DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

I'm more laughing at his "The world is perfectly designed!" claim.

In human males, the uretha runs through the middle of the prostate, which, in old age, has a habit of shrinking up and closing off the urethra. There's no anatomical reason the urethra has to run smack dab through the middle of the prostate. Everything would work just as well if it ran down the side. So, did God screw up the design, or was it intentional on his part, making God sort of a sadist?

More examples. Blind spots on the eyeball. The optic nerve run out from the front of the optic disk, causing a blind spot. This is unnecessary. Octopus eyes don't have that flaw. Did God screw up the design of vertebrate eyes, or does God just like cephalopods better?

We eat and breathe down the same tube, causing a choking hazard. Dumb design. The reproductive system is right by the excratory system, which is like running an open sewer through a recreation area. We have an appendix that does nothing except occasionally blow up and kill us. Our spines can't handle a lifetime of standing upright. And so on. There are long lists of the really lousy design of many parts of the human body, and of many other animals.

So, was God-the-perfect-designer a moron or a sadist?

 

False, the evolution of the whale is very thoroughly documented by the fossil record, look it up.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MAMOOTH:

While you are complaining about the "flaws" in the human anatomy, what have you created lately? When did you create life from non-life? For that matter, have you created or done anything by means of materials that were not already in existence before man appeared on this planet? Did you create the trees to give us food and oxygen and with which to build homes? Did you create the sun to give us Vitamin D and without which nothing could live? Did you create the water cycles so that the rain provides nourishment for the plants? Without water, we would all die within a matter of days. What did you create, I ask you?

ANSWER: Nothing. Not one single thing.

 

Mediocre dodge. Looks like the judges are giving you a 6.8. Maybe you'd like to address the point?

 

Look who is talking. I asked you a series of direct questions back in May 2012--exactly three months ago--and despite my repeatedly asking you the questions, you have consistently refused to answer them because you realize the answers will debunk Darwin's macroevolution theory. You will find the questions on Page 3, Post #26. Knowing your history of evading my direct questions, I would likely die of old age waiting for you to answer the questions. So I won't be waiting for your reply to them.

 

I told you, only two of those questions had anything to do with evolution, and you've shown that you have no interest in actually understanding the theory. And, again, it has nothing to do with the point that mamooth was making. You think god designed us? He's a really bad designer. You've already said you think god is infallible. How does that jibe with the fact that our anatomy has so many mistakes?

 

You are in no position to talk about what point mamooth was making since he made none. He merely expressed his opinion. Don't concern yourself with mamooth's erroneous opinions. Concern yourself instead with the four questions I asked you that you've been dodging for the past three months.

 

Oh really?

I'm not sure where to begin with this whopper. Fossils have certainly not "debunked" evolution - quite the contrary. But fossils remain only one piece of evidence for it, any not even the strongest we have. Darwin came to his conclusions without fossil evidence, and without the science of genetics. Subsequent discoveries in both areas since then have done a lot to flesh out the theory of evolution, which is especially true in the case of genetics, since we now know what it is that natural selection is actually selecting: successful genes.

As for "species level" changes and your given examples... no squirrel ever evolved into a bat, though if you look far enough back in time, they have a common ancestor somewhere, just as both of those lines have with us and our primate line. Further, squirrels and bats aren't merely different species - they're farther removed from one another than that. There are different species of bats, and there are different species of squirrel. Finally, taxonomic classifications such as species are entirely arbitrary, something we humans use to try and organise known lifeforms into some kind of order for proper understanding and study of them. Evolution is not concerned with archetypes the way you creationists are; that is, there is no rabbit, squirrel, bat or human archetype from which various species or subspecies deviate only to within some limit. What does exist are interbreeding populations of lifeforms, and as long as they continue to interbreed, they will remain one "species," because their genes are constantly reshuffled together. You get different species (and eventually still greater differences) when a breeding population is divided into two or more separate populations. Then genetic mutation and selection will invariably and inevitably carry the two populations apart until members of each population will no longer interbreed with the other. Further on in the future, they will even lose basic genetic compatibility, so that they couldn't interbreed even if they wanted to.

Horses and zebras are certainly different from one another, yet they can still interbreed; lions and tigers are also able to produce offspring together, though their offspring aren't really viable in nature. The two types of cat have drifted too far from one another to be fully sexually compatible at this point in evolutionary history. With successive generations, they will undoubtedly grow even more different from one another. A more distant relative of theirs is the hyena. Yep! Hyenas are more closely related to big cats than to canines, i.e. they branched off from the line that eventually later branched off to give us all of the cats we know and love today after the ancestral cat and canine lines had branched off. This is the kind of thing genetics is able to reveal, and it's truly sad that so many people are so ignorant of it!

Of course, the information is freely available to those whose minds haven't been permanently closed by religious lies.

 

Begging the question. It has not been established that anything had to "give life" to life as we know it. The evidence is that "life" is a natural property of its constituent materials: organic molecules. We are "life" because of how carbon-based "organic" molecules behave. That's basic physics and chemistry at work.

Life is postulated to have begun in the ocean, where the environment would have been more conducive to its beginning than the early Earth's surface would have been. Why are you accusing "pro-evolution" scientists of being "delusional"? You don't even understand the basics of the theory of evolution or the evidence for it.

Natural selection, which also explains why so many organisms exist in symbiotic, parasitic and hunter-prey situations. I'm not sure what you mean by "slime," though. Are you referring to something multicellular in nature?

"Intelligence" evolved as the nervous system developed and grew more complex in early animal life. Of course, what we call intelligence varies from one kind of animal to another, and even from individual to individual...

How have "they all failed miserably" in hypothesising about how life began? Do you mean that their educated guesses about it are somehow inferior to the "God did it" alternative?

 

Dodge, dodge dodge. He made the point that, if humans are designed by god, then god is a poor designer. He gave numerous examples. I'm adding the fact that you've claimed before that god is infallible and I'd like to know how you resolve these two beliefs. I told you why I won't answer your questions (because I have answered them dozens of times in other threads for people who were as close-minded as you; I'm not wasting my time further). If you don't want to answer mine, then just say why and we'll move on.

 

Saying something is a "poor design" is a personal opinion. Others have come along and said the exact opposite--that the human body is an example of perfect design. Everybody on this planet has an opinion; therefore, opinions are not facts.

Now, how about you answering the four questions?

 

Yeah, a useless organ that sometimes ruptures and kills its host. Truly perfect design.

Durandal already did a fine job of it. He even answered the two questions that are irrelevant to evolution. I fully expect you to ignore him, or at least not comprehend what he wrote.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
Where did the "constituent materials" come from? They created themselves?

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
Where did the ocean come from? It created itself? And is a "postulation" a fact? One can prove a fact with evidence. How does one prove a "postulation"? Wait... wait.... There's no need to prove it. If the scientists said that's how it happened, it must be so.

DEFINITION OF "POSTULATION":
2. to assume without proof to be true, real, or necessary, esp. as a basis for argument
http://www.yourdictionary.com/postulation?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- BURZMALI:
What "useless organ" are you referring to? I'm not aware of any organ in the human body that is useless and its only function is to rupture and kill its host.

ALTER2EGO -to- BURZMALI:
So after three months of dodging my questions, you're now passing the buck by putting it on Durandal to attempt to rescue you. Tut, tut.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
"Natural selection" is a theory aka Darwin's macroevolution MYTH--not fact. And where did organisms come from so they could be "naturally" selected? They created themselves?

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
Where did the nervous system come from? It created itself?

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
Is an "educated" guess the same as fact? One can prove a fact by presenting evidence, but can one prove an "educated" guess?

DEFINITION OF "GUESS":
1. to form a judgment or estimate of (something) without actual knowledge or enough facts for certainty; conjecture; surmise
(Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/guess?

 

They were apparently manufactured in stars, the same as all of the other heavier elements. Organic molecules exist in outer space, even on meteors that occasionally fall to Earth.

Are you kidding me? Where did the ocean come from? Yes, it "created itself" after the Earth was finished "creating itself." Just like dew "creates itself" on a blade of grass on a cool summer's morning. Neat, huh?

There is plenty of speculation on how life began. E.g.: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2541393.stm

Life 'began on the ocean floor'

A new and controversial theory on the origin of life on Earth is causing a stir among scientists.

And one of the implications is that life could be more likely on planets where it was previously thought unlikely to flourish.

The theory claims that living systems originated in so-called "inorganic incubators" - small compartments in iron sulphide rocks.

Proposed by Professor William Martin, of Düsseldorf University, and Professor Michael Russell, of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, it stands conventional ideas on their head.

Instead of the building blocks of life forming first, and then forming a cell-like structure, the researchers say the cell came first and was later filled with living molecules.

...

Since science is fact-based rather than a flight of fancy, there is no one dogmatic explanation for how life came into being at this point. It's the stuff of speculation and postulation at this point due to a lack of data. In fact, it will likely always be so where this planet's life is concerned, since it's an ancient prehistoric event that is so old that plate tectonics, slow though they are, have likely already wiped out any potential fossil evidence of such early times. Obviously more data relating to life's development would enable more exact hypotheses and developed theories on the subject, however.

 

Derp. I see you need to start studying the basics: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

I suppose that's one way to look at it. When you don't have an agent to attribute "creation" to, you might as well say that it "created itself." Put another way, it was built step by step as animal life grew in complexity and capabilities, natural selection ensuring the (statistical) survival of beneficial developments.

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
Is an "educated" guess the same as fact? One can prove a fact by presenting evidence, but can one prove an "educated" guess?

DEFINITION OF "GUESS":
1. to form a judgment or estimate of (something) without actual knowledge or enough facts for certainty; conjecture; surmise
(Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/guess?[/QUOTE]

...without actual knowledge or enough facts for certainty... Can you prove that God did it? Can you even prove that God exists? Attributing something to a supernatural deity with no actual explanation whatsoever for how life began seems weaker to me than coming up with hypotheses based on what we know about life today. Your certainty about life's origins is a fool's "knowledge," a false certainty based on faith rather than on the known facts.

Scientists aren't so arrogant. They are reasonable - they acknowledge that we don't know for certain things for which we lack sufficient evidence to be certain. If there were facts out there to support an intelligent designed hypothesis (sufficient, perhaps, even to develop an intelligent design theory), then science would be all over it. As it is now, though, ID is a non-scientific claim made invariably by religious people who want there to be a creator god, facts be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- BURZMALI:
"Apparently" amounts to speculation. That's not good enough. You insist the universe was not created. You reject intelligent design, but instead of presenting me with a credible alternative, you come up with "apparently"? In order for you or anybody else to overcome the evidence for intelligent design, you are required to present facts--not speculations aka personal opinions aka scientific theory.

BTW: Where did the stars and the heavier elements come from? They created themselves? They just decided one day to pop up out of nowhere?

 

I say apparently, but in truth it's more than mere speculation. However, I am not schooled in astrophysics or chemistry.

If you're curious about how organic molecules came into being, I suggest you research it instead of simply asking questions that you refuse to answer for yourself.

 

Durandal apparently has the patience to try to discuss a biological theory with someone who doesn't know what an appendix is. In fairness, it might serve a purpose. I think we can all agree that an architect who designed a clock tower with a timebomb as the clock would be a poor designer. If we're designed, then god basically did that.

Anyway, I'm not passing the buck, I'm pointing out that he has decided to jump in. And he has answered those questions in a way that would make it clear to anyone willing to read it and try to comprehend. Meanwhile, you can't even be honest and admit when you don't want to answer a question, and why. Instead, you just dodge, dodge, dodge.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
You should know by now I don't kid around.

So let me get this straight: according to you, the earth and the seas and the universe created themselves. Well, there goes the latest episode of the British science fiction show "Doctor Who." If Durandal and various scientists say that's what happened, they need not present evidence to prove it. Just the mere mention of it from any of them makes it a reality.

 

He asks many questions that betray a complete lack of effort on his part to seek information. It suggests to me that he isn't even curious about the natural world, but rather is content to say "God did it" and not investigate anything. It's unfortunate, though not really an issue... until he starts trying to tell us that science is wrong and his religious claims are true.

Fair point about the appendix, by the way. I understand that it served more a purpose when our ancestors were vegetarians. It housed germs useful for digesting plant matter, and is more developed and serves just that function in other plant-eating animals today. In us, it has shrunken and become largely if not entirely vestigial.

 

I thought we were only discussing the oceans. Now you're leaping to the earth and the seas and the universe creating themselves. Still, though, that is essentially correct. These things have all formed as a product of physical rules. Stars form when enough matter comes together for the resulting mass to begin a nuclear fusion process due to its own gravity. Planets and other such bodies form when heavier elements that were formed through such stellar fusion and blasted out into the universe by supernovae, a typical fate for more massive stars, come together. There exists a wide range of objects in space, ranging from small, rocky objects to rocky planets, gas giants, brown dwarfs (larger than jupiter but still not massive enough to ignite nuclear fusion), red dwarfs (stars less massive than our sun, burning relatively dimly and for a very long time), to mid-sized stars like our sun, and on to much more massive stars and even black holes. Then you've got objects such as pulars, the small, very rapidly rotating remains of a star gone nova.

It might be useful to go back to the beginning here..

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-first-stars-in-the-un
...

The new models indicate that the first stars were most likely quite massive and luminous and that their formation was an epochal event that fundamentally changed the universe and its subsequent evolution. These stars altered the dynamics of the cosmos by heating and ionizing the surrounding gases. The earliest stars also produced and dispersed the first heavy elements, paving the way for the eventual formation of solar systems like our own. And the collapse of some of the first stars may have seeded the growth of supermassive black holes that formed in the hearts of galaxies and became the spectacular power sources of quasars. In short, the earliest stars made possible the emergence of the universe that we see today—everything from galaxies and quasars to planets and people.

...

I don't see how the observed and observable universe is at all in line with ID/creationist claims. The Bible makes the laughable claim that stars will fall to Earth in the end times. It also pretends that they exist for our benefit, yet they are "born" and "die" in their own right, AND there is a LOT out there that we can't even see with the naked eye. The universe is vast and ancient, and our little planet is but one tiny speck of it.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- BURZMALI:
I didn't tell you I don't know what an appendix is. I asked you to explain which organ in the human body serves no useful purpose except to burst inside people and kill them. Since that does not apply to the appendix, I assumed you were referring to some other organ. Below is my question to you along that line which, as usual, you are now dodging.

BURZMALI'S RESPONSE: Durandal jumped in. Let him rescue me by answering questions that I've been dodging for the past three months.

 

Can the human body survive with no noticeable consequences without an appendix? If yes, I would consider that useless.