B1G_HEAD_M0DE
(Banned)
- 8
- B1G_HEAD_M0DE
What evidence is there for creation?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 446,993 views
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
They didn't know how to evolve one way or another - natural selection has nothing to do with what a particular species might want. Unlike artificial selection, where a conscious effort can be made to influence the appearance of desirable traits, natural selection simply operates on the basis of survival - stick insects are the result of being more likely to survive in a stick-based environment if you look a bit like a stick.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Something tells me creationists can't explain this one 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
Early warning before you click on it, they're dissecting a giraffe, just so you know in case anyone doesn't want to watch it
@W3HS, you should probably learn how evolution happens before asking questions, because you clearly have no idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
Early warning before you click on it, they're dissecting a giraffe, just so you know in case anyone doesn't want to watch it
@W3HS, you should probably learn how evolution happens before asking questions, because you clearly have no idea.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
A bit harsh - there's nothing wrong with asking questions.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Well no, I wouldn't mind him asking how the stick insect evolved, but the way he worded his question just implied he hadn't even bothered to try and understand evolution at all.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
This is one of the more common misconceptions about evolution, the idea that it is (or can be) goal-directed. One often sees the phrase "...evolved in order to..." even in some scientific literature wrtten for the layman. This is not correct. Animals did not evolve eyes "in order to" see. It just turns out that the ability to see gives an organism a rather big boost in survivability so those who can see are far more likely to survive and propagate than species which can't.
As Touring Mars points out with regard to the stick insect: it just happened that an insect which looked just a bit more like a stick than its peers was just a bit less likely to be eaten by a predator and hence just a bit more likely to pass on its looking-like-a-stick-ness. Rinse and repeat over a couple hundred generations.
- 3,155
- 49°16'43.22"N 81°37'50.21W
- mikeybc
Reads to me like he was just posing the question in the name of fun, not seriously. But yeah, over a thousands of generations or millions of generation in an insect world it's just natural for things to slowly adapt to their surroundings.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Somewhere down the line something had to be created in order for our universe to be here. Even if its infinite where did that come from? Nothingness was broken by something, but by what?
If your reply is that the Big Bang happened. Where did that energy come from? You can't have vast nothingness that suddenly (billions of year being suddenly here) produces energy and a blast happens that forms our universe. Where did stars come from and why do they burn in vast nothingness?
I don't know if I believe in or if there is a God (though I don't think religion is a bad thing I think people make religion a bad thing) but I know that something had to happen somewhere in order for anything else to happen.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
- 1,085
- Barcelona
- Missing
- Halo v8
My counter-questions would be:
Why there has to be a limit or "start" for the universe? Does the concept of "nothingness" have to exist in order for the concept of "something" to be possible? What would happen if we "rewinded" the Big Bang, and saw that until it happened, there was just a super-dense ball of energy, existing forever?
Somewhat around -6 bajillion years before Big Bang, still the same little ball. Somewhat around -6 bajillion years 1 day before Big Bang, the ball hasn't changed...
- 3,155
- 49°16'43.22"N 81°37'50.21W
- mikeybc
- 1,214
What is there to explain? Does this really help Darwinist's case?Something tells me creationists can't explain this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
Early warning before you click on it, they're dissecting a giraffe, just so you know in case anyone doesn't want to watch it
@W3HS, you should probably learn how evolution happens before asking questions, because you clearly have no idea.
http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf
But it didn't exist forever. It ended in either a black hole or an explosion depending on the theory. How does something end but not begin?
Quick answer, no one knows where the universe came from, want an answer? Become a physicist.But I wouldn't advise making things up.
No one knows...but to get the answer I can study physics...I don't think it works that way. Also physicists only have a theory that they choose to believe in and support. (kind of like religion...) I don't make things up I simply wonder how we came to be an answer that no one knows yet people act so cocky and arrogant about.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Why isn't that the way it works? I'm not saying physics has an answer, I'm saying physics is practically the only way we're going to find an answer.
And the big bang is not a theory for how the universe was created, it is a theory about what happened afterwards and is backed up by a lot of evidence, meaning it is nothing like religion.
Here's a good explanation of a few things
I never said it helped prove evolution, I said that I doubt creationists could explain why a perfect being would mess up so much in making animals, this was an example of those mess ups.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,734
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
A non-peer reviewed paper by a scientist well know for non-peer reviewed pieces on ID. This one works on the wonderful (and incorrect) assumption that the purpose of evolution is to find the perfect solution to a problem (note how often in the early pages alone he repeatedly asks why evolution didn't fix this). Its then jumped upon by ID proponents making the (false) assumption that because this disproves evolution (which it doesn't) that ID must be correct.
Not sure what a 'darwinist' is either.
Theory - that word doesn't mean what you think it does.
- 1,214
I didn't think this disprove evolution as much as questioned Dawkin's assumption about the laryngeal nerve. We have already have modern cases where nerves rerouting themselves so why would it be so difficult for evolution to reroute this nerves in millions of years.
Isn't this exactly what Dawkins is doing? He can't think of why the nerve is routed the way it is and assumes evolution must be correct.
I doubt anyone including creationist can explain how the brain can wire and rewire itself. Can you imagine a computer that can do that?
One thing I did read years ago is nerves plays a big part in the development of the embryo even before the nerve endings are complete.
P.S By the way when I wired up my racing cockpit PC I didn't wire it by the shortest route. As much as possible I tried keep the wires neat as possible especially with triple monitors. Also my son has Xbox 360 without WiFi in his room. I ran the Ethernet cable along the side of the walls under the carpet which is far from being the shortest route.
Last edited:
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
So because you, and no one else, which is a complete assumption on your part, can explain how the brain can "rewire" itself, means what exactly? Nothing.
And your analogy between a brain and a computer is pointless;
Firstly, you put the wires in the most efficient way you could think of, there's probably a better way, but no ones perfect. As for god however he is meant to be a perfect being, surely he would always do things in the most efficient way possible? But that's not the case with the giraffe.
It's not like the nerve has something in the way, in the giraffe, and most animals it goes on a completely unnecessary route down to the heart and back, as Dawkins put it, a mistake no engineer would make, especially a perfect being.
Finally, the nerve being like it is can be explained by evolution, does it mean it's the only solution? No. But creationism is definitely not one of the solutions, unless of course you twist it somehow, like god was trying to trick us or something similar.
- 1,214
The problem is how to determine if something is perfect. This is an argument of what God would do or wouldn't do. I find it's amazing that nerves can reroute themselves which would be in my eyes better than a nerve dogmatically following the shortest route. (again that's my opinion)
Can you prove it's a mistake? I don't know any engineer that can do what living cells can do.
I just gave example of why I on purpose wired something not using the shortest route. I find it interesting evolution would have trouble rerouting a simple nerve while at the same time supposed to have rewired the human brain in a couple million years.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Erm, nerves can't just reroute themselves last time I checked and they don't just follow the shortest route either, they just grow based on the genetics so I don't get what you're saying.
We're not talking about what living cells can do, we're talking about the route a certain nerve follows. I know lots of people who, if asked to connect the brain and the organ the nerve goes to, wouldn't send the nerve all the way down to the heart and back again when the gap between the start and finish is just a few inches. Only an idiot or someone who wasn't even paying remote attention would do that so how can a god, much more intelligent than us, have designed the animal in such a way?
You do realise evolution doesn't have an agenda? It's not thinking, how can I reroute this nerve so it's not stupidly long? It just works through very slight mutations, it would take a rather drastic mutation for the nerve to suddenly take the shortest route. Also, the nerve taking a long route has no affect on whether the animal lives or not, so even if there were a drastic mutation, it doesn't help with survival so the species as a whole would not evolve with this mutation. So the end result is that as necks grew ever so slightly, so did the nerve, so it ended up staying wrapped around the heart and just became very long as those slight mutations were a lot more likely.
However, the brain evolving helps the animals survival, so an animal with a somehow beneficially wired brain is more likely to survive and the species as a whole evolves with this new wiring. Having said that, I have no idea what you mean by the brain being "rewired" because I have no idea how the brain does what it does, I assume you were just referring to the way it works when you said wiring.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,734
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Apart from the fact that its not based on assumption, but is based on a number of peer reviewed papers supported by documented evidence from the fossil record.
Dawkin's is simply pointing out that one is based on a significant body of evidence and the other is ID.
And?
Did you wire up the cable by routing them out to the neighbours house and then back to your sons bedroom?
I doubt it, you took the most straight forward route with a specific aim in mind (to keep the cables tidy and not cause issues with the floor carpet having a bump in it.
According to who exactly?
- 1,214
There was one amazing case where a girl were born with only one half of the brain. The nerves of her eye which normally corrected to the missing half reroute to connect with the half she had.
My car is wired that way. The wires doesn't take the shortest route.
nice story. A giraffe start out as a single cell and nerves plays a huge role of embryo development.
nice story. Your main assumption is everything about life has to be about survival.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,734
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Citation please and aside from that its not a case of a nerve re-routing itself spontaneously.
Your car is? Then we can discuss exactly how its wired and the route the loom takes, particularity if its a multiplex system (in which case you will certainly be talking nonsense).
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
That's really quite interesting, but can all probably be explained through genetic mutations. My guess is that the nerves didn't reroute because half the brain was missing, just that the very major genetic mutation made half her brain disappear and changed her genes so that both her eyes worked using the other half of the brain. Famine might be able to give you more details as he knows quite a bit about genetics
But they are designed to take the most efficient way possible, this nerve by no means takes the most efficient route so is horribly designed if it is, unless you can prove there is a benefit for it wrapping around the heart?
But nerves are made of cells and also need to develop, so could you be a little more detailed how exactly they help, and how that exact nerve growing like it does would benefit an embryo?
I don't see how it's an assumption. Animals in nature are always competing to survive and pass on their genes. Mutations that help them survive means they are more likely to pass on their genes and pass on those mutations to the next generation. Mutations that hinder their survival means they are less likely to survive and pass on the mutations. The evidence that life, for most animals at least, is about survival and having an advantage over other animals is everywhere.
- 1,214
There are differences between how creature are developed and how man build things. In order to understand you need to look at it on a cellular level.
When I built my building I first laid the foundation then the floor. After I build the walls and put on a roof I start wiring it up. These wires are not connect to the power. No engineer would ever connect the power to the box before wiring the house/building. But this is exactly what happens in the embryo. The nerves are very active in development giving off impulses even while the nerve is not fully developed.
This is where Dawkins is misleading as the giraffe is not build first then the nerves add later like an engineer would with wires. I can build a building without adding power but the same is not true with living creatures.
We have moved both the router and my son Xbox 360 since I first lay down the cable . Instead of removing the cable and rerouting it on the opposite side of the room I had enough cable just to go around the wall. So the cable no longer takes the most direct route. This is be the same as nerves grow with the limbs
It's the same when I build my building the power line doesn't take to most direct route to the pole but instead loops back to the box on the side of the house.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...a-brain-retains-full-vision.html#.UeGXG23W-wc
I got extra long cable just in case we later decided to move stuff around (my wife is famous for) so I fail to see how flexibility is a "bad design".
Last edited:
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Zoom zoom, you still have given me any evidence of how the nerve being so long is beneficial. All you've done is say that nerves play a part in the development of the embryo, you haven't said why they do, or how this apparently unnecessarily long nerve is a result of that. Until you provide that evidence I see no reason to accept your point because if there is no benefit, then there is absolutely no reason for it to be so long.
To go back to your wire example, you choose not to move it to a shorter route because it required less effort to just stretch it around the wall, there was a benefit to doing that. As far as I can see there would be no benefit to making the nerve so long so only an idiot would design it that way.
To go back to your wire example, you choose not to move it to a shorter route because it required less effort to just stretch it around the wall, there was a benefit to doing that. As far as I can see there would be no benefit to making the nerve so long so only an idiot would design it that way.
- 1,214
No doubt the nerve doesn't start out that long in early development. The nerve isn't separate from the body unlike wires in a building. Without these nerves giving off impulses there is no growth.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Growth is due to cell division, not nerve impulses, nerves are just there to send electrical signals between the brain and the rest of the body, nothing to do with growth as far as I know.
Besides, that still doesn't explain why the nerve would grow in the way it does to create some benefit to embryo development.
