Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Creation or Evolution
- On 30 Aug 2008 at 21:58, tykemorris wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "seniorclucky"Define "living thing."
> <jdbeadle@...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tykemorris"
> > <tykemorris@> wrote:
> > > 1. The creation of the first living thing certainly required
> > > intelligence, and this intelligence could not technically be
> > > considered intrinsic to an organism or protocell.
> > >
> > Why "certainly required intelligence"? Your say so? Because
> > so obvious to you? Meanwhile, plenty of alternative theories
> > intelligence so "certainly" doesn't seem so certain unless you
> > blind faith. Which you seem to do.
> Tyke: "Plenty of alternative theories"? Such as?
> Mainstream science, which you seem so fond of claiming the
> support of, does NOT buy into any of the attempts at
> explaining the origin of life as a really lucky combination of
> certain materials. We now more clearly understand that all
> reproduction, metabolism, growth and healing requires the
> intelligent animation of matter. The very first living things
> needed at least some of those abilities.
And argument from personal incredulity and by asserting the
consequent are both fallacies.
> It seems that you reject mainstream science when it isScience has no positive physical evidence of divine intervention
> convenient for you to do so, yet you use this false claim of
> their support as your only argument otherwise.
in the origin of life. If such intervention was/is present, it
has so far eluded the detection methods used by science.
> >Uh, hardly. Once again you argue by asserting your consequent,
> > > 5. Mammary glands do not benefit the host mammal, but a
> > > organism - their offspring.
> > Caring for your young via mammary glands benefits the species.
> Tyke: Gosh golly gee, I hadn't realized this! Good thing you
> materialists are so smart to explain this to the IDist
> Ralph asked whether or not there is any evidence of extrinsic
> intelligence, or at least that is how I understood his line of
> questioning. Intrinsic intelligence is internal to an organism.
> External intelligence requires extra-organismal design, of which
> mammary glands are a prime example.
not by adducing actual evidence. HOW does divine intervention
act to produce mammary glands? WHY IS IT ACTUALLY NECESSARY?
Animals that are able to give their young a good start will
succeed where others fail. That's Darwinian evolution pure and
And very primitive forms of the mammary mechanism still exist.
Check out the monotreme mammals.
----- Original Message -----
From: "tykemorris" <tykemorris@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 10:59 PM
Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Creation or Evolution
> --- In email@example.com, "Dave Oldridge"
> <doldridg@...> wrote:
>> On 7 Sep 2008 at 3:38, tykemorris wrote:
>> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, PIASAN@
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > In a message dated 8/31/2008 11:56:48 PM Central Daylight
>> > Time,
>> > > tykemorris@ writes:
>> > >
>> > > To be clear, Randy, anything FUNCTIONAL supports ID and
>> > anything
>> > > random and useless supports Darwinism.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > **********
>> > > Pi:
>> > > Let me understand this... all the good stuff is because of ID
>> > and
>> > all the
>> > > bad stuff is due to (your version of) "Darwinism".
>> > >
>> > > LOL
>> > Tyke: If random accident creates seamless functional
>> > interdependent systems, as you claim "explains" millions of
>> > species, then you also have to explain where all the less-than
>> > ideal creations are. There should be quintillions of messy,
>> > amorphous, incontinuous, useless blobs of goo, for any one
>> > incredibly fortuitous lung or wing. Where are Darwin's legions
>> > of mutant mistakes? We don't see them. Were they all
>> > "de-selected", even the minor flaps of tissues or a few neural
>> > pathways or ligaments going nowhere? If so, then why don't we
>> > see them form and then be subsequently de-selected in modern
>> > observations?
>> Most mutations will not combine with another gamete to produce a
>> viable gamete (in diploid species such as mammals). But, if you
>> want to see "bad stuff" just look in the mirror. Hardly any
>> species is perfectly adapted to its environment. But the closer
>> it is, you are correct to note that the likelihood of beneficial
>> mutations becomes smaller.
> Tyke: I'm glad you agree, but the point is that there SHOULD be an
> overwhelming majority, if not a flat out entirety, of unintelligent
> random mutations, yet they practically never happen.
Apparently you are unable to read what I write for meaning. These mutations
that you say should exist actually DO exist. They just aren't obvious.
That's why you can pretend that they don't exist when in fact they do.
>> > In other words, there IS no "bad stuff". That's the point. All
>> > Darwinists need do to shut down ID is to show that there are
>> > multitudes more creatures with useless tissues abounding than
>> > there are useful functional parts working together
>> > cooperatively.
>> Do they hand out gold stars for cunning lies in your hate-cult?
>> If so, you don't get one. This is not nearly cunning enough.
> Tyke: Is this what you do whenever you can't come up with an
> intelligent response? Merely calling something a "lie" is not a
> rebuttal, and it is a bit hypocritical of you to accuse me of
> supposedly calling you a liar and yet do this. Please try to make
> your responses on topic.
Most deleterious mutations remain invisible because they occur at
microscopic levels. Mutations that make it all the way productive success
tend to be neutral, very slightly detrimental, or beneficial. And they occur
at a steady, small rate on the order of one gene in 10,000 per reproductive
cycle. This has been known since Alan Robertson's work in 1956, so why are
creationists denying it 52 years later?
> In what way is asking for any examples at all of any useless tissues
> a "lie"? There are none anywhere. None at all. Yet they should be the
> ONLY thing we have, if random accident were truly the creator.
This is strawman rhetoric, not scientific reasoning. We know the mutation
rates in living species and actually take advantage of the fact that
tripling it in rice seed crop candidates is helpful when we want to force
the evolution of the rice crop to outpace the natural evolution of the
insect pests that would otherwise destroy it.
>> > Can't do that? Ok how about just ONE anywhere in ANY living
>> > creature. One defective piece of materials that never served a
>> > purpose. Find one muscle that isn't attached to anything that
>> > needs a muscle in that exact place. Find a formation in the
>> > middle of a tree that is biological but serves no purpose.
> Dave:> What purpose does your GULO gene serve? Be specific.
> Tyke: I asked for an example of any never-useful tissues. I am
> referring entirely to phenotype, not genotype, as you know full well
> that we do not know the purpose of all genes. This does not mean that
> they have no purpose, as most of what was once called "junk DNA" has
> been found to have a purpose. Many are "enhancer" genes or used only
> in embryonic development or as regulatory agents that we don't
> necessarily see in action. Again, I put the challenge to you to name
> any never-useful TISSUES in any living thing anywhere. Be specific.
Why would there be a lot of those? Wouldn't they normally be tumors? Of
course I could be sarcastic and mention the brain of homo creationistus.
Seriously, any large amount of useless tissue would sap energy and would be
rapidly eliminated by natural selection, usually WELL BEFORE BIRTH.
Again, would you mind answering my question about the GULO gene. If you
cannot, don't feel bad. It makes no protein at all.
>> > On the flip side, merely stating that there is a benefit to
>> > having a particular trait in no way explains the existence of
>> > the trait. Random accident creationism does not require
>> > "benefit".
> Dave: > There is no such thing as "random accident creationism."
> Tyke: Sure there is. You just replaced the word "God" for "Luck",
> without doing the math to see if luck is feasible. (It isn't even
> close.) You have no theory or process. Just a very bizarre yet
> evangelical belief in incredible luck.
Nonsense. First of all, I am a Christian of pretty much traditional and
orthodox belief. I just down't swallow this IDist claim that only special
miracles can make things happen. God's sovereignty is universal, even over
what YOU term "blind luck." But then *I* have FAITH, not blind belief in
some doctrinal supplement to our ancient creeds.
> Dave: >Can I
>> interest you in a game of draw poker were you play be creationist
>> rules and I play by more evolutionary rules?
> Tyke: Why would I do that? I am an evolutionist and reject
> Creationism and you are a (Random Accident) Creationist. So you play
> YOUR role and I'll play mine.
I don't know what you are (except disingenuous).
> Dave: >You would only be
>> allowed to draw a full hand, whereas I would be able to select
>> which cards to draw to. We would each be required to bet 20% of
>> our cash on each hand regardless of what we thought of the hand.
> Tyke: Lol. Was that supposed to be an analogy that explains Darwinism
> in a card game? Too funny. Your analogy merely gave you higher birth
> rate, which you don't have. Also, you aren't actually "selecting" in
> Darwinism. The gaining of cards is randomly pulled from the deck, not
> actually picking and choosing. Try this:
'Nature' is CONTINUALLY selecting. Denying the fact only makes you wilfully
ignorant of it.
> A Creationist always wins because he believes God always creates his
> perfect hand.
> A Darwinist always wins and assumes always winning is always luck.
> An IDist always wins and understands that something other than luck
> has to be causing the always-winning hands.
That's just my point. Over time, even luck wins out when you select some
cards and discard others.
> Whenever a Darwinist tries to use a card game analogy to try to fool
> people into believing that the odds of getting functional complex
> life forms are the same as getting a winning hand, I like to present
> the following challenge:
> You take the Darwinist rules so you are required to have playing
> cards manufacture themselves and print themselves. Then without any
> action on your part, the cards find their way into your hands.
You are playing word games again. Listen up SONNY, don't try to bamboozle
ME with crapola like this. You are only digging a whole for yourself.
Either selection alters the odds or it doesn't. How much it alters the odds
(if it does) depends on how many iterations of the selection algorithm are
> I'll take the ID rules and intelligently print cards intentionally
> and, seeing what the cards are, pick the ones I want intelligently.
In other words you can only win by cheating. Got it!
> Now THAT would be an apt comparison of your theory to mine.
So YOUR theory is that God is con tinually performing special miracles
(except you're not allowed to say it's God because you're trying to sneak it
under the law).
> Dave: > My point is that selection of ANY kind vastly alters the
> Tyke: What? Your Darwinist definition of "selection" HURTS your odds.
No, it bloody well does not. You have to cheat to beat me. If you use YOUR
strawman verson of the evolution rules, my REAL version will beat you all
night long. You even admitted that you have to cheat.
> Selection is a misleadingly named circular tautology, an after-the-
> fact SUBTRACTIVE filter that only hinders evolution.
> If you really want a card game analogy that references "selection",
> lets try to compare selection to non-selection. Non-selection is not
> ID, but a hypothetical world in which nothing dies, so there is no
> selection. Try this:
> We both draw the same number of cards, but you have to discard most
> of them, while I do not discard at all, and I can choose any 5 cards
> from my ever-increasing hand. Some of your discards are chosen by you
> for good reason, but most I choose randomly from your hand and I may
> discard some very good cards from your hand.
Again, you admit that you have to abandon your strawman. Because, if I am
allowed selection at all, you must discard as many cards as me and at random
in order to play according to the strawman rules you're setting up. Like I
said, don't trhy to deceive me about probabilities. You will only get your
> Which one of us will win most of the time? How much did your all-
> important "selection", which is really DE-selection, help you? I
> don't have selection in my hand. I keep everything. Granted, I have
> more "bad stuff" cards, but I also have more "good stuff" than you.
> so the creation process is strengthened by not discarding.
> Selection, which really means nothing more than the fact that many
> creatures die, has a detrimental effect on evolution. We would evolve
Strawman alert. Dying, per se, has not that much to do with it except
insofar as it prevents reproduction. And most of reproduction occurs at
microscopic levels, which you conveniently ignore (because you know your
vict...er target audience are ignorant about them?).
> more advantageously if nothing ever died. And, as a more direct
> refutation of your claim, the odds of creating a functional formation
> would be better with random luck WITHOUT selection as opposed to
> random luck WITH selection. Selection is not a drawing of cards, but
> a discard of cards, many of which are good cards. Selection, Darwin-
> style, hurts your odds.
> Dave:> Yes, mutations appear to be random with respect to future
> Tyke: What? In what unscientific dream world do you imagine this?
In the real world as examined by geneticists.
> Mutations appear in evidence to be very much aligned with our needs
> and not the least bit random by any account.
> Dave: > They also appear to be ubiquitous.
> Tyke: You have an uncanny ability to state the exact opposite of the
> truth. Mutations are NOT ubiquitous at all. The are very specific and
Who told you THAT lie? We've lnown that it's false since AT LEAST 1956.
The rate is on the order of one gene per 10,000 per reproductive cycle.
Since most organisms have a lot of genes, this means that they usually have
some mutations. Humans run anywhere from 0 to 7 or 8...occasionally more,
but too may is trouble, just as too few can slow evolutionary adaptation to
environmental change and result in extinction. SOME organisms HVE evolved
the ability ti increase their mutation RATE under environmental stresses.
> contained within a set gene pool. They also only seem to make
> functional changes that are usually, but not always, cosmetic, such
> as skin tone or facial features. We don't see fingers starting to
> grow out of our backs that may turn into wings millions of years from
> now. Some physiologies change all the time and others never do, even
> with changes in phyla. 40% of our genes are shared by common
> vegetables, such as lettuce. A majority of the genes in animals never
> change. Genetic modifications are neither random nor ubiquitous.
> Dave: > The average human has about
>> 3. Mostly they are not significant enough to even be noticed,
>> but they ARE there.
> Tyke: Yes, they are there, but they are not random.
Then show the algorithm for predicting them.
>> pair and bred separate incipient species in just 20 generations,
>> ALL that variation came from fresh mutations that occurred
>> naturally during the experiment.
> Tyke: If speciation happens in 20 generations, then there would be
> millions of species of fruit flies. Speciation did not occur in the
> fruit fly experiments, unless a very liberal definition of "species"
> is used.
No, the two species were not voluntarily interbreeding. The key was the
draconian selection pressures. Such pressures are only rarely encountered
he heard that many in the club had stopped
> killing off the less brightly colored birds, and they gravitated back
> to dull gray as soon as the artificial selection stopped. This proves
> that the genes are in charge, not the selection, unless the selection
> is very draconian artificial selection. It also proves that animals
> stay within their gene pool and that microevolution is back and
> forth, not linear.
According to you, speaking ex cathedra from the chair of pseudoscientific
>> > And unless this new useless tissue is deadly, it is not
>> > affected in the least by your so-called "selection", so I
>> > should have plenty of optic nerves in my forearm without it
>> > affecting the survival of my genes to another generation of
>> > optical arms.
> Dave: > It takes a certain amount of energy to produce any such
>> structure. This results in it being less conserved than more
>> necessary structures.
> Tyke: This is crap. First, though, you are the Darwinist who claims
> these "bizarre" structures existed (yet are never seen).
> It takes no more "energy" to create an optic nerve going nowhere than
> it takes to elongate a jaw or nose. Nerve cells are created all thea
Actually, it does. But you will deny the obvious in order to stay
> time in the brain, but always on an as-needed basis, like all other
> aspects of life including genetics. The amount of energy needed to
> create an unneeded optic nerve going to something other than an eye
> is beyond negligible and well outside of even the most staunch
> Darwinist crackpot's definition of the mythical "selective pressure".
Yawn....if it's that easy, then your creationist hack pseudoscientists ought
to be able to engineer it...
> By "less conserved" you mean it just kind of goes away, right? Oh,
> wait, no, I know! Pick me! Pick me! The optic nerve in my forearm
> KILLS me before I can reproduce, right? And even if I manage to
The genetics that produce an optic nerve in your forearm would probably
produce them everywhere.
> survive having an optic nerve in my forearm, my multiple great-
> grandchildren are doomed, because of all that "energy" that was
> expended, right? Do you have any idea how delusional and vastly under-
> explanatory this excuse to deny evidence is? Do our two curiously
> perfectly placed identical optic nerves ever kill anyone? I mean just
> think of all that energy needed. The babies would never survive
> gestation, so they would never see anything anyway. Don't they die?
> Sarcasm aside, not a single being would die creating an unneeded
> optic nerve, so genetically it should stick around as long as any
> useful optic nerve. What do you suppose, Dave, would be the odds of
> both optic nerves existing at all, and then, if it is assumed they
> exist, that they just happen to line up between the exact right place
> on the brain and the exact right place on the eye? Start by
> mulitplying a trillion times a trillion and then wrap your mind
> around the reality that eyes appeared across all separate species of
> animals at the SAME time 540 million years ago - all at once.
Uh, who told you THAT one?
> Do you think we had optic nerves before we had eyes or eyes before
> the optic nerve? I would think if either happened all that wasted
> energy you insist is killing off lineages, would have caused a mass
> extinction event of the millions of creatures with optic nerves
> waiting on eyes.
Actually, a certain amount of light sensitivity is apparent in many expose
> Darwinists are such simpletons it is HILARIOUS discussing their blind-
> watchmaking ideations.
>> > ID notes the reality that inheritable genetic modifications
>> > are always functional and occur predictably as-needed, but only
>> > as needed. So beneficial traits are indeed the domain of the
>> Again, what is the function of your GULO gene?
>> > IDist. Every time another beneficial genetic upgrade is
>> > observed, Darwinists sink lower in their chairs as ID is
>> > strengthened.
> Dave: > What a load of unmitigated, arrogant CRAP!
> Tyke: Again, this is not a rebuttal, just bland denial of the obvious
> in favor of your unfounded religious beliefs.
No, it's just a straight denial of your broken-record non-stop
misrepresentation of the actual physical evidence and refusal to even deal
with the most cogent aspects of it.
> ID posits beneficial functional intelligent genetic expression.
And offers ZERO actual physical evidence for such alleged intervention.
> Darwinism posits random accident and their excuse that we never see
> it in fossil evidence is because the ALL of these mutant
> freaks "died" (selection), but modern day evidence crushes Darwinism
> because the useless physiologies just aren't there.
Nonsense! Your strawman is coming apart. You simply ignore all the
observations made of mutations and pronounce that (according to you)
evolution REQUIRES something totally different. And the only "logic" you
supply is sarcasm and insults.
>> > Proof of Darwinism should be simple. It just never happens.
> Dave:> Evidence for the common descent of chimps and humans exists in
>> most of your cells. You can deny it, or explain it with
>> blasphemies, but you cannot remove it.
> Tyke: Blasphemies?? Lol. That's even more over the top than "cunning
> lies". You have issues.
You bet. I DO have issues withn disingenuous hereticial theocratic poseurs.
> Why on earth would I deny that there is evidence of humans coming
> from chimps? There is no doubt that humans came from chimpanzees and
> that all living things are of common descent. It just didn't happen
> because of any discards.
No, it happened IN SPITE of them. But the failures shape the successes by
Now why do you feel an emotional need for SPECIAL miracles throughout the
history of life--to the point where you will insist on them without a shred