Natural Selection: The Blind Guide to Perfection

[Smoley]

The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.

What does Natural Selection do?

Let's think about it.

How did Natural Selection guide the random accidental process of DNA evolution?
Is the answer as simple as, "When DNA accidentally 'learned' to reproduce after it's own kind Natural Selection saw that it was good and established it."?

I think there may be a parallel here.

On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.

Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves. These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, accidentally.
Random strands of nerves began to shoot off into many directions by accidental mutation. Some strands at first appeared to be as thick blobs growing toward the organisms heart.... which was also somewhat blobby at first as it also randomly, accidentally developed.... Luckily, the nerve blob from the newly developed brain reached the heart eventually, by randomly growing in all directions. By random accident, the nerve cells began to randomly transmit electrical signals from the brain to the heart. The heart, which either had or would eventually randomly, accidentally evolve(d) muscles and a complex piping network complete with check valves and pressure regulators, began to pulse, accidentally to a rythm. Natural selection saw that this was good. Fortunately, the nerve cells stopped randomly growing, otherwise they would have begun to impose upon the other cells of random growth around them, such as the lung cells, blood cells, skin cells, fat cells, muscle cells, bone cells, and many other types of cells. E

ach of them randomly growing under the careful watch of Natural Selection.

Natural Selection was extremely satisfied with the newly accidentally developed heart as it was also with the newly accidentally developed lung(s), liver, stomach, kidney(s), intestines, mouth, tongue, nose, ears, eardrums, skin cells, muscles, bones, ligaments, eyes, and eye lashes which all desperately needed oxygen.

It is easy to see how important Natural Selection is to the process when you consider how random and accidental the process would be without it.

It is really simple to understand: An organism that accidentally grows a heart is more likely to survive. An organism that does not grow a heart, or an organism that grows a heart, but never a lung will not survive.

Let's try this again.

An organism that does not randomly grow taste buds is more likely to eat a poisonous root and die than an organism that randomly, accidentally grows taste buds after randomly, accidentally growing a mouth, tongue, teeth, hinged jaws with jaw muscles, a throat, esophagus, stomach, intestines, and a place to exit the left overs.

So you see how Natural Selection can take seemingly random accidents and turn them into well organized living factories.

[John Harshman]

On 10/5/12 5:08 PM, Smoley wrote:
> The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

Say, isn't this spintronic? I thought your were banned.

> Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of
> turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving
> the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection
> is the much needed God of the evolutionist.

Nope. Natural selection eliminates the "bad", has no effect on the
neutral, and preserves the beneficial. Not a good start. Nor does this
seem to have anything to do with God. It's a simple and obvious process
that can't help happening if organisms vary in their probability of
reproducing.

> What does Natural Selection do?
>
> Let's think about it.

That would be a good thing for you to try.

> How did Natural Selection guide the random accidental process of DNA evolution?
> Is the answer as simple as, "When DNA accidentally 'learned' to
> reproduce after it's own kind Natural Selection saw that it was good
> and established it."?

No. That has nothing at all to do with the answer. Really, it's very
simple. First, you need a system in which there is good but not perfect
reproduction. Then you need there to be different probabilities of
reproduction depending on heritable variation. Natural selection follows
inevitably. That's all.

> I think there may be a parallel here.

Thinking is not your forte.

[snip further embarrassments]

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 17:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Smoley
<smo...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

If you take your medication, you could then calm down long enough to
learn what scientists and science actually state and therefore defend.
Good luck.


--
Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average during Presidential election terms:
GH Bush: +50%; Clinton 1: +100%; Clinton 2: +60%; G W Bush 1: -3%;
GW Bush 2: -22%; Obama (thru Oct 3, 2012): +65%

[Boikat]

On Oct 5, 7:09�pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The lie: �Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

Yes, that is a lie.

>
> Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.

Oh, you were claiming that "perfection" was a claim made by
biologists, with regards to mutations and NS. Not only is that a lie,
it's also a strawman argument.

>
> What does Natural Selection do?
>
> Let's think about it.
>
> How did Natural Selection guide the random accidental process of DNA evolution?

It doesn't.

> Is the answer as simple as, "When DNA accidentally 'learned' to reproduce after it's own kind Natural Selection saw that it was good and established it."?
>
> I think there may be a parallel here.

<snip remaining sillyness>

Boikat

[Smoley]

First you need a system to accidentally evolve in which there is good, but not necessarily perfect reproduction.

I added a few words for clarification.

It's ok for you to believe that reproductive systems are accidental, but don't pretend that it is, in fact, so.

[Smoley]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:59:34 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> On Oct 5, 7:09�pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The lie: �Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>
>
>
> Yes, that is a lie.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.
>
>
>
> Oh, you were claiming that "perfection" was a claim made by
>
> biologists, with regards to mutations and NS. Not only is that a lie,
>
> it's also a strawman argument.
>

You are right, biologists like to pretend that there is no perfection in the wings of birds, or in the blink of an eye, or the beat of a heart.

But you know what, I don't care what opinion they have. They don't know perfection when they see it.

Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather, to an eagle's eye, to a fish's gills, to a polar bear's fur, to an oak tree, to a watermelon, and to a billion other living things.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/5/12 6:08 PM, Smoley wrote:

snipping stuff dealt with before

> On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
>
> Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves. These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, accidentally.
> Random strands of nerves began to shoot off into many directions by accidental mutation. Some strands at first appeared to be as thick blobs growing toward the organisms heart.... which was also somewhat blobby at first as it also randomly, accidentally developed.... Luckily, the nerve blob from the newly developed brain reached the heart eventually, by randomly growing in all directions. By random accident, the nerve cells began to randomly transmit electrical signals from the brain to the heart. The heart, which either had or would eventually randomly, accidentally evolve(d) muscles and a complex piping network complete with check valves and pressure regulators, began to pulse, accidentally to a rythm. Natural selection saw that this was good. Fortunately, the nerve cells stopped randomly growing, otherwise they would have begun to impose upon the other cells of random growth around them, such as the lung cells, blood cells, skin cells, fat cells, muscle cells, bone cell
s, and ma
ny other types of cells. E
>
> ach of them randomly growing under the careful watch of Natural Selection.

As I explained to you before, body parts evolved in conjunction with the
rest of the body. No one claims that nerves came from a single "random
accident", or any other body part suddenly appeared, unconnected, and
independently. Nerves, brains, muscles, hearts, eyes, etc evolved
together through a sequence of small steps, not as individual pieces
suddenly appearing.

You seem to have your ideas about mutations influenced by comic books.
In comic books, mutations happen to people, and they gain super powers.

In reality, mutations are small, incremental changes in the germ cell
lines that are passed on through reproduction. They aren't random
sudden appearance of individual body parts separated from anything else.


snip more straw man.


DJT

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 5, 6:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> The lie:  Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

OK: first, nothing new, or different from your other post.

Second: You are right--your "version" of Natural Selection"_is_ a
lie...a cartoon straw man that only barely resembles the NS in ToE.

Third, you have had it pointed out to you that "random accidents" does
not describe NS in ToE--so continuing to pretend that you are fairly,
or accurately, or honestly representing NS _or_ ToE is, in fact, a
demonstrable lie.

What _is_ itwith you people that have no problem lying, in order to
serve your "higher truth"? I mean, that's like adding words to
something a poster said, and claiming to have "fixed it"--since now it
says what _you_ believe, rather than what the original poster
claimed...'cause you know--that would be dishonest...
'

> Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones.

Again, there are so many mis-statements in thes short paragraph that
it is difficult to tell whether you are naive, unlettered, sack-of-
hammers stupid...or just dishonest.

1. What do _you_ mean by "evolutionist"?
2. Cite a reputable biologist characterizing ToE as "turning chaos
into order". Title, chapter, and verse, please. I'd like to know
whaere you got that idea...
3. "...killing off bad accidents" is almost impenetrable. Do you mean,
that beneficial mutations lead to higher reproductive success? Why
not say so? Or do you envision some demi-urge of NSsitting at the
judgmen tcell of the chromosomes , calling out:Bad luck--you die; good
luck, lots of kids...? 'Cause, yo uknow, that _isn't_ a valid
description of ToE.

...and so on.

It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the
evolutionist.

No, not at all. See that word, "natural"? The process works _without_
a "creator 'god' ". The process has been observed to work. A
"creator 'god' ", BTW, has _never_ been observed to work...

> What does Natural Selection do?

Well, you could read several decent, simple explanations you were
patiently offered in your other, very similar thread...

Or you could read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Natural_selection

...and many oter reputable sources...

> Let's think about it.

Or you could read, firt, to avoid making elementary mistakes, or
raising up straw men..

> How did Natural Selection guide the random accidental process of DNA evolution?
> Is the answer as simple as, "When DNA accidentally 'learned' to reproduce after it's own kind Natural Selection saw that it was good and established it."?

No, that isn't it at all, as has been explained to you. Continuing to
raise the same straw man, as if no one has pointed out to you that it
is not accurate, certainly _looks_ dishonest...

> I think there may be a parallel here.
>
> On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.

No, that isn't it at all, as has been explained to you. Continuing to
raise the same straw man, as if no one has pointed out to you that it
is not accurate, certainly _looks_ dishonest...
,

>
> Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves.

Can you provide a cite for this ...odd...characterization? I have
never encountered the theory that life began as a "huge blob of
nerves"...In fact, for most of the history of life on the planet,
living things did not have "nerves" at all--"nerves" are multi-
cellular structures, and for most of the planet's history, living
things were unicellular.

So, I would like to see your source for this...so that it does not
look so much like a dishonest fabrication.

>These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the >fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's >another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, >accidentally.

Again, would you mind providing your source for this (I hate to call
it an "idea")...ah: this load of claptrap? Are you quoting Jack
Chick, or are you making stuff up out of whole cloth? Where did you
get this? Title, chapter, page, please...

<snip the snidely stupid straw man>

Seriouosly, if you are going to spout random nonsense, and _pretend_
that you are accurately describing ToE, with no factual source, and no
factual basis; people are going to start mistaking you for 'Nando...
And trust me--you don't want that.

> It is really simple to understand:

Then why have you misunderstood it so thoroughly? Your "version ofNS
resembles no other that I have ever read. Do consider providing
sources.

>An organism that accidentally grows a heart is more likely to survive. An organism >that does not grow a heart, or an organism that grows a heart, but never a lung will >not survive.

Are you aware that ToE does _not_ claim that any organism could
"accidentally grow a heart"?

> Let's try this again.

Will this "try " be any more sensible, any more accurate,. any more
honest?

> An organism that does not randomly grow taste buds is more likely to eat a >poisonous root and die than an organism that randomly, accidentally grows taste >buds after randomly, accidentally growing a mouth, tongue, teeth, hinged jaws with >jaw muscles, a throat, esophagus, stomach, intestines, and a place to exit the left >overs.

OK, so, no, it will not be. How does telling lies like this advance
any portion of the truth? Who or what do you think you are serving,
or honoring, that you have to stoop to demonstrable lies to do so?

Admittedly, it is barely possible that you are simply fundamentally
misled--that these are lies you have been taught, that you do not
realize how transparently dishonest the things you are saying
are...this is why I am interested in your sources.

So please do cite where you got this.

> So you see how Natural Selection can take seemingly random accidents and turn >them into well organized living factories.

Interesting that it bears almost no significant resemblance to the
actual ToE.
Do you care? Or are you inextricably wedded, welted, welded to your
misconceptions?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 5, 7:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> First you need a system to accidentally evolve in which there is good, but not necessarily perfect reproduction.

> I added a few words for clarification.

Well, I guess that fulfills _my_ hypothetical...

FTR, what the poster _said_ was,

"First, you need a system in which there is good but not perfect
reproduction."

So, no, you did _not_ "add a few words for clarification"...you
inserted your own words, words that turned Harshman's simple, clear
explanation into your very own straw man; your very own lie.

What faith do you practice , that the "creator 'god' " you postulate
must be supported through dishonesty?

> It's ok for you to believe that reproductive systems are accidental, but don't pretend >that it is, in fact, so.

Sparky? _You_ added the word "accidental". It is ok for you to claim
that you believe that reproductive systems are "accidental"; it is
_not_ "ok" for you to put those words in someone else's mouth.

Am I being clear enough? it is a lie, a falsehood; it is bearing
false witness, for you to even _pretend_ that Harshman used the term,
"accidental". It is doubly dishonest to then attack Harshman for
_your_ lie.

You might consider the path of rectitude and honesty, instead...

<snip>

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 5, 7:24�pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> You are right, biologists like to pretend

...well, no. Actual biologists, observing the panoply of life, see
that the filtering effect of NS generally results in organisms that
are "good enough", not "perfect" Adapted to the environment,
certainly, but only more adapted than others...not "perfectly
adapted"...

>that there is no perfection in the wings of birds, or in the blink of an eye, or the beat >of a heart.

I agree. Each of these is the result of organisms being"good enough"
to outbreed their competitors.

> But you know what, I don't care what opinion they have.

nor for reality, apparently...

>They don't know perfection when they see it.

Right. Biologists just know that it isn't there to see...one of the
problems with ID and its ilk is that organisms are not, in general
very cleverly designed. Instead, you see organisms "cobbled
together"...building hearing and balance structures out of jaw hinges;
routing nerves along pathways inherited not for function, but because
that's where the nerves were in the original amniote plan...all sorts
of compromises.

> Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather,

...they wear out too fast, and are useless in rain, or if they get
oily...for a start...

<snip>

...I could play that game with all of your other examples, but it does
not prove much--I don't pretend to be able to design perfection.

OTH: do you really think it is "perfect" design that I am in constant
pain from a lifetime of standing upright, with a spine that was
inherited from organisms that went on all fours? That my joints are
wearing out before even my "threescore and ten"? That my "perfectly
designed" hearing is wearing out in precisely the range at which other
humans speak? That my "perfectly designed" vision is utterly blind
through most of the EM spectrum? That my vision is all forward, and
my bipedal stance is directional, making it easy to sneak up on me
from behind, and easy to push me over? That I swallow, and breathe,
with crisscrossing tubes connected to the same orifices? That I
reproduce, and excrete, out of the same orifices?

...and so on...

Find me the "perfection" there...

[Smoley]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 10:14:34 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 10/5/12 6:08 PM, Smoley wrote:
>
>
>
> snipping stuff dealt with before
>
>
>
> > On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
>
> >
>
> > Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves. These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, accidentally.
>
> > Random strands of nerves began to shoot off into many directions by accidental mutation. Some strands at first appeared to be as thick blobs growing toward the organisms heart.... which was also somewhat blobby at first as it also randomly, accidentally developed.... Luckily, the nerve blob from the newly developed brain reached the heart eventually, by randomly growing in all directions. By random accident, the nerve cells began to randomly transmit electrical signals from the brain to the heart. The heart, which either had or would eventually randomly, accidentally evolve(d) muscles and a complex piping network complete with check valves and pressure regulators, began to pulse, accidentally to a rythm. Natural selection saw that this was good. Fortunately, the nerve cells stopped randomly growing, otherwise they would have begun to impose upon the other cells of random growth around them, such as the lung cells, blood cells, skin cells, fat cells, muscle cells, bone cell
>
> s, and ma
>
> ny other types of cells. E
>
> >
>
> > ach of them randomly growing under the careful watch of Natural Selection.
>
>
>
> As I explained to you before, body parts evolved in conjunction with the
>
> rest of the body. No one claims that nerves came from a single "random
>
> accident", or any other body part suddenly appeared, unconnected, and
>
> independently. Nerves, brains, muscles, hearts, eyes, etc evolved
>
> together through a sequence of small steps, not as individual pieces
>
> suddenly appearing.
>

This is pure speculation.

>
> You seem to have your ideas about mutations influenced by comic books.
>
> In comic books, mutations happen to people, and they gain super powers.
>
>
>
> In reality, mutations are small, incremental changes in the germ cell
>
> lines that are passed on through reproduction. They aren't random
>
> sudden appearance of individual body parts separated from anything else.
>

This is not a fact.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 5, 9:44�pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:


<snip>

> This is not a fact.

<snip>

Well, yeah--what Dana said was,m in fact, a fact.
Live with it.
Or show support to disprove it--not just lies you make up.
Citations are good.

[Smoley]

Nothing bears any resemblance to the actual ToE does it?

Tell me, are birds products of random mutations and natural selection or were they purposely created?

[Boikat]

On Oct 5, 8:24�pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:59:34 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 7:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>
> > Yes, that is a lie.
>
> > > Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.
>
> > Oh, you were claiming that "perfection" was a claim made by
>
> > biologists, with regards to mutations and NS. �Not only is that a lie,
>
> > it's also a strawman argument.
>
> You are right, biologists like to pretend that there is no perfection in the wings of birds, or in the blink of an eye, or the beat of a heart.

They do not. "Perfection" implies an absolute. Accurate scientific
dialogue does not engage in applying absolutes in that context,
therefore, you are being dishonest.

>
> But you know what, I don't care what opinion they have. They don't know perfection when they see it.

Then you admit that you are misrepresenting what biologists say.

>
> Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather,

More durable.

> to an eagle's eye,

Even greater visual accuity.

> to a fish's gills,

Able to work out of water, too.

> to a polar bear's fur,

Polychromatic background reflectivity.

> to an oak tree,

Greater structural integrity.

> to a watermelon,

Mmove all the seed to a central cluster, like in honeydew mellons.

> and to a billion other living things.

A billion improvements.

In your case, I'd recommend increased intelligence.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 5, 10:19 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Nothing bears any resemblance to the actual ToE does it?

I am not sure what point you _think_ you are making, here...from the
ridiculous, repeated, contentious straw-man cartoons about the Theory
of Evolution you keep trying to pass of as what biologists "really
think", it is clear that either:

1. You do not understand, you have never understood, what Natural
Selection, as defined in ToE, actually is, or does; or--

2. You are not terribly concerned about honesty, preferring instead to
tell lies and attack them rather than deal with the actual theory.

I am still curious as to what concept of a "creator 'god' " you have,
that is honored, improved, supported, praised , or glorified by you
telling demonstrable lies. I would truly be interested in your
explanation...

To address your "question":

The actual Theory of Evolution shares a relationship with ToE; the
name of that relationship is "identity".

Follow:

1. If there are variations in a population; and,

2. If one or more of the variations confers a reproductive advantage
on the individuals exhibiting it, under current conditions; and,

3. Those variations are hereditable; then,

4. The genetic makeup of the population will change as those "best
adapted" to current situations reproduce more successfully than those
"less adapted".

5. (Corollary) If conditions change, different hereditable
characteristics (reflecting adaptation to different conditions) will
be selected for.

That is an _extremely_ simplified version, but it does point out a
point that is (to my taste) often glossed over, to wit:

A characteristic that is not present in a population cannot be
selected for. As an example, careless textbooks often say something
like "As the grasses upon which they fed developed the characteristic
of concentrating silicates in their stems, equids evolved tougher
teeth, to be able to eat those grasses."
Even for an elementary , or introductory text, I find that inexcusably
careless, depending upon the pathetic fallacy rather than explaining
the process.

Follow: for whatever reason, the grasses changed. Equids did not
change "in response" to the grasses. Instead, individuals continued
to eat the grasses, and those who could process them better had more,
and stronger, offspring. At that point, if a mutation that provided
even slightly stronger teeth were to occur, it would, under certain
circumstances, be preserved.

On the other hand, if the grasses changed enough, and the equids did
not experience a favorable mutation, the population (even the species)
would go extinct, if it were unable to be adapted to the change in
conditions.

Now, there are learned people on the NG that could complain about some
oversimplifications, and they would be right--but I am trying to put
it as as simply as I used to do for my 7th graders.

> Tell me, are birds products of random mutations and natural selection or were they >purposely created?

As outlined above, I see no evidence that birds were 'designed" or
"created". The physical forms of modern birds are the result of
stochastic, non-directed ("random" if you use the term _correctly_;
_not_ "accidental") mutations, filtered by natural selection. This is
why there are so many kinds of extinct birds. And why birds carry the
evidence of their common descent from coeleurosaurs. And why birds
exhibit nested hierarchical groupings. And why birds exhibit shared
derived characteristics.

[deadrat]

On 10/5/12 11:18 PM, Smoley wrote:
<snip/>

> Tell me, are birds products of random mutations and natural selection or were they purposely created?

I think birds were purposely created so flocks of them can take flying
dumps on your benighted posts to this newsgroup.

But that's just me.

[deadrat]

On 10/5/12 10:40 PM, Smoley wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 10:14:34 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 6:08 PM, Smoley wrote:

<snip/>

>> As I explained to you before, body parts evolved in conjunction with the
>> rest of the body. No one claims that nerves came from a single "random
>> accident", or any other body part suddenly appeared, unconnected, and
>> independently. Nerves, brains, muscles, hearts, eyes, etc evolved
>> together through a sequence of small steps, not as individual pieces
>> suddenly appearing.
>
> This is pure speculation.
>
>> You seem to have your ideas about mutations influenced by comic books.
>> In comic books, mutations happen to people, and they gain super powers.
>> In reality, mutations are small, incremental changes in the germ cell
>> lines that are passed on through reproduction. They aren't random
>> sudden appearance of individual body parts separated from anything else.
>
> This is not a fact.

You'll have to admit that Ol' Smoley's index fingers seem uncannily
designed -- one would have to almost say perfectly designed -- for
cramming into his external auditory canals so that he can remained
uninformed as he shouts, "Nyah, nyah, nyah. I can't heaaaaar you!"

I know there's a lot of evidence for evolution, but he might have a point.

I'm just sayin'.

[jillery]

And argument by unsupported assertion is not persuasive, except when
you're preaching to the choir. Perhaps you should practice more with
them.

[Nick Keighley]

On Oct 6, 1:09 am, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> The lie:  Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

this is indeed untrue. Evolution doesn't produce perfection (whatever
*that* is), it doesn't even, generally, produce optimal designs. Talk
to anyone with a back or knee problem.

> Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.

not really. No point in praying to blind forces. Those who are
persuaded of the logic and evidence for of evolutionary biology do not
necessarily need a God. This is a variant on the old "but deep down
you must *really* believe in God!"

I'm a bit dubious of your use of the word "chaos" above.

> What does Natural Selection do?
>
> Let's think about it.
>
> How did Natural Selection guide the random accidental process of DNA evolution?
> Is the answer as simple as, "When DNA accidentally 'learned' to reproduce after it's own kind Natural Selection saw that it was good and established it."?

you're dipping into abiogenesis here

> I think there may be a parallel here.

between what and what?

> On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.

well it was about a billion years (maybe less) after the formation of
the earth. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old.

> Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves.

even you must recognise this is a pure fairy story bearing no
resemblance what so ever to what evolutionary biology actually claims.
Please learn something about the theory you are criticising or (if you
actually know your stuff) stop lieing.

<snip more ridiculous fairy stories>

[Nick Keighley]

On Oct 6, 2:24 am, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:59:34 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 7:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> > Oh, you were claiming that "perfection" was a claim made by
> > biologists, with regards to mutations and NS.  Not only is that a lie,
> > it's also a strawman argument.
>
> You are right, biologists like to pretend that there is no perfection in the wings of birds,

is it the swallow or the penguin that has the perfect wing? Or the
bat?

> or in the blink of an eye, or the beat of a heart.
>
> But you know what, I don't care what opinion they have. They don't know perfection when they see it.
>
> Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather, to an eagle's eye,

all vertebrate eyes are wired backwards (the signal wires obscure the
optical sensors)

> to a fish's gills,

shark or boney fish

> to a polar bear's fur, to an oak tree,

an oak tree produces millions of acorns. Seem inefficient to me. And
all those autumn leaves!

> to a watermelon,

isn't that a domesticated crop? People obviously didn't think its
ancestral form was perfect. Or did god make watermelons? And hip
dysplasia in pure bred alsation dogs?

> and to a billion other living things.

mostly beetles.

<snip>

[eridanus]

El sábado, 6 de octubre de 2012 01:09:34 UTC+1, Smoley escribió:
> The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

What shit of argument is this?

From where do you take the word perfection?
It is scientific concept?

You look mostly to me a lunatic religious freak.
The word perfection I had heard it a lot from the attributes of god.
Then, this shit of perfection pertains to theology and perhaps to
poetry. But not to the natural sciences.

A boy is born with a Down syndrome, is this a sign of perfection?
A boy can be born blind is this a sign of perfection?
And what if the boy is born deaf? I knew a man who had one. Another
coworker had a girl with a Down syndrome. He went with his wife and
and the girl to Lourdes hoping for a miracle. He brought a little
bottle with holy water from Lourdes (France). What you want this for,
I asked him. "It is holy water" he said. "I sprinkled the girl with
the holy water". Very good idea, I replied.

You see on this shit any sign of perfection?

This morning a saw a video in which a US truck driver in Colombia
that answered the cell phone and his wife told him their daughter
had been hospitalized for she suffers cystic fibrosis. She was in
danger of dying.
Is this a a good example of perfection?


Even if god was in charge of all this shit... can be him "a god of
perfection"?
A tsunami had kills 350,000 people some years ago... the Indian Ocean
in year 2004 and this... is any evidence of the perfection of god
that made this wonderful planet?
In Haiti, all those poor blacks were breeding like rabbits to followed
the mandate of god that said, "start breeding like rabbits and do
not stop till I send you a plague to kill all of you of hunger". Well,
those poor Haitians were obeying the divine mandate of breeding like
rabbits, then a big earthquake killed 350,000 people.

This must be a prove of the perfection of a god creator.


We, the naturalist people do not pretend nature made us perfect, not
even evolution, not even this planet is perfect. If we were all made
perfect by our DNA there would not be any opportunity for evolution to
work. If there is an evolution is due to the fact that living beings
are not perfect, but simply survivals. Evolution makes sense if the
planet is not perfect and it is changing a way or the other. Sometimes
it is getting colder, sometimes is getting hotter. Or wetter or dryer.


This planet is good enough at present, but is not perfect.
Our kids are not perfect, we are not perfect. Not even our stupid
religious freaks are perfect. For they had problems with their
intelligence that is scarce.

Nobody is perfect in this planet. And God is not perfect either in
heavens for he has not made a perfect planet, not perfect humans,
not perfect dogs, not perfect dinosaurs, not perfect bedbugs, or
perfect intestinal worms, not perfect Ebola viruses, nor perfect
tigers, or perfect lions, not perfect meteorites to kill us all.

Perhaps god had not made yet the perfect meteorite that would kill
us tomorrow. Well, perhaps god had made already the perfect
supervolcano that would kill all humanity next year. A supervolcano
that is lying dormant in Yellowstone. But if god had made this
supervolcano, it does not qualify god as perfect god.
Only a mental retarded could think such a god is perfect.

You want a little more philosophizing about perfection?
I can give you a little more of this shit.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El sábado, 6 de octubre de 2012 11:59:32 UTC+1, Nick Keighley escribió:

> On Oct 6, 2:24�am, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:59:34 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 7:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > Oh, you were claiming that "perfection" was a claim made by
>

> > > biologists, with regards to mutations and NS. �Not only is that a lie,

>
> > > it's also a strawman argument.
>
> >
>
> > You are right, biologists like to pretend that there is no perfection in the wings of birds,
>
>
>
> is it the swallow or the penguin that has the perfect wing? Or the
>
> bat?
>
>
>
> > or in the blink of an eye, or the beat of a heart.
>
> >
>
> > But you know what, I don't care what opinion they have. They don't know perfection when they see it.
>
> >
>
> > Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather, to an eagle's eye,
>
>
>
> all vertebrate eyes are wired backwards (the signal wires obscure the
>
> optical sensors)
>
>
>
> > to a fish's gills,
>
>
>
> shark or boney fish
>
>
>
> > to a polar bear's fur, to an oak tree,
>
>
>
> an oak tree produces millions of acorns. Seem inefficient to me. And
>
> all those autumn leaves!
>
>
>
> > to a watermelon,
>
>
>
> isn't that a domesticated crop? People obviously didn't think its
>
> ancestral form was perfect. Or did god make watermelons? And hip
>
> dysplasia in pure bred alsation dogs?
>
>
>
> > and to a billion other living things.
>
>
>
> mostly beetles.
>

yeah. God loves insects. They are his preferred form of life.

Eridanus

[Smoley]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:29:34 AM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:24 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:59:34 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 7:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>
> >
>
> > > Yes, that is a lie.
>
> >
>
> > > > Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.
>
> >
>
> > > Oh, you were claiming that "perfection" was a claim made by
>
> >
>
> > > biologists, with regards to mutations and NS.  Not only is that a lie,
>
> >
>
> > > it's also a strawman argument.
>
> >
>
> > You are right, biologists like to pretend that there is no perfection in the wings of birds, or in the blink of an eye, or the beat of a heart.
>
>
>
> They do not. "Perfection" implies an absolute. Accurate scientific
>
> dialogue does not engage in applying absolutes in that context,
>
> therefore, you are being dishonest.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > But you know what, I don't care what opinion they have. They don't know perfection when they see it.
>
>
>
> Then you admit that you are misrepresenting what biologists say.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather,
>
>
>
> More durable.
>

lol, you can not improve a feather. You throw out this generalization but it means nothing.

Birds molt and grow new feathers = better than durable. A system in which old feathers are replaced by new feathers.

Also, how would you design a more durable feather? You can't. You wouldn't.
It is likely that a more durable feather would need to be thicker and heavier, perhaps not hollow, causing an overall negative impact on the bird's ability to fly.

>
>
> > to an eagle's eye,
>
>
>
> Even greater visual accuity.
>

All eagles are renowned for their excellent eyesight, and the bald eagle is no exception. They have two foveae or centers of focus, that allow the birds to see both forward and to the side at the same time. Bald eagles are capable of seeing fish in the water from several hundred feet above, while soaring, gliding or in flapping flight. This is quite an extraordinary feat, since most fish are counter-shaded, meaning they are darker on top and thus harder to see from above. Fishermen can confirm how difficult it is to see a fish just beneath the surface of the water from only a short distance away.
Young bald eagles have been known to make mistakes, such as attacking objects like plastic bottles floating on or just below the surface of the water. Bald eagles will locate and catch dead fish much more rapidly and efficiently than live fish, because dead fish float with their light underside up, making them easier to see.
Eagles have eyelids that close during sleep. For blinking, they also have an inner eyelid called a nictitating membrane. Every three or four seconds, the nictitating membrane slides across the eye from front to back, wiping dirt and dust from the cornea. Because the membrane is translucent, the eagle can see even while it is over the eye.
Eagles, like all birds, have color vision. An eagle's eye is almost as large as a human's, but its sharpness is at least four times that of a person with perfect vision. The eagle can probably identify a rabbit moving almost a mile away. That means that an eagle flying at an altitude of 1000 feet over open country could spot prey over an area of almost 3 square miles from a fixed position.

>
>
> > to a fish's gills,
>
>
>
> Able to work out of water, too.
>

?? The fish's gills work perfectly in the water. How would you improve that function?

Adding functions such as breathing out of the water would not be an improvement to the gills. Maybe you're thinking an improvement to the fish, but even then allowing the fish to spend time exposed at the surface or on dry land is not necessarily an improvement when hungry predators are around.

>
>
> > to a polar bear's fur,
>
>
>
> Polychromatic background reflectivity.
>
>
>
> > to an oak tree,
>
>
>
> Greater structural integrity.
>

How would you engineer that? Remember that water needs to be able to pass through it and that it needs to retain the ability to grow. Also it needs to flex in the wind. The leaves need to continue picking up sunlight and turning it into food for the tree.

Quite honestly there is no engineer in the world that could improve upon the oak tree. But if you have a real idea as to how it should be done, then post it.

>
>
> > to a watermelon,
>
>
>
> Mmove all the seed to a central cluster, like in honeydew mellons.
>

Ah, you are speaking of improving the watermelon from a human perspective? So that we can eat it without having to spit seeds, right?

But moving the seeds to the center is not an improvement for the watermelon itself.

>
>
> > and to a billion other living things.
>
>
>
> A billion improvements.
>
>
>
> In your case, I'd recommend increased intelligence.
>
>
>
> Boikat

Random accidents do not create perfection through natural selection.

[Boikat]

On Oct 6, 9:59 am, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:29:34 AM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 8:24 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:59:34 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 5, 7:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>
> > > > Yes, that is a lie.
>
> > > > > Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.
>
> > > > Oh, you were claiming that "perfection" was a claim made by
>
> > > > biologists, with regards to mutations and NS. Not only is that a lie,
>
> > > > it's also a strawman argument.
>
> > > You are right, biologists like to pretend that there is no perfection in the wings of birds, or in the blink of an eye, or the beat of a heart.
>
> > They do not.  "Perfection" implies an absolute.  Accurate scientific
>
> > dialogue does not engage in applying absolutes in that context,
>
> > therefore, you are being dishonest.
>
> > > But you know what, I don't care what opinion they have. They don't know perfection when they see it.
>
> > Then you admit that you are misrepresenting what biologists say.
>
> > > Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather,
>
> > More durable.
>
> lol, you can not improve a feather. You throw out this generalization but it means nothing.

As do your objections, pip-squeak

<snip remaining infantile bull-crap>

Boikat

[deadrat]

On 10/6/12 9:56 AM, Smoley wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:29:34 AM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 8:24 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>

<snip/>

>>> Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather,

>> More durable.

> lol, you can not improve a feather. You throw out this generalization but it means nothing.
> Birds molt and grow new feathers = better than durable. A system in which old feathers are replaced by new feathers.
> Also, how would you design a more durable feather? You can't. You wouldn't.

Mainly because feathers aren't designed. In the area of covering and
guiding flying things, engineers have designed things much more durable
than feathers.

> It is likely that a more durable feather would need to be thicker and heavier, perhaps not hollow, causing an overall negative impact on the bird's ability to fly.

You are so close to understanding evolution. We don't see radically
more durable feathers, say, ones made of titanium, because the
variability in a population must arise from that population with its
existing genetic makeup. And we don't see feather durability increasing
without limit, because, as you point out, many paths toward "better"
feathers mean compromises to other characteristics, which would be
"worse" for the bird overall. If birds gotta fly (so they can eat so
they can live so they can reproduce), then those that end up with more
durable feathers that significantly hinder flight won't get enough to
eat and won't live to reproduce and pass on they're hardier feathers.
Natural selection at work.

>>> to an eagle's eye,

>> Even greater visual accuity.

Forget eagles. How about my eye? Wouldn't it be a better design not to
have the electro-optic bus anchored in the middle of the image sensor?
This gives me a blind spot in my field of vision. I'm told the octopus
doesn't suffer from this visual flaw, so I know it's possible to avoid it.

<snip/>

>>> to a watermelon,

>> Mmove all the seed to a central cluster, like in honeydew mellons.

> Ah, you are speaking of improving the watermelon from a human perspective? So that we can eat it without having to spit seeds, right?
> But moving the seeds to the center is not an improvement for the watermelon itself.

It is if it encourages human beings to cultivate watermelons.

<snip/>

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/5/12 9:40 PM, Smoley wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 10:14:34 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 6:08 PM, Smoley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> snipping stuff dealt with before
>>
>>
>>
>>> On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves. These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, accidentally.
>>
>>> Random strands of nerves began to shoot off into many directions by accidental mutation. Some strands at first appeared to be as thick blobs growing toward the organisms heart.... which was also somewhat blobby at first as it also randomly, accidentally developed.... Luckily, the nerve blob from the newly developed brain reached the heart eventually, by randomly growing in all directions. By random accident, the nerve cells began to randomly transmit electrical signals from the brain to the heart. The heart, which either had or would eventually randomly, accidentally evolve(d) muscles and a complex piping network complete with check valves and pressure regulators, began to pulse, accidentally to a rythm. Natural selection saw that this was good. Fortunately, the nerve cells stopped randomly growing, otherwise they would have begun to impose upon the other cells of random growth around them, such as the lung cells, blood cells, skin cells, fat cells, muscle cells, bone ce
ll
>>
>> s, and ma
>>
>> ny other types of cells. E
>>
>>>
>>
>>> ach of them randomly growing under the careful watch of Natural Selection.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I explained to you before, body parts evolved in conjunction with the
>>
>> rest of the body. No one claims that nerves came from a single "random
>>
>> accident", or any other body part suddenly appeared, unconnected, and
>>
>> independently. Nerves, brains, muscles, hearts, eyes, etc evolved
>>
>> together through a sequence of small steps, not as individual pieces
>>
>> suddenly appearing.
>>
>
> This is pure speculation.

No, this is a conclusion reached by examining the evidence. It simply
wouldn't work the way you claimed.

>
>>
>> You seem to have your ideas about mutations influenced by comic books.
>>
>> In comic books, mutations happen to people, and they gain super powers.
>>
>>
>>
>> In reality, mutations are small, incremental changes in the germ cell
>>
>> lines that are passed on through reproduction. They aren't random
>>
>> sudden appearance of individual body parts separated from anything else.
>>
>
> This is not a fact.

Again, it wouldn't work the way you described it. Life really isn't
like comic books. I thought you would have learned that by now.

DJT

[Smoley]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:49:32 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
> El s�bado, 6 de octubre de 2012 01:09:34 UTC+1, Smoley escribi�:

>
> > The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>
>
>
> What shit of argument is this?
>
>
>
> From where do you take the word perfection?
>
> It is scientific concept?
>
>
>
> You look mostly to me a lunatic religious freak.
>
> The word perfection I had heard it a lot from the attributes of god.
>
> Then, this shit of perfection pertains to theology and perhaps to
>
> poetry. But not to the natural sciences.
>
>
>
> A boy is born with a Down syndrome, is this a sign of perfection?
>
> A boy can be born blind is this a sign of perfection?
>

The genes have a perfect beginning. When the genes evolve and mutate they produce things like Down syndrome.

> And what if the boy is born deaf? I knew a man who had one. Another
>
> coworker had a girl with a Down syndrome. He went with his wife and
>
> and the girl to Lourdes hoping for a miracle. He brought a little
>
> bottle with holy water from Lourdes (France). What you want this for,
>
> I asked him. "It is holy water" he said. "I sprinkled the girl with
>
> the holy water". Very good idea, I replied.
>
>
>
> You see on this shit any sign of perfection?
>
>
>
> This morning a saw a video in which a US truck driver in Colombia
>
> that answered the cell phone and his wife told him their daughter
>
> had been hospitalized for she suffers cystic fibrosis. She was in
>
> danger of dying.
>
> Is this a a good example of perfection?
>

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by a defective gene.

Mutations in genes tend to cause problems. They do not solve problems.

>
>
> Even if god was in charge of all this shit... can be him "a god of
>
> perfection"?
>
> A tsunami had kills 350,000 people some years ago... the Indian Ocean
>
> in year 2004 and this... is any evidence of the perfection of god
>
> that made this wonderful planet?
>
> In Haiti, all those poor blacks were breeding like rabbits to followed
>
> the mandate of god that said, "start breeding like rabbits and do
>
> not stop till I send you a plague to kill all of you of hunger". Well,
>
> those poor Haitians were obeying the divine mandate of breeding like
>
> rabbits, then a big earthquake killed 350,000 people.
>

Haitians practice Voodoo. I seriously doubt that the majority of them care about God's command to be fruitful.
Regardless, death is a part of God's curse upon the earth. It is appointed for all mankind to die and after that the judgement will come.

Are thorns, thistles, weeds, disease, mosquitoes, viruses, and death a part of God's perfect plan?

1 Peter 5:10 ��But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

It appears that it is. Suffering and death are part of God's curse upon earth.

Blessings and life are God's promises for the future when we are made "perfect".

So, yeah, the overall picture of life can not be counted as perfect because of the curse, but that wasn't my point.

The wing of a bird is perfectly designed for flying.... unless a random mistake occurs in the code, a random mutation.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/5/12 10:18 PM, Smoley wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 10:59:34 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:

snip

>>
>> Interesting that it bears almost no significant resemblance to the
>>
>> actual ToE.
>>
>> Do you care? Or are you inextricably wedded, welted, welded to your
>>
>> misconceptions?
>
> Nothing bears any resemblance to the actual ToE does it?

Nothing you've stated bears any resemblance to the actual theory of
evolution. Why not take a little time and find out exactly what the
theory of evolution is, and how it is proposed to work.

>
> Tell me, are birds products of random mutations and natural selection or were they purposely created?

False dichotomy again. Birds, like all living things, are the product
of a series of random mutations and ongoing natural selection over
millions of years. There's no evidence that birds, as a group, were
purposely created. Some particular types of birds, such as chickens,
geese, ducks, parrots, etc have been bred by humans for particular
characteristics, but as a whole, birds were not produced for any
specific purpose that can be determined.


DJT



>

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 6, 8:59�am, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> lol, you can not improve a feather. You throw out this generalization but it means nothing.
>
> Birds molt and grow new feathers = better than durable. A system in which old feathers are replaced by new feathers.
>
> Also, how would you design a more durable feather? �You can't. You wouldn't.
> It is likely that a more durable feather would need to be thicker and heavier, perhaps not hollow, causing an overall negative impact on the bird's ability to fly.

"A more durable feather" is not a generalization, but an example of
how a feather could be improved. An example if you will, that
feathers are not "perfect" as you claim, but "good enough"--exactly as
predicted by ToE.

A bird that did not have to devote a large amount of energy to
rebuilding its flying feathers several times a year would have an
advantage; would be an "improved design", which demonstrates that
feathers are not "perfect"--just "good enough".

<snip>

> �All eagles are renowned for their excellent eyesight, and the bald eagle is no exception. They have two foveae or centers of focus, that allow the birds to see both forward and to the side at the same time. Bald eagles are capable of seeing fish in the water from several hundred feet above, while soaring, gliding or in flapping flight. This is quite an extraordinary feat, since most fish are counter-shaded, meaning they are darker on top and thus harder to see from above. Fishermen can confirm how difficult it is to see a fish just beneath the surface of the water from only a short distance away.

> � �Young bald eagles have been known to make mistakes, such as attacking objects like plastic bottles floating on or just below the surface of the water. Bald eagles will locate and catch dead fish much more rapidly and efficiently than live fish, because dead fish float with their light underside up, making them easier to see.
> � �Eagles have eyelids that close during sleep. For blinking, they also have an inner eyelid called a nictitating membrane. Every three or four seconds, the nictitating membrane slides across the eye from front to back, wiping dirt and dust from the cornea. Because the membrane is translucent, the eagle can see even while it is over the eye.
> � �Eagles, like all birds, have color vision. An eagle's eye is almost as large as a human's, but its sharpness is at least four times that of a person with perfect vision. The eagle can probably identify a rabbit moving almost a mile away. That means that an eagle flying at an altitude of 1000 feet over open country could spot prey over an area of almost 3 square miles from a fixed position.

Fist off: an honest person,copying a webstie verbatim, includes the
cite of the website so that it does not look as if she is
plagiarizing. Plagiarism is dishonest, as well as lazy.

The source of your bit about eagles is
http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle2.html

If you continue to steal material without attributing it,people will
mistake you for UC--which you do _not_ want.

As to eagles' vision being perfect: if eagles had "perfect" vision, no
rabbit could ever escape just by holding still; no eagle could ever be
taken by a rabbit-shaped snare; no eaglet would ever attack the wrong
object...

Not "perfect", just "good enough"...exactly as predicted by ToE..

<snip>

> Adding functions such as breathing out of the water would not be an improvement to >the gills. Maybe you're thinking an improvement to the fish, but even then allowing the >fish to spend time exposed at the surface or on dry land is not necessarily an >improvement when hungry predators are around.

...So, in your opinion, being able to take advantage of multiple
niches is_not_ an advantage over being stuck in one? Many spieces
that became extinct as their habitat was destroyed would disagree with
you. Again, not "perfect", just "good enough"; which is what ToE
predicts.

<Snip more of the same, to avoid writing answers that will be ignored,
or lied about>

> Random accidents do not create perfection through natural selection.

Oddly enough, as has been pointed out to you on both these threads,
you are the _only_ poster that claims that it does..._no one_ who
understands ToE makes that silly claim.

"Not prefect--just good enough".

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 6, 3:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:49:32 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

<snip>

> The genes have a perfect beginning.

Well, no. "The genes" likely developed out of less complicated self-
replicating structures.

> When the genes evolve and mutate they produce things like Down syndrome.

1. Thank you for admitting that evolution does, in fact happen...

2. Also, thank you for admitting that ToE does not claim that NS
produces "perfection"; but instead selects among changes. Trisomy 21
is an example of a nonadaptive change--_not_ "perfection".

<snip>

>  Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by a defective gene.

But I thought your claim was that your "creator 'god' " had designed
things "perfectly"?
Did 'god' just _overlook_ genes?

Who sinned, the girl, or her parents?

> Mutations in genes tend to cause problems. They do not solve problems.

You are about one-third correct.

<snip>

> Haitians practice Voodoo

Shall we point fingers about generalizations? How many Haitian Voudun
do you, personally, know?

>. I seriously doubt that the majority of them care about God's command to be fruitful.
> Regardless, death is a part of God's curse upon the earth.

Well, now, _that's_ a perfect design...

> It is appointed for all mankind to die and after that the judgement will come.

According to your Bronze age superstition...
Things die--but not because of a "curse" of 'god'.

> Are thorns, thistles, weeds, disease, mosquitoes, viruses, and death a part of God's perfect plan?
>
> 1 Peter 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
>
> It appears that it is.  Suffering and death are part of God's curse upon earth.

According to the dubious texts of your Bronze age superstitions.
Looks like ToE to me. "Not perfect, just good enough".

> Blessings and life are God's promises for the future when we are made "perfect".

Once again, according to your Bronze Age superstition...with no
evidence in reality.

> So, yeah, the overall picture of life can not be counted as perfect because of the curse, but that wasn't my point.

But _why_ did "the curse" happen? Did 'god" not realize that his
"perfect creation" could be fooled by a talking snake?
Hard to argue that represents "perfection"...

> The wing of a bird is perfectly designed for flying.... unless a random mistake occurs in >the code, a random mutation.

Sparky: you are assuming your conclusion. You have not demonstrated
that the wing of a bird is :"designed" at all, much less "perfectly
designed"...especially since improvements can be proposed.
"Perfection" could not be improved upon.

<snip the rest of the stuff you didn't bother to read--again>

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/6/12 3:07 PM, Smoley wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:49:32 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

>snip

>>
>> A boy is born with a Down syndrome, is this a sign of perfection?
>>
>> A boy can be born blind is this a sign of perfection?
>>
> The genes have a perfect beginning. When the genes evolve and mutate they produce things like Down syndrome.

What evidence do you have that genes have a "perfect beginning"? Down
syndrome the the result of a doubling of a particular chromosome in the
set of 23. While some mutations produce effects like Down syndrome,
the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Some mutations are
beneficial, such as the mutation that confers resistance to diseases
like the Plague, and HIV.

>
>> And what if the boy is born deaf? I knew a man who had one. Another
>>
>> coworker had a girl with a Down syndrome. He went with his wife and
>>
>> and the girl to Lourdes hoping for a miracle. He brought a little
>>
>> bottle with holy water from Lourdes (France). What you want this for,
>>
>> I asked him. "It is holy water" he said. "I sprinkled the girl with
>>
>> the holy water". Very good idea, I replied.
>>
>>
>>
>> You see on this shit any sign of perfection?
>>
>>
>>
>> This morning a saw a video in which a US truck driver in Colombia
>>
>> that answered the cell phone and his wife told him their daughter
>>
>> had been hospitalized for she suffers cystic fibrosis. She was in
>>
>> danger of dying.
>>
>> Is this a a good example of perfection?
>>
>
> Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by a defective gene.
>
> Mutations in genes tend to cause problems. They do not solve problems.

Mutations to genes can "cause problems" but more likely they are
neutral. Some mutations produce beneficial effects, like the mutation
that permits humans to digest lactose. The idea that mutations only
cause problems is wrong.

You also haven't addressed the fact that nothing is "perfect" in living
things. There's no evidence that living things ever were perfect.


snip

Well,
>>
>> those poor Haitians were obeying the divine mandate of breeding like
>>
>> rabbits, then a big earthquake killed 350,000 people.
>>
> Haitians practice Voodoo.

So do people in the US, and in other countries. That's hardly a reason
for hundreds of thousands to die in an earthquake.

> I seriously doubt that the majority of them care about God's command to be fruitful.

The vast majority of Haitians are Christian. 97% identify themselves as
Christian. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Haiti


Haiti is also the most populous country in the Caribbean, so
apparently they do take the command about being fruitful seriously.

Voodoo, in any case, is a mix of Western, African, and native American
religious traditions. It's no better, or worse, relatively speaking,
than any other religious tradition held by a group of people.

Not only are you wrong, you are being racist as well.

> Regardless, death is a part of God's curse upon the earth. It is appointed for all mankind to die and after that the judgement will come.

There's no evidence of "God's curse" on the earth. Death is part of
life, and always has been. Without death, life isn't possible to
continue.

>
> Are thorns, thistles, weeds, disease, mosquitoes, viruses, and death a part of God's perfect plan?
>

> 1 Peter 5:10 詐ut the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

>
> It appears that it is. Suffering and death are part of God's curse upon earth.

Again, there is no evidence of any "curse" on the earth. The idea of
God cursing the entire Earth, just because of a mistake of two naive
individuals is not only sadistic, but irrational.

>
> Blessings and life are God's promises for the future when we are made "perfect".

There's no evidence that anything was ever "perfect" or will be.

>
> So, yeah, the overall picture of life can not be counted as perfect because of the curse, but that wasn't my point.

There's no evidence of any such curse. The "curse" story is a myth to
explain why bad things exist if God is loving and caring.

>
> The wing of a bird is perfectly designed for flying.

No, it's fairly well adapted, but hardly perfect. Human engineers can
make wings much more efficient, and capable of supersonic flight.

> ... unless a random mistake occurs in the code, a random mutation.

a random mutation may make a birds wing more efficient. More likely,
it will make no difference. Evolution works by maximizing the
beneficial mutations, and culling out the bad ones.

DJT

[jillery]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:07:46 -0700 (PDT), Smoley
<smo...@earthlink.net> wrote:


[...]

> Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by a defective gene.

'Defective' is your unapt characterization. According to Wikipedia:

"is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder affecting most critically
the lungs, and also the pancreas, liver, and intestine."

which means it is similar to sickle-cell anemia, that it requires the
inheritance of two recessive genes to express the disease.

>Mutations in genes tend to cause problems. They do not solve problems.

Inheritance of one recessive CFTR gene promotes resistance to cholera,
typhoid, diarrhea, and tuberculosis, all seriously fatal in the
overcrowded and unhygenic conditions of premodern civilizations.
Sounds like a problem-solver to me, although admittedly not an
intelligently designed one.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/5/12 9:18 PM, Smoley wrote:
>> [snip stuff Smoley skipped]

> Nothing bears any resemblance to the actual ToE does it?

Nothing that has ever penetrated your skull.

But even Smoley has got to admit, now that he has rejected all remotely
religious explanations, that leaves evolution as the best explanation
known for the origin of life forms.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[SkyEyes]

On Oct 5, 5:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> The lie:  Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

Stop right there: please define "perfection," and then indicate which
species has achieved it. After you do that, we'll proceed with the
rest of your...argument.

Thanks awfully.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

On Oct 5, 6:24�pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:59:34 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:

> > On Oct 5, 7:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>

> > Yes, that is a lie.
>

> > > Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.
>

> > Oh, you were claiming that "perfection" was a claim made by
>
> > biologists, with regards to mutations and NS. �Not only is that a lie,
>
> > it's also a strawman argument.
>
> You are right, biologists like to pretend that there is no perfection in the wings of birds, or in the blink of an eye, or the beat of a heart.

That's some mighty pretty speechifyin', Smoley ol' chum, but it's not
accurate. Perfection, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder.
The things you mention are *not* implicitly "perfect."

>
> But you know what, I don't care what opinion they have. They don't know perfection when they see it.

Neither, apparently, do *you*.
>
> Tell me, if you can, what improvements you would make to a single feather, to an eagle's eye, to a fish's gills, to a polar bear's fur, to an oak tree, to a watermelon, and to a billion other living things.

Well, for one thing, I'd design the human knee so that it didn't
deteriorate after a mere 55 years of use.

Secondly, I'd design the human reproductive system so that their big-
headed babies could pass through the birth canal without nearly
tearing the mother to shreds. *And*, in my design, the mother would
be able to easily give birth to the big-headed baby *and* still be
able to walk and run properly.

Thirdly, I'd make the human windpipe separate from the human
esophagus, so that one could breathe and eat at the same time and not
be in danger of aspirating their food and either choking on it, or, as
my father did, dying of pneumonia from having inhaled food particles.

Fourthly...

Oh, never mind. You aren't paying attention anyway, are you, Smoley?

I didn't think so. *You* are here to proselytize, aren't you? Know
how I know? Because 50 years ago, I *was* you.

Go take some actual science courses, please.

[SkyEyes]

On Oct 5, 8:44 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 10:14:34 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > On 10/5/12 6:08 PM, Smoley wrote:
>
> > snipping stuff dealt with before
>
> > > On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
>
> > > Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves. These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, accidentally.
>
> > > Random strands of nerves began to shoot off into many directions by accidental mutation. Some strands at first appeared to be as thick blobs growing toward the organisms heart.... which was also somewhat blobby at first as it also randomly, accidentally developed.... Luckily, the nerve blob from the newly developed brain reached the heart eventually, by randomly growing in all directions.  By random accident, the nerve cells began to randomly transmit electrical signals from the brain to the heart. The heart, which either had or would eventually randomly, accidentally evolve(d) muscles and a complex piping network complete with check valves and pressure regulators, began to pulse, accidentally to a rythm. Natural selection saw that this was good. Fortunately, the nerve cells stopped randomly growing, otherwise they would have begun to impose upon the other cells of random growth around them, such as the lung cells, blood cells, skin cells, fat cells, muscle cells, bone cell
>
> >  s, and ma
>
> > ny other types of cells. E
>
> > > ach of them randomly growing under the careful watch of Natural Selection.
>
> > As I explained to you before, body parts evolved in conjunction with the
>
> > rest of the body.  No one claims that nerves came from a single "random
>
> > accident", or any other body part suddenly appeared, unconnected, and
>
> > independently.    Nerves, brains, muscles, hearts, eyes, etc evolved
>
> > together through a sequence of small steps, not as individual pieces
>
> > suddenly appearing.
>
> This is pure speculation.

No, actually, there are data behind it. Mountains and mountains and
mountains of it.

>
>
>
> > You seem to have your ideas about mutations influenced by comic books.
>
> > In comic books, mutations happen to people, and they gain super powers.
>
> >    In reality, mutations are small, incremental changes in the germ cell
>
> > lines that are passed on through reproduction.  They aren't random
>
> > sudden appearance of individual body parts separated from anything else.
>
> This is not a fact.

Yes, actually, it *is*.

Let me ask you a question, Smol: can you drink milk, or are you
lactose intolerant? If the former, you're the beneficiary of a small,
incremental mutation that gives you an evolutionary edge - there's a
food source (dairy) that you can utilize that approximately 60% of
people alive today *cannot*.

[SkyEyes]

What "actual" ToE are you talking about? I suspect it's the strawman
version you were taught (just as I was) in Sunday school. Which,
trust me, ain't even close to the real version.

>
> Tell me, are birds products of random mutations and natural selection or were they purposely created?

They're products of mutations and NS, of course.

In order to claim they were created, *first* you have to demonstrate
the existence of a "creator."

[SkyEyes]

On Oct 6, 2:09 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:49:32 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
> > El s bado, 6 de octubre de 2012 01:09:34 UTC+1, Smoley  escribi :
>
> > > The lie:  Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>
> > What shit of argument is this?
>
> > From where do you take the word perfection?
>
> > It is scientific concept?
>
> > You look mostly to me a lunatic religious freak.
>
> > The word perfection I had heard it a lot from the attributes of god.
>
> > Then, this shit of perfection pertains to theology and perhaps to
>
> > poetry.  But not to the natural sciences.
>
> > A boy is born with a Down syndrome, is this a sign of perfection?
>
> > A boy can be born blind is this a sign of perfection?
>
> The genes have a perfect beginning. When the genes evolve and mutate they produce things like Down syndrome.

Sometimes. They also produce things like the ability to drink milk
into adulthood, something that ~40% of the human population on earth
now enjoys, having had the ability passed down from either northern
European ancestors or from a subset of African ancestors that
developed the ability independently.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And what if the boy is born deaf?  I knew a man who had one. Another
>
> > coworker had a girl with a Down syndrome.  He went with his wife and
>
> > and the girl to Lourdes hoping for a miracle.  He brought a little
>
> > bottle with holy water from Lourdes (France). What you want this for,
>
> > I asked him.  "It is holy water" he said.  "I sprinkled the girl with
>
> > the holy water".  Very good idea, I replied.
>
> > You see on this shit any sign of perfection?
>
> > This morning a saw a video in which a US truck driver in Colombia
>
> > that answered the cell phone and his wife told him their daughter
>
> > had been hospitalized for she suffers cystic fibrosis. She was in
>
> > danger of dying.
>
> > Is this a a good example of perfection?
>
>  Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by a defective gene.

Yup. So is my brother's preternaturally good eyesight, the one
physical break he has gotten in his life.

>
> Mutations in genes tend to cause problems. They do not solve problems.

I ask again: are you able to drink milk as an adult?

Or maybe I should be asking...*are* you an adult? No, no, I won't ask
that. I'll keep the snarky ad homs for alt.atheism, where they're
more appropriate. (My Dog, but I'm in a charitable mood tonight!)

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Even if god was in charge of all this shit... can be him "a god of
>
> > perfection"?
>
> > A tsunami had kills 350,000 people some years ago... the Indian Ocean
>
> > in year 2004 and this... is any evidence of the perfection of god
>
> > that made this wonderful planet?
>
> > In Haiti, all those poor blacks were breeding like rabbits to followed
>
> > the mandate of god that said, "start breeding like rabbits and do
>
> > not stop till I send you a plague to kill all of you of hunger".  Well,
>
> > those poor Haitians were obeying the divine mandate of breeding like
>
> > rabbits, then a big earthquake killed 350,000 people.
>
> Haitians practice Voodoo. I seriously doubt that the majority of them care about God's command to be fruitful.
> Regardless, death is a part of God's curse upon the earth. It is appointed for all mankind to die and after that the judgement will come.

Got an L.O.V.E. - logical, objective, verifiable evidence - that *any*
god exists, including the bible god? (Bible verses, BTW, do *not*
count as "evidence.")

>
> Are thorns, thistles, weeds, disease, mosquitoes, viruses, and death a part of God's perfect plan?

No, there's no evidence that any god exists, including yours. Thorns,
thistles, weeds, disease, mosquitoes, and (I think?) viruses are all a
product of natural selection. They serve purposes, it's just that
sometimes human purposes are not the same. The mosquito that bites
you is working towards its own beneficial purposes. It's not the
mosquito's fault that you don't enjoy being bitten, or that you can
get sick from it.

Everything in your world is centered around humans, isn't it? I
remember, not fondly, of a time when *I* thought that way as well.
When the entire sweep of nature was just a big stage whereon a
morality play between God and Man went on.

Sad old days. Now I realize that I'm a part of a wonderful web of
life, and that every living thing is my relative - even that
mosquito. Unlike *you*, I don't have to wait to die in order to go to
heaven. I'm *in* heaven already, mosquitos and all, right here on
this earth.

I pity you.

>
> 1 Peter 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

Bible quotes prove nothing. The bible is a book of Bronze and Iron
Age mythology, along with some folk wisdom, like "a kind word turneth
away wrath," which is perfectly true.

>
> It appears that it is.  Suffering and death are part of God's curse upon earth.

No, it "appears" to be nothing of the sort, and won't, unless and
until you can demonstrate that such a beastie as a "god" (1) *actually
exists*; and (2) is the same "god" that wrote/inspired/dictated a holy
book; and that (3) *your* holy book is the same one.

Get crackin', Smoley, you got some 'splainin' to do.

>
> Blessings and life are God's promises for the future when we are made "perfect".

Perfect is *boring*.

>
> So, yeah, the overall picture of life can not be counted as perfect because of the curse, but that wasn't my point.

Your point is that the last ~200 years of scientific enquiry should be
cast down in favor of tales made up 3,000 years ago by goat herders
and written down in a much-edited book.

>
> The wing of a bird is perfectly designed for flying.... unless a random mistake occurs in the code, a random mutation.

Yup. Shit happens. Like the one out of every ~150,000 horse births
where a foal is born with toes, an evolutionary throw-back to
ancestors of modern horses.

[deadrat]

On 10/6/12 4:07 PM, Smoley wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:49:32 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

<snip/>

> Haitians practice Voodoo. I seriously doubt that the majority of them care about God's command to be fruitful.
> Regardless, death is a part of God's curse upon the earth. It is appointed for all mankind to die and after that the judgement will come.

Sorry to repeat myself, but here's how I think that judgment will come
about. You will find yourself in a large room sitting in one of those
high-school desks you hated so much. The desks with their occupants
stretch as far as you can see in all direction. In front of you is a
single piece of paper and a pencil. A Divine Voice says, "Turn over
your paper and begin." You turn over your paper and find one question:
Explain the theory of evolution.

You raise your hand, and the Voice asks "Yes?" and you say in a tremolo,
"But I don't believe in the theory of evolution."

"You don't have to," says the Voice. "You just have to understand it.
That shouldn't be so hard. I gave you a brain, after all."

"But," you protest. "I thought this would be a true/false test."

"Well," replies the Voice. You were wrong.

<snip/>

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/6/12 2:07 PM, Smoley wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:49:32 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>> El s�bado, 6 de octubre de 2012 01:09:34 UTC+1, Smoley escribi�:
>>
>>> The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

>>[...]

>> A boy is born with a Down syndrome, is this a sign of perfection?
>>
>> A boy can be born blind is this a sign of perfection?
>>
> The genes have a perfect beginning.

You made that up.

> When the genes evolve and mutate they produce things like Down syndrome.

Ah, so you do recognize the fact of evolution.

> Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by a defective gene.
> Mutations in genes tend to cause problems. They do not solve problems.

Sometimes mutations can solve problems. You know that.

>> In Haiti, all those poor blacks were breeding like rabbits to followed
>> the mandate of god that said, "start breeding like rabbits and do
>> not stop till I send you a plague to kill all of you of hunger". Well,
>> those poor Haitians were obeying the divine mandate of breeding like
>> rabbits, then a big earthquake killed 350,000 people.
>>
> Haitians practice Voodoo. I seriously doubt that the majority of
> them care about God's command to be fruitful.

Catholicism is the official and by far the majority religion of Haiti.

> Regardless, death is a part of God's curse upon the earth. It is
> appointed for all mankind to die and after that the judgement
> will come.
>
> Are thorns, thistles, weeds, disease, mosquitoes, viruses, and
> death a part of God's perfect plan?

What's it to you? You have rejected God and anything to do with him.

> So, yeah, the overall picture of life can not be counted as perfect
> because of the curse, but that wasn't my point.

If a curse is made by a perfect being, then isn't the curse itself
perfect, along with all its effects?

[eridanus]

that was a fantastic reply, jillery. I loved it. I admired you
for being so alert to all this.

I was not in mood to reply to this guy that said "defective gene".
I do not liked the expression. But I was not well informed to reply.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2012 08:09:30 UTC+1, Mark Isaak escribió:
> On 10/6/12 2:07 PM, Smoley wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:49:32 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>

> >> El s�bado, 6 de octubre de 2012 01:09:34 UTC+1, Smoley escribi�:

I loved this last question. If a god creator is perfect, all that come
out of his hands is also perfect, like little monster kid, formed by
two brothers fused into one body, with four legs, four arms and two
heads.

It is as perfect as the plasmodium of the malaria, the Ebola virus, or
the whole humanity dying of hunger after the oil we are eating would
disappear.

Even a criminal is a perfection or other sort of freaks. For all are
the products of perfect creator.

Eridanus

[Matchstick]

In article <a77e8869-a593-4573...@googlegroups.com>,
smo...@earthlink.net says...

> lol, you can not improve a feather

Just out of curiosity, does this mean that all feathers are perfect,
even when there are quite extreme differences between the feathers of
different species.

For example a Penguin feather is radically different to that of a
Kestrel, but are both equally perfect ?

--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic

[MarkA]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 14:07:46 -0700, Smoley wrote:

> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:49:32 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>> El s�bado, 6 de octubre de 2012 01:09:34 UTC+1, Smoley
>> escribi�:
>>
>> > The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>>
>>
>>
>> What shit of argument is this?
>>
>>
>>
>> From where do you take the word perfection?
>>
>> It is scientific concept?
>>
>>
>>
>> You look mostly to me a lunatic religious freak.
>>
>> The word perfection I had heard it a lot from the attributes of god.
>>
>> Then, this shit of perfection pertains to theology and perhaps to
>>
>> poetry. But not to the natural sciences.
>>
>>
>>
>> A boy is born with a Down syndrome, is this a sign of perfection?
>>
>> A boy can be born blind is this a sign of perfection?
>>
> The genes have a perfect beginning. When the genes evolve and mutate they
> produce things like Down syndrome.

Not to be picky, but Down's syndrome is not caused by a defective gene.
It is caused by a failure of chromosomes to properly distribute themselves
into oocytes during the process of meiosis.

If you are going to pontificate on biology and evolution, at least learn
the basics.


--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[MarkA]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:40:09 -0700, Smoley wrote:

> On Friday, October 5, 2012 10:14:34 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 6:08 PM, Smoley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> snipping stuff dealt with before
>>
>>
>>

>> > On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural
>> > Selection saw that it was good.
>>
>>
>> >

>> > Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves. These nerves

>> > served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for
>> > the fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the
>> > organism, but that's another story.....Then one day the nerves began
>> > to function as a brain, randomly, accidentally.
>>

>> You seem to have your ideas about mutations influenced by comic books.
>>
>> In comic books, mutations happen to people, and they gain super powers.
>>
>>
>>
>> In reality, mutations are small, incremental changes in the germ cell
>>
>> lines that are passed on through reproduction. They aren't random
>>
>> sudden appearance of individual body parts separated from anything else.
>>
>>
> This is not a fact.
>

So, explain to me, Smoley, why animals have digestive tracts? If God
designed us to be "perfect", and there was no death in the world before
"The Fall", why did we need to eat? It's not as if we could starve to
death. How about the heart? It's only function is to pump blood to the
cells, *so they don't die*. If cells can't die, why the need for a
circulatory system?

Clearly, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and God banished them
from Eden, God had to re-design every living thing so that they would have
the organs necessary to keep themselves alive, in a world where dying was
now a possibility. I would think that such a radical change in anatomy
would be mentioned in the bible, wouldn't you?

We won't even start on whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons!

[chris thompson]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:19:34 AM UTC-4, Smoley wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 10:59:34 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>

> > On Oct 5, 6:09�pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The lie: �Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > > On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > No, that isn't it at all, as has been explained to you. Continuing to
>
> >
>
> > raise the same straw man, as if no one has pointed out to you that it
>
> >
>
> > is not accurate, certainly _looks_ dishonest...
>
> >
>
> > ,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > Can you provide a cite for this ...odd...characterization? I have
>
> >
>
> > never encountered the theory that life began as a "huge blob of
>
> >
>
> > nerves"...In fact, for most of the history of life on the planet,
>
> >
>
> > living things did not have "nerves" at all--"nerves" are multi-
>
> >
>
> > cellular structures, and for most of the planet's history, living
>
> >
>
> > things were unicellular.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So, I would like to see your source for this...so that it does not
>
> >
>
> > look so much like a dishonest fabrication.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > >These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the >fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's >another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, >accidentally.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> Tell me, are birds products of random mutations and natural selection or were they purposely created?

Tell me, if birds were purposely created, why is their 4-chambered heart different from the 4-chambered heart of mammals?

Chris

[jillery]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:49:16 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

I imagine God's bellybutton has collected a lot of lint over the
milleniums.

[hersheyh]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:09:34 PM UTC-4, Smoley wrote:
> The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>

Who says that random accidents + natural selection leads to perfection? Perfection is not the end
result of evolution. Relative improvement is. As the story goes, I don't have to run faster than the
bear, I only have to run faster than you. Evolution leads to "sufficing" to the extent that options
are available. It does not lead to bones so strong that they could survive a 100 ft drop. Such bones
would be nice (so would backs designed for bipedalism), but are more 'expensive' than 'useful'.

> Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.

>
>
>
> What does Natural Selection do?
>
>
>

> Let's think about it.
>
>
>

> How did Natural Selection guide the random accidental process of DNA evolution?
>
> Is the answer as simple as, "When DNA accidentally 'learned' to reproduce after it's own kind Natural Selection saw that it was good and established it."?
>
>
>

> I think there may be a parallel here.
>
>
>

> On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
>
>
>
> Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves. These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, accidentally.

If that is what you think was involved, you have a very strange and nonsense idea about evolution.
Those were similar to the ideas of some of the ancient Greek philosophers, but have not been
part of biology since then.

> Random strands of nerves began to shoot off into many directions by accidental mutation. Some strands at first appeared to be as thick blobs growing toward the organisms heart.... which was also somewhat blobby at first as it also randomly, accidentally developed.... Luckily, the nerve blob from the newly developed brain reached the heart eventually, by randomly growing in all directions. By random accident, the nerve cells began to randomly transmit electrical signals from the brain to the heart. The heart, which either had or would eventually randomly, accidentally evolve(d) muscles and a complex piping network complete with check valves and pressure regulators, began to pulse, accidentally to a rythm. Natural selection saw that this was good. Fortunately, the nerve cells stopped randomly growing, otherwise they would have begun to impose upon the other cells of random growth around them, such as the lung cells, blood cells, skin cells, fat cells, muscle cells, bone cells, and many other types of cells.

E
>
Again, the above is some sort of nonsense idea you have, having nothing to do with what
biologists actually think.

>
> ach of them randomly growing under the careful watch of Natural Selection.
>
>
>

> Natural Selection was extremely satisfied with the newly accidentally developed heart as it was also with the newly accidentally developed lung(s), liver, stomach, kidney(s), intestines, mouth, tongue, nose, ears, eardrums, skin cells, muscles, bones, ligaments, eyes, and eye lashes which all desperately needed oxygen.
>
>
>
> It is easy to see how important Natural Selection is to the process when you consider how random and accidental the process would be without it.
>
>
>

> It is really simple to understand: An organism that accidentally grows a heart is more likely to survive. An organism that does not grow a heart, or an organism that grows a heart, but never a lung will not survive.

>
>
>
> Let's try this again.
>
>
>

> An organism that does not randomly grow taste buds is more likely to eat a poisonous root and die than an organism that randomly, accidentally grows taste buds after randomly, accidentally growing a mouth, tongue, teeth, hinged jaws with jaw muscles, a throat, esophagus, stomach, intestines, and a place to exit the left overs.
>
>
>

> So you see how Natural Selection can take seemingly random accidents and turn them into well organized living factories.

The above is a load of crap ideas that you must have learned in Bible kindergarten somewhere.

[Frank J]

On 9 Oct, 19:59, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:09:34 PM UTC-4, Smoley wrote:
> > The lie:  Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>
> Who says that random accidents + natural selection leads to perfection?

Not "evolutionists." But these trolls know that, and try to pull our
chains anyway.

(snip)

>
> The above is a load of crap ideas that you must have learned in Bible kindergarten somewhere.

As you know, the Bible doesn't say that, or anything about evolution.
It does give origins stories that read like they were meant to be
allegorical, then later reinforces that suspicion with "the letter
killeth, but the spirit giveth life." At best those origins stories
were honest hypotheses based on the scant evidence available at the
time. The Bible also says "thou shalt not bear false witness," which
may be why most Bible-based religions accept evolution, and don't
recycle long-refuted nonsense like these trolls.

[chris thompson]

On Oct 5, 8:09�pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The lie: �Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection
>

> Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection is the much needed God of the evolutionist.
>
> What does Natural Selection do?
>
> Let's think about it.
>
> How did Natural Selection guide the random accidental process of DNA evolution?
> Is the answer as simple as, "When DNA accidentally 'learned' to reproduce after it's own kind Natural Selection saw that it was good and established it."?
>
> I think there may be a parallel here.
>
> On the 10th billion year, random accidents created life and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
>
> Random accidents at first created a huge blob of nerves. These nerves served no purpose, therefore these nerves were neutral... except for the fact that they used resources without providing any benefit to the organism, but that's another story.....Then one day the nerves began to function as a brain, randomly, accidentally.

> Random strands of nerves began to shoot off into many directions by accidental mutation. Some strands at first appeared to be as thick blobs growing toward the organisms heart.... which was also somewhat blobby at first as it also randomly, accidentally developed.... Luckily, the nerve blob from the newly developed brain reached the heart eventually, by randomly growing in all directions. �By random accident, the nerve cells began to randomly transmit electrical signals from the brain to the heart. The heart, which either had or would eventually randomly, accidentally evolve(d) muscles and a complex piping network complete with check valves and pressure regulators, began to pulse, accidentally to a rythm. Natural selection saw that this was good. Fortunately, the nerve cells stopped randomly growing, otherwise they would have begun to impose upon the other cells of random growth around them, such as the lung cells, blood cells, skin cells, fat cells, muscle cells, bone cells, and many other types of cells.

E
>

> ach of them randomly growing under the careful watch of Natural Selection.
>
> Natural Selection was extremely satisfied with the newly accidentally developed heart as it was also with the newly accidentally developed lung(s), liver, stomach, kidney(s), intestines, mouth, tongue, nose, ears, eardrums, skin cells, muscles, bones, ligaments, eyes, and eye lashes which all desperately needed oxygen.
>
> It is easy to see how important Natural Selection is to the process when you consider how random and accidental the process would be without it.
>
> It is really simple to understand: �An organism that accidentally grows a heart is more likely to survive. An organism that does not grow a heart, or an organism that grows a heart, but never a lung will not survive.

Astounding. Just astounding.

Do you have ANY CLUE as to how many organisms have hearts but no
lungs?

You are so ignorant, you don't even have a clue as to how ignorant you
are. You could remedy this with effort, but I have a feeling you like
the warm, wet gutter of ignorance.

Chris

[William Morse]

On 10/05/2012 08:48 PM, John Harshman wrote:

> On 10/5/12 5:08 PM, Smoley wrote:
>> The lie: Random accidents+ Natural Selection = Perfection

> Say, isn't this spintronic? I thought your were banned.

>
>> Evolutionists like to believe that Natural Selection is capable of
>> turning chaos into order by killing off bad accidents and preserving
>> the neutral and beneficial ones. It's almost as if Natural Selection
>> is the much needed God of the evolutionist.
>

> Nope. Natural selection eliminates the "bad", has no effect on the
> neutral, and preserves the beneficial. Not a good start. Nor does this
> seem to have anything to do with God. It's a simple and obvious process
> that can't help happening if organisms vary in their probability of
> reproducing.

>
>> What does Natural Selection do?
>>
>> Let's think about it.
>

> That would be a good thing for you to try.

>
>> How did Natural Selection guide the random accidental process of DNA
>> evolution?
>> Is the answer as simple as, "When DNA accidentally 'learned' to
>> reproduce after it's own kind Natural Selection saw that it was good
>> and established it."?
>

> No. That has nothing at all to do with the answer. Really, it's very
> simple. First, you need a system in which there is good but not perfect
> reproduction. Then you need there to be different probabilities of
> reproduction depending on heritable variation. Natural selection follows
> inevitably. That's all.

Just to nitpick, you also need excess reproduction.

>> I think there may be a parallel here.
>

> Thinking is not your forte.
>
> [snip further embarrassments]
>

[hersheyh]

Actually i would go even further. Natural selection works on the phenotypic
level and doesn't care one whit whether the difference in phenotype is heritable
or not. It matters not a bit that the slow antelope is slow because it of a genetic
difference or because it got a stone in its hoof. However, for natural selection to
have *evolutionary* consequences, the phenotypes must be, at least in part, heritable.

[Glenn]

"hersheyh" <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0900d2d6-5e57-4202...@googlegroups.com...

And here I thought they all were.

[Kermit]

On 10 Oct, 08:04, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "hersheyh" <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

All traits are genes interacting with their environment (including
other genes). For normal environments, many traits are different
mostly because of their alleles, and many are significantly different
only for circumstances (e.g. a stone stuck in the hoof. I hate when
that happens.) The resulting change would be similar for all
individuals in that species. But obviously traits that are
significantly different because of individual history will not be
inherited.

Bad luck happens.

Of course I know that you are just being snarky here, but it is worth
saying all this now and then.

Kermit