camera eye, chose not to give that eye a lens?

Not strange at all. There is no reason to believe that the pinhole camera eye doesn't function fully for the fish. The fish sees fine. Why the assumption that it's an inferior design? It's like saying "Gee, a jet airliner gets you where you're going much more efficiently than a hot air balloon, why would anyone use a hot air balloon to fly?" The point here is that you shouldn't assume that more sophisticated is "better".

a hot air balloon serves a different purpose to a plane (relaxation as opposed to transport,), and is considerably cheaper, what purpose does the nautilus eye have a lens wouldn't help with? (the answer you're looking for is none)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

Useless eyes: burrowers

The non-functioning eyes of burrowing animals, such as marsupial moles (order Notoryctemorphia: no lens or pupil, reduced optic nerve), golden moles, amphisbaeneans and naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber).

See above post - the assumption here is that eyes were never needed. This can't be shown to be true. It's possible that at one time the eyes were needed and functioning....

That the eyes were needed and functional is obvious in evolutionary terms, but it would take a really dumb (why leave any of the eye) miracle to fit in the biblical timeframe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

There's lots more, but I've got to go...

well I'm sure you must have at least one that makes sense

Peez · 06-07-2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Mikie
An example of this would be "junk DNA", which scientists are now seeing is not "junk" at all, but was a case of them not understanding the function, and declaring prematurely something "junk" to fulfill their subjective model.

False, not to mention silly. False, because scientists never claimed that the "junk" DNA had no function (if you wish to dispute this, please provide a reference). Silly, because there was no "subjective model" that called for "junk" DNA. Note that bacteria evolved, and they are not laden with 90% "junk" DNA.

Quote:

If that were the case, the Human Genome Project study wouldn't have been shocked when it found that primates actually have a lesser degree of genetic similarity to humans than previously thought.

Please provide a reference for this claim. Then explain why it matters.

Quote:

It also addresses your example, e-coli. It sported 4,639,221 base pairs, while humans only showed 16,569.

Your number of base-pairs for Escherischia coli is about right, but the number of bases for humans that you give is wrong, and I cannot imagine where you pulled it out of. The human genome has two sets of about 3,000,000,000 base pairs, and an estimated 30,000 genes. I should add that the number of base-pairs is not necessarily correlated with complexity: some amoebas have 670,000,000,000 base pairs.

Quote:

How do you explain that?

You don't know much about it.

Quote:

The e-coli more complicated than humans?

Even if your numbers were correct, this would not be indicated.

Quote:

I think not.

Good for you.

Quote:

Decent seems less and less likely.

Why?

Quote:

We need to stop looking at decent.

Why?

Quote:

We need to stop seeing complexity as "evolving".

Why?

Quote:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ul...html#drosophila

Ah, I see what you did. Look again, you will see that you gave us the number of base pairs for a human mitochondrion. Your own link gives the number for humans: 3.3x10^9 in one set.

Quote:

The California Institute of Technology, ups the variance you give to 5%, and concludes "humans and chimps share only about 95 percent of the same DNA."

The question then becomes, how significant is that 5%? We simply don't know. Now they're looking at not just genome matching, but variance. The implication is that it's dramatic, and the question still remains, how does similarity show decent? It doesn't.

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0...57892%2C00.html

The 98.5% was an estimate based on a particular technique, and the limitations of that technique were known. The actual similarity is not important, as has been explained to you, it is the pattern of similarities. To be specific, humans are genetically most similar to chimps and bonobos. Not only that, but chimps and bonobos are most similar to humans (yes, they are more similar to us than they are to gorillas). So it is not the precise similarity that is of interest here, but the pattern.

Quote:

Thanks, but the point is that it's not a good idea to assume that because something is similar or "appears" a to be a certain thing, that it came from that thing.

Of course not, especially since all living things are "similar" to some extent.

Quote:

Example: try litigating a paternity suit in which the mother is a surrogate. Using your logic, you'd would insist that because the mother and child both have two arms, two legs, and a nose, and the child was birthed by that mother, that the child necessarily came from that mother or, was her decendent. You would insist that the "apparent" evidence makes your conclusion valid. That wouldn't be the case.

Nope, that is not the logic at all. To use your example, if the mother and child both have three arms, one leg, and a prehensile nose, that the child probably came from that mother or, was her decendent.

Quote:

You see the problem.

I do: you do not understand molecular genetics.

Peez

Albion · 06-07-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

One things for sure, if a paternity test ever shows up that proves a human mother is carrying a chimp, you'll convert me.

Why would that convert you, when it would provide strong evidence against evolution? Is this one of these cases where the only evidence that would persuade someone is evidence that couldn't exist?

Albion · 06-07-2004, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Common design is everywhere. You can't see that primates and humans have two eyes, two ears, and a mouth? So do dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits.

Common design is everywhere.

So if similarities imply common design, what do differences imply? Oh, yes, that's right, they imply common design too. :banghead:

SEF · 06-07-2004, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

the assumption here is that eyes were never needed. This can't be shown to be true. It's possible that at one time the eyes were needed and functioning.

That's evolution Mikie! Evolution doesn't always mean gaining new features. Sometimes it means losing ones which are no longer needed and cost resources to make. However, it is difficult for evolution to tidy up properly and it tends to leave traces in the way that a designer wouldn't - in this case defunct eyes in a fish whose ancestors were like other fish. You see you do believe in evolution really. You just don't like to admit it. That's really rather funny.

Tell us again how N lots of microevolution doesn't make macroevolution. Also explain how you believe it can happen without a designer after the designer has left but yet don't believe it can happen without a designer if a designer was never there.

Roland98 · 06-07-2004, 06:49 PM

Peez beat me to it as far as E. coli and human base pairs, but one other nitpick: it's HLA, not HMA.

Carry on.

MrDarwin · 06-07-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikie

Common design is everywhere. You can't see that primates and humans have two eyes, two ears, and a mouth? So do dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits.

Common design is everywhere.

Everywhere within groups with a recent shared ancestry, sure. Your examples are all mammals so yes, similarity of "design" is due to their shared ancestry. As has already been pointed out, it's not just overall similarity but pattern of similarity that supports common ancestry. You'll find different numbers of eyes, ears, and mouths in other (non-vertebrate) groups.

But dissimilarity of design means... what? Does the existence of several phyla, all with completely different body plans and completely different ways of solving similar problems, mean that there were several different designers? If so, it appears that the designers were very secretive about their designs as they don't seem to have swapped solutions across phyla (as with the example of squid vs. human eyes).

And what of the fact that every single species of living organism that existed in the Cambrian is now extinct, in fact was extinct by the end of the Cambrian period? Does that mean that all those species were poorly designed?

And poor design means... what? That the designer was sloppy? Was careless? Was stupid? Didn't know what he/she/it was doing? Tinkers and experiments until getting it "right"? Or maybe that the "designer" simply likes his/her/its creations to suffer? You might want to see what the "designer" did with the spotted hyena:

Quote:

Female spotted hyenas bear, suckle, and care for their young like any female mammal. But although their genitals are clearly female in function, they are male in form. The labia are fused into what looks like a scrotum, complete with two pads of fatty tissue that resemble testes. In addition, the clitoris is elongated to the point that it is nearly the size of a male's penis and is likewise fully erectile. Astonishingly, females mate and give birth through the long, narrow canal running down the center of this "pseudopenis." During mating it retracts much like a shirt sleeve being pushed up, and during birth it stretches so much that it looks like a water balloon. "From a human perspective, the process can be thought of as giving birth through an unusually large penis," says Frank.

...giving birth is difficult and dangerous, especially for first-time mothers. The fact that the pseudopenis has such a long, narrow birth canal is enough to make it a poor organ for delivering a baby. But there is the added complication that the end of the pseudopenis cannot stretch enough to accommodate passage of the baby: In a first-time mother, the baby tears its way out. "It's the only time I've ever heard hyenas cry out in pain," notes Frank.

Even worse, the umbilical cords are so short that many first-born babies die. At only six-inches long, the umbilical cord is far too short to traverse the foot-long canal down the pseudopenis, which means that either the placenta detaches or the cord breaks before the baby is born. (For comparison, in women the birth canal is only a few inches long and the umbilical cord is a generous foot and a half long.) The longer a hyena's labor, the more likely her baby is to suffocate and be stillborn--and the more likely the mother is to die. In captivity, first-time mothers labor as long as 48 hours and nearly three-quarters of first-born cubs die. Without veterinary help, many of these mothers probably would have died along with their babies; in the wild, many females die at three to four years, the age when hyenas typically first give birth.

Tell me, Mikie, is that "good design"?

(Edited to add that I'm pretty sure Mikie is simply trolling and doesn't really believe a word he's saying--he might even be one of our regulars--but it's still instructive to address the issues occasionally.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2004, 06:49 PM	#89
Roland98 Contributor Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Gilead Posts: 11,186	Peez beat me to it as far as E. coli and human base pairs, but one other nitpick: it's HLA, not HMA. Carry on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.