Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Index > General > Who Is Your Creator message forum > Random Evolution Can Build a Watch?
Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum
This forum is locked and posting is not allowed
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Random Evolution Can Build a Watch?

Let's start with your admission that Gould said what he said, which proves I took nothing out of context. I presented it exactly as he said it, and it IS a blow toward Darwinian evolution, which is why he came up with PE.

Again, you seem to be unable to understand the implications of your own argument.

As for the video, I did watch it, and since it purports to "prove" the viability of the randomness of evolution, I suggest that everyone on this board watch it. It is priceless. There are so many mistakes in his premise it is ridiculous. The most glaring is the fact that he wrote a complicated program to "prove" his premise, therefore HE was the designer in this case. Moreover, he used a computer, which is the end product of thousands of years of human discovery and painstaking advancements in design after design after design. There is NOTHING random about either a computer or a code.

Living things are composed first of DNA, an incredibly complex set of codes that are the blueprints for all of life. Is it not reasonable to assume that such a code has a designer? Yes, it is reasonable. To believe otherwise, especially without evidence, is not only unreasonable, but perversely so.

But I do agree that he has built, not a watch, but a clock--a CUCKOO CLOCK!

This is insanity, and it proves that people who will not believe the simple truth, will in their delusion believe anything, and I do mean ANYTHING!

Save yourselves from this lost, perverse generation while you still can.

As for your video, it should be titled "Dodos Over the Cliff." Just madness. And very funny, if it were not so sad.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"I am laughing so hard I can barely type! You said "evolution can build a watch." Do you want to stand by that? No wonder you believe as you do!"

If clocks were alive, yes. Did you even watch that video I linked you to? It's not even ten minutes long. I'm sure you can spare that.

""Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?"

Answer specifically, please."

That is what he said, but you presented it as if it were a blow toward evolution.

"And thanks for making my day. I will laugh every time I think of your statement!"

I'm glad you thought it was so funny that you didn't even watch the video that would've shown you how it works. Apparently evidence means nothing to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I am laughing so hard I can barely type! You said "evolution can build a watch." Do you want to stand by that? No wonder you believe as you do!

And you did not answer my question:

"Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?"

Answer specifically, please.

And thanks for making my day. I will laugh every time I think of your statement!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?

You are accusing me of taking out of context. Do you even know the context?"

You make it seem like this is a problem for evolution. Those quotes where used to defend Punctuated Equilibrium. Gradualism is out-dated, and disprovong that is simple.

"And Gould developed no mechanism for evolution. No man is capable of such a thing. What are you saying? He concocted a fanciful excuse to explain the embarrassing lack of evidence, nothing more."

Darwin came up with natural selection. Then mutation, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

Excuse? It is by Punctuated Equilibrium that we see new species originate. We don't see it happening at a steady pace but instead in quick bursts (relative to their time in stasis). Computer simulations of evolution also show Punctuated Equilibrium. Here's a video not only showing how evolution can build a watch, but also showing that with no guided forced, we see punctuated Equilibrium. I suggest you watch the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

"Please, before you answer, do a little research and think things through. Don't be so quick to type. Your arguments will be much more cogent, and you will make more headway."

Thanks for the tip. I realize I come off hasty and angry. I apologize.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?

You are accusing me of taking out of context. Do you even know the context?

And Gould developed no mechanism for evolution. No man is capable of such a thing. What are you saying? He concocted a fanciful excuse to explain the embarrassing lack of evidence, nothing more.

Please, before you answer, do a little research and think things through. Don't be so quick to type. Your arguments will be much more cogent, and you will make more headway.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Stone bones that have some similarities do NOT constitute transitional forms, as Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.""

This is a quote Gould uses when defending Punctuated Equilibrium; a mechanism he developed. Clearly taken out of context.

"And: "I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks."

-Gould, The Panda's Thumb, page 181."

Which is why Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.

"By Gould's own admission, gradualism has never been proven by the fossil record. Thus, branching speciation leading to an actual change in body plan remains an unproven concept. An accepted concept by faith-filled evolutionists, granted, but an unproven concept nonetheless."

False. Where the fossil record has holes genetics fills them in. And you clearly took Gould's quote out of context.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You ask a good question about what constitutes a species, Brian. As you probably know, the answer varies according to the purpose of the proposal or question being asked:

"In their 2004 book "Speciation," evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr point out that there are more than twenty-five definitions of 'species.' How can we choose among them?"

-Wells, Darwinism and Intelligent Design, page 52

Some definitions are highly esoteric, but for my purposes, I am speaking of the general term, which is individuals that resemble each other and are able to breed among themselves.

My point is that observed speciation is only known to occur that produces minor changes in individuals, and a change from a species to a subspecies does not constitute a change in body plan, or kind, which is what Darwin proposed and which his followers have been trying to prove for the last 150 years:

"In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: 'A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,' and 'the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.'"

-ibid, page 50

The question being asked by some on this board is "Where is the evidence of limits on body plans/genetics?"

But the correct question is: "Where is the evidence that body plans/genetics have ever been exceeded?"

Stone bones that have some similarities do NOT constitute transitional forms, as Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

And: "I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks."

-Gould, The Panda's Thumb, page 181.

By Gould's own admission, gradualism has never been proven by the fossil record. Thus, branching speciation leading to an actual change in body plan remains an unproven concept. An accepted concept by faith-filled evolutionists, granted, but an unproven concept nonetheless.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Your argument seems pretty good, John, but you are ignoring the fact that it is PEOPLE who decide whether a breed is a new species or not. This is a tricky business, far less cut and dry than you would have us believe.

You say that wolves and pugs are the same species. How about wolves and coyotes? Wolves and jackels? What about a purple finch and a house finch?

How exactly do people decide if two animals that are physically similar are in fact different species? I'm particularly interested in your answer to this last question.

*For those of you who don't want to look it up, wolves and coyotes are different species. Wolves and jackels are different species. And purple finches and house finches are different species.

Email  
Irreducibly Complex and Fully Formed - by John - Sep 19, 2007 4:30pm
Re: Irreducibly Complex and Fully Formed - by Brian - Sep 19, 2007 7:50pm
Re: Fully formed ... and interdependent? - by Brian - Sep 19, 2007 11:32pm
Give it a shot - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 20, 2007 12:51am
Re: Give it a shot - by Brian - Sep 20, 2007 3:34pm
Re: Fully formed ... and interdependent? - by Ero-senji - Sep 20, 2007 11:08am
Correction to Text; Getting Real - by John - Sep 20, 2007 2:07pm
Re: Correction to Text; Getting Real - by Scott - Sep 21, 2007 9:26am
Give it a whirl! - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 20, 2007 3:24pm
Brian, Please Explain - by John - Sep 20, 2007 1:27pm
Re: Brian, Please Explain - by Brian - Sep 20, 2007 1:44pm
Re: It's a nice premise. Where's the proof? - by Brian - Sep 20, 2007 4:18pm
Where is your proof? - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 21, 2007 6:04am
Brian, Please Explain Richard Dawkins - by John - Sep 20, 2007 4:30pm
Re: Brian, Please Explain Richard Dawkins - by Brian - Sep 20, 2007 5:02pm
You May be Right - by John - Sep 20, 2007 6:07pm