Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

originally posted by: BlackProject


Things can be perfectly mathematical but maths can also be forced to fit any situation there is. Any situation....

Yeah that was the point. Math is ubiquitous in nature. If that isn't a sign of intelligence for you, I do not know what would suffice.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Can you source that information for me, please.

Do the research yourself. NCBI is a good source.

They gained a mutation that allowed them to digest and process nylon and thus they began doing it because it was plentiful in that environment and they filled that ecological niche. It's not always about pressures. It seems pretty obvious that the changes to the environment were what made this change possible in the first place.

You said there were selection pressures, I asked you to identify the selection pressures and your response was the absolute waffle you wrote above.

The reason you were unable to identify any selection pressures was that there were no selection pressures; population growth was uninhibited to the maximum limit of the environment, speed of reproduction and, additionally, they had no rivals to compete for resources.

That part of the theory of evolution (natural selection) was absent from the data in this case. The data evidenced only mutation, not natural selection, nor any gradualism.

Yes, your argument is absolutely an argument from ignorance.

It was your argument, not mine (I even quoted your text to identify what I was calling argument from ignorance). You weren't quoting me, nor even paraphrasing what I said. It was you saying "science doesn't know everything" - an argument from ignorance.

You are pointing out tiny details of certain transitions that aren't fully known and using it to push the narrative that since we don't know those few isolated things, that it means we don't know about evolution as a whole as observed in tons of other situations. It's completely disingenuous.

I was talking about specific experimental data and not drawing inferences that went beyond what was evidenced. I was being honest.

Completely invalid analogy. Are you seriously trying to claim that mutation was not involved or that the frequency of alleles did not change?

In the case of the papers about the Pepperd Moth in England during the lateIndustrial Revolution, there was no indication to say that the observed data evidences either mutation nor change in allelle frequency. That is precisely what I was, and am, saying.

It is also why you got so upset when you discovered that the speciation you assumed I was talking about, was not evidenced at all. You are not being consistent in what you accuse me of doing.

To say that natural selection is not evolution is an absurd claim

No, they are different things. Speciation is also not evolution (remember how you got so steamed, suggesting I misrepresented that the case of the Peppered Moths as an example of speciation, yet now you are claiming that it was evolution that was evidenced exactly the same case). Speciation is part of evolution but on its own is not evolution. Similarly, natural selection is part of evolution but on its own is not evolution.

What is absurd is saying (as you are doing) that the different terms mean the same thing.

We know the gene was present in the population

The same traits were present in the population both before,during and after the period when evolution was claimed. The melanism was never a hard and fast switch on, or switch off, but was a change in ratios of light to dark melanism and back again. No genetic change or mutation was required and all that was evidenced was ratio change due to predation and in line with environmental changes.

Your claim is more like saying that because you personally don't know the exact inner workings of the engine in your specific car, that it means the mechanics of the combustion engine overall are unknown because you don't know it in this one situation even though extensive research and engineering has gone into it.

"Completely invalid analogy".

Your exact quote:

"it was "an example of natural selection". That was my point. It wasn't evolution."

I didn't accuse you falsely. You literally said that natural selection is not evolution.

Damn right I did.

'Natural selection' and 'evolution' are different things. The words are descriptive of different concepts, they have different names for a reason. Natural selection does not include mutation but evolution does. When everyone (other than you) in science talks about natural selection, they aren't talking about mutation or genetic drift or any of the other components of evolution, they are talking only about natural selection.

That's like saying that playing basketball on a team against another team with a time limit and declared winner is not a basketball game, simply because you didn't watch every single point get scored.

"Completely invalid analogy".

No offense, I don't care about your first post.

If you had, you would not have indulged in the ill-informed bluster that ultimately made a fool of you.

I care about the way you misled me about speciation.

You misled yourself by assuming that I was suggesting the opposite to what I had said. If you had read through the topic, you would not have embarrassed yourself.

Please refer to the LAST posts, not the first. I CLEARLY explained the misunderstandings we had during that conversation and I admitted I was off about the greenhouse argument. I clearly admitted fault for that since I didn't research your claim, I took it on face value. I'm not above admitting when I am wrong or mistaken about something.

Contrary to what you have just said, in this very topic thread, and well after your admissions of error in the previous thread, you again accused me of misleading you and you also suggested that you had "demolished" my case previously, which was also untrue.

What ad hom attacks? Calling out false claims is not ad hom. Ad hom is using an insult as the primary basis of an argument (ie you are wrong because you are stupid). Calling out lies as lies and attempting to correct misunderstandings is not ad hom.

Accusing someone of doing something that they did not do is an attack on the person. You called me deceptive a number of times (and have repeated it a few times in this thread, too) when I did not decieve you.

You made some incorrect assumptions and I did nothing deceptive. I tried to explain what I had meant but you had so comitted to your assumptions that you would not listen to the truth.

Then why were the last few posts that clarified everything completely ignored?

Because you would not accept the truth that I never decieved you and you kept harping on about it.

By all means, show me what I said in those last posts that was not true.

Please, reread the previous topic thread, or at least my posts and your posts, in sequence and you will see that you ignored the majority of what I had said and railed against what you incorrectly assumed I was saying. To the extent that I could not get you to see reason.

You admitted to using wrong and irrelevant 'facts' yet continued to accuse me of deception, never once retracting your accusations.

The accusations were falsehoods.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Do the research yourself. NCBI is a good source.

I didn't make the claim. I'm not going on a ghost hunt over your bs claims again.

You said there were selection pressures, I asked you to identify the selection pressures and your response was the absolute waffle you wrote above.

My response was dead on accurate. I don't recall saying there were absolute selection pressures. That is not always a requirement for life to evolve and adapt. Sometimes niches get filled by creatures that adapt to them. It's not some super mysterious mechanism as you suggest.

The reason you were unable to identify any selection pressures was that there were no selection pressures; population growth was uninhibited to the maximum limit of the environment, speed of reproduction and, additionally, they had no rivals to compete for resources.

You brought up selection pressures, not me. This is just more appeals to ignorance. Stop pretending like you don't understand how an organism can experience a mutation that allows it to fill a niche and please stop saying that because we can't prove exactly how every single transition happened, that it means we have no idea how. That is completely dishonest.

That part of the theory of evolution (natural selection) was absent from the data in this case. The data evidenced only mutation, not natural selection, nor any gradualism.

I guess you don't comprehend natural selection either. The mechanism is NOT missing, NOR is it unknown. We see the current organisms eating nylon, which it could not eat before but now can. Evolution is not ALWAYS gradual, and not ALWAYS cause by selection pressures. It's really goddamn simple. A mutation happens that changes something about an organism. If the mutation is beneficial it thrives, if it's harmful it dies, that is natural selection. What don't you understand about that? Do you think the organism did not adapt because we were not there watching it adapt live several decades ago?

It was your argument, not mine (I even quoted your text to identify what I was calling argument from ignorance). You weren't quoting me, nor even paraphrasing what I said. It was you saying "science doesn't know everything" - an argument from ignorance.

You already proved you don't know what an argument from ignorance is in the other thread. Admitting something is unknown is not an argument from ignorance. Argument from ignorance is when you say something is unknown, and use that to postulate an assumption in place of that gap in knowledge. All I said was that science doesn't know everything, and you called that an argument from ignorance.

In the case of the papers about the Pepperd Moth in England during the lateIndustrial Revolution, there was no indication to say that the observed data evidences either mutation nor change in allelle frequency. That is precisely what I was, and am, saying.

Are you kidding me? Go back and read the other thread. The exact mutation has been isolated and figured out and I posted a link to that. What do you think allele frequency change means??? Previously there were less dark moths, and during the industrial revolution they flourished. What else do you call that? Your assertions are completely unfounded.

It is also why you got so upset when you discovered that the speciation you assumed I was talking about, was not evidenced at all. You are not being consistent in what you accuse me of doing.

I was upset because you completely misled me in regards to speciation. I don't like being lied to and having my argument misrepresented constantly. You are the one that claimed speciation in that instance, not me. I just assumed you were telling the truth, which is what bit me in the ass.

No, they are different things. Speciation is also not evolution (remember how you got so steamed, suggesting I misrepresented that the case of the Peppered Moths as an example of speciation, yet now you are claiming that it was evolution that was evidenced exactly the same case). Speciation is part of evolution but on its own is not evolution. Similarly, natural selection is part of evolution but on its own is not evolution.

No. You are 100% wrong here. Speciation is A RESULT of evolution. Natural selection is one of the most important mechanisms in evolution, so to say that something that experiences natural selection is not evolution is one of the most absurd nonsensical claims I've ever heard, ESPECIALLY when that specific genetic mutation has been known for a while. You are clearly just exploiting semantics to take the piss, as usual. I wish you weren't so dishonest in these conversations. I'm done discussing the moths. It's over, it's been documented and confirmed as evolution, the exact mutation has been shown, natural selection has been confirmed. I can't believe you would even try to argue that.

Contrary to what you have just said, in this very topic thread, and well after your admissions of error in the previous thread, you again accused me of misleading you and you also suggested that you had "demolished" my case previously, which was also untrue.

More evidence of your ALL or NOTHING mentality. This really gets old. You are entirely incapable of understanding that everything is not completely absolute. You DID mislead me, and I DID demolished you. That doesn't mean I can't admit I made a small mistake, a mistake, by the way, that was completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You were still making flawed claims and still appealing to ignorance.

Accusing someone of doing something that they did not do is an attack on the person.

No, that's a straw man when you accuse somebody of something they did not say or do and argue against it. That is not ad hominem.

You called me deceptive a number of times (and have repeated it a few times in this thread, too) when I did not decieve you.

Sorry, but you ARE being deceptive. That is your argument style and has been for a long time. You focus more on semantics and appeals to ignorance and have altered the meaning of my points multiple times (ie adding the word ONLY to my argument and arguing as if I said that. That wasn't the first time nor the last).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: BlackProject


Things can be perfectly mathematical but maths can also be forced to fit any situation there is. Any situation....

Yeah that was the point. Math is ubiquitous in nature. If that isn't a sign of intelligence for you, I do not know what would suffice.

The point really is that yes intelligent life must exist elsewhere, thats an obvious. However, saying that math is the actual sign of intelligent life is a different matter altogether. Math is a human creation built for our understandings, thats as far as it goes.

Until we discover what actually is possible out there, our maths seems pretty genius right?

Same ideology that religious text run around with, that it is the most impressive discovery of itself.

Egotistic is all we are.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: BlackProject


Things can be perfectly mathematical but maths can also be forced to fit any situation there is. Any situation....

Yeah that was the point. Math is ubiquitous in nature. If that isn't a sign of intelligence for you, I do not know what would suffice.

The point really is that yes intelligent life must exist elsewhere, thats an obvious. However, saying that math is the actual sign of intelligent life is a different matter altogether. Math is a human creation built for our understandings, thats as far as it goes.

Until we discover what actually is possible out there, our maths seems pretty genius right?

Same ideology that religious text run around with, that it is the most impressive discovery of itself.

Egotistic is all we are.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: BlackProject


Things can be perfectly mathematical but maths can also be forced to fit any situation there is. Any situation....

Yeah that was the point. Math is ubiquitous in nature. If that isn't a sign of intelligence for you, I do not know what would suffice.

Mathematics is not ubiquitous anywhere. Mathematics is a way of solving problems. It didn't pop out of the woodwork nor was it a gift from your god. It was developed by humans for humans. Applied mathematics has been employed since the first human who built an enclosure for protection from the elements. Mathematics is a learned skill. Fibonacci discovered the famous Fibonacci sequence because he had to solve a problem. The problem was calculating the reproductive growth rate of rabbits. The sequence wasn't discovered because some god decided we needed to know about it.

You continue to be stuck in the mud. When you don't understand something, you attribute it to a god or a miracle or some other nonsense.

originally posted by: BlackProject
Math is a human creation built for our understandings, thats as far as it goes. Until we discover what actually is possible out there, our maths seems pretty genius right?

I would disagree. Even without humans, the laws of physics would still continue according to their mathematical precision. Humans were able to discover these meticulous patterns, but they did not create them. There is a vast difference. The physical laws, especially the 4 fundamental forces, act in a very particular way, and an iota of change would totally change our universe. It is in perfect equilibrium and persists without quitting.


intelligent humans are able to scientifically record the intelligence of the universe. Yet the pessimists will never attribute it to something greater than our selves

Egotistic is all we are.

indeed

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: BlackProject
Math is a human creation built for our understandings, thats as far as it goes. Until we discover what actually is possible out there, our maths seems pretty genius right?

I would disagree. Even without humans, the laws of physics would still continue according to their mathematical precision. Humans were able to discover these meticulous patterns, but they did not create them. There is a vast difference. The physical laws, especially the 4 fundamental forces, act in a very particular way, and an iota of change would totally change our universe. It is in perfect equilibrium and persists without quitting.


intelligent humans are able to scientifically record the intelligence of the universe. Yet the pessimists will never attribute it to something greater than our selves

Egotistic is all we are.

indeed

This universe is NOT in perfect equilibrium. Please cite your source for that.

a reply to: cooperton

intelligent humans are able to scientifically record the intelligence of the universe. Yet the pessimists will never attribute it to something greater than our selves

That's a lame excuse for laziness. You folks are just immune to learning. By attributing everything to a god, you relieve yourself of the responsibility of learning. If it works, god did it. If it doesn't work, god also did it. So just sit back and wait for the outcome - because god will do it. Sheer laziness.

originally posted by: Phantom423


This universe is NOT in perfect equilibrium. Please cite your source for that.

All universal laws have remain unchanged for a long time. Check out the solar system. Despite gravitational force from the sun compelling all the planets towards it, they remain at a predictable distance from the sun. It is likened to a golf ball twirling around the cup ad infinitum. It is at perfect equilibrium. Even the night's sky from earth is so predictable that the Mayans were able to predict the precession of the equinox

originally posted by: Phantom423
You folks are just immune to learning. By attributing everything to a god, you relieve yourself of the responsibility of learning.

I seek more knowledge every day. Your prejudice towards people who believe in a higher power is extremely ignorant.

a reply to: cooperton

All universal laws have remain unchanged for a long time. Check out the solar system. Despite gravitational force from the sun compelling all the planets towards it, they remain at a predictable distance from the sun. It is likened to a golf ball twirling around the cup ad infinitum. It is at perfect equilibrium. Even the night's sky from earth is so predictable that the Mayans were able to predict the precession of the equinox

Then you don't understand classical mechanics. The measurements are not perfect and there is no equilibrium. Please cite the mathematics that shows that the solar system is in equilibrium.

I seek more knowledge every day. Your prejudice towards people who believe in a higher power is extremely ignorant.

I don't think a higher power would demand ignorance. You're free to believe whatever you want. You're not free to claim that a god did it when it's right in your face that a human did it.

God or ID, it all really started with Euglena.

Euglena is a genus of single-celled flagellate eukaryotes.

Half plant, half animal and a little whip for mobility.
Once that was created (engineered?) , it was just a matter of time.

a reply to: cooperton

Coop, you understand that the orbits of the planets have changed a good amount since the birth of our solar system right? Nothing is in equilibrium, it is constantly changing.

a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: chr0naut
The European Peppered Moth is an example of microevolution fully demonstrated, but the observed changes were agreed to be speciating, two such changes in a period of approximately 200 years/generations. There was neither partitioning of the various populations, nor could there be more than 100 steps of gradulaism in each case.

Just an FYI, this was the claim you made in the other thread regarding speciation and that is what dragged the entire thing to an unrelated tangent. It's partially on me for accepting the claim at face value, but it's also on you for making a factually incorrect statement. I should have verified it and corrected it immediately, so that is my fault. It doesn't change anything about the conversation, however, it was a distraction. Of course you didn't respond to my last post that clarified everything. You say it's untrue yet couldn't point out a single flaw with it, when you generally make a career of trying to pick apart statements you perceive as being wrong. Something doesn't add up here.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: chr0naut

Just an FYI, this was the claim you made in the other thread regarding speciation and that is what dragged the entire thing to an unrelated tangent. It's partially on me for accepting the claim at face value, but it's also on you for making a factually incorrect statement. I should have verified it and corrected it immediately, so that is my fault. It doesn't change anything about the conversation, however, it was a distraction. Of course you didn't respond to my last post that clarified everything. You say it's untrue yet couldn't point out a single flaw with it, when you generally make a career of trying to pick apart statements you perceive as being wrong. Something doesn't add up here.

Please note the word microevolution, in the text that you quoted from me.

I'll re-quote it (with highlighting) for clarity (as you did): "The European Peppered Moth is an example of microevolution fully demonstrated, but the observed changes were agreed to be speciating".

The primary way that microevolution differs from macroevolution is that microevolution has NO SPECIATION!

In that quote (which you also took way out of context, as well), I was clearly saying that despite the fact speciation was clearly not in evidence, other commentators had (falsely) agreed it was.

The topic thread, at the time, was Raggedy asking for evidence of macroevolution (in the form of a published scientific paper that specifically evidenced it, rather than evidencing 'just microevolution'). I was speaking directly to the topic and you started prattling on about something other than the topic thread (strangely, I failed to respond cogently to the voices in your head, sorry about that, because I was expecting you to be speaking to the topic and had no idea that you thought I was saying the exact opposite to what I did say).

If you had even looked at the topic title you might even have intuited that what I was arguing was not what you assumed.

As your interjection was not on topic, and I clearly and provably didn't do what you have repeatedly accused me of, and you also messed up by citing data irrelevant to even your own arguments, you didn't "demolish" anything.

If anything, it was Phantom who came up with a (single) paper that evidenced the entire chain of macroevolution and he therefore fulfilled Raggedy's request in the OP, but not particularly decisively (I believe I also contributed a different paper that fit the OP's request but like Phantom's, was not entirely conclusive).

What happened in that thread is that you derailed the topic and later would not even take responsibility for your own errors. Or, can you explain, cogently, how I put thoughts then 'bad thoughts' into your head, such that you soiled yourself (metaphorically)?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Still waiting for you to respond to the "better ones later" in your own thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

mea culpa - i forgot - now you has reminded me - i shall start teh process

A quick scan reveals that this is just another thread along similar lines created at least 1-2 times a week on ATS.

I wonder about the motivations in starting same when anyone could just as easily reply in the countless others.

Is it about the flags & stars?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Coop, you understand that the orbits of the planets have changed a good amount since the birth of our solar system right? Nothing is in equilibrium, it is constantly changing.

It is a dynamic equilibrium. Inward falling objects accelerate. Outward flung objects decelerate. Objects that collide produce movements and forces that are a vector sum and the results remain in dynamic equilibrium.

In the current theories of the solar system's formation, the matter was essentially in place and has coalesced according to mathematical resonances and turbulence which pulled the smooth gaseous distribution into what were pretty much the existing orbits.

The whole system would fly apart very rapidly if the equilibrium were divergent by extremely small values.

You can play with gravitational orbital simulations and you will find how incredibly balanced the orbital mechanics are.

This one looks like fun: www.astronoo.com...

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Oh behave, it was a mirror thread for a purpose and it's been interesting reading both sides of the argument.
Stars and flags pfft piss off with your silly off topic thoughts mate.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

it was a mirror thread for a purpose

Well the purpose is...?

mirror thread

Well your mirrored thread below went "well"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ATS does not allow spin-off threads. Closed.

Oh behave

This is ATS - how would you like everyone to behave, sheeplike?