Another icon bites the dust!

[rbisback]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2278733.stm

The problem with the stories of this type are that they state "We share".

That is an incorrect relation. We may have SIMILAR DNA, but a Ford mustang and a Chevy camaro look similar and "Share" all the same componants, i.e. similar engines, have 4 tires, steering wheels, etc. That is because the design is similar.

[CamabanIII]

that, and all cars could be quite easily said to share a common ancestor (the Model T Ford) and have evolved from there (after a fashion)

and so we're slightly more different than was thought

*twirls finger*

Point remains the same though.

[Flipper]

Yes, a small adjustment down following exhaustive research. Published and peer-reviewed by colleagues. When will we start seeing some original and useful research from "Creation Scientists" Rbisback?

It's no good piggy-backing on the research of real scientists - it doesn't do your position of the evil conspiracy of scientists trying to suppress evidence of special creation any good at all.

[Knight]

Originally posted by CamabanIII
that, and all cars could be quite easily said to share a common ancestor (the Model T Ford) and have evolved from there (after a fashion)

and so we're slightly more different than was thought

*twirls finger*

Point remains the same though. Is that suppossed to be good point? Or were you trying to be funny?

In case you were serious.... cars do not "evolve". Cars are designed.

Every single difference or enhancement from the Model T to the current Dodge Viper that we may enjoy hardly happened by chance or through defects at the factory.

[CamabanIII]

Is that suppossed to be good point? Or were you trying to be funny?

In case you were serious.... cars do not "evolve". Cars are designed.

Every single difference or enhancement from the Model T to the current Dodge Viper that we may enjoy hardly happened by chance or through defects at the factory.

Nonetheless, cars evolved (or their designs did)

Many traits have come and gone, there have been many bad ideas, or ideas that don't work too well (IE, Digital speedos which, while more accurate, are a distraction because of their accuracy (constantly ticking)) that have come, then been rejected because the form of natural selection that cars undergo (what the consumer likes) didn't like it.

Many good traits have come and stayed. (IE, Seatbelts)

They might have had many designers, but they evolved as surely as any biological and undesigned creature did (but much faster, seeing as there was some intelligence behind it).

almost everything you use today has undergone evolution of sorts. and many things (different categories of items, IE, computers have definitely undergone evolution, as have knives, lights, ovens, anything you care to name, and normally, these have undergone changes in small steps, and most of these things (categories) such as computers have also had their common ancestors.

[CamabanIII]

BTW, It's also a literary device called an "Analogy" (except this one bears closer examination than most)

[bob b]

To a "true believer" everything looks like evolution. ;)

[CamabanIII]

To a "true believer" everything looks like evolution

Are you going to argue that those things aren't forms of it?

Or are you at least going to say what the point of that statement is?

[Knight]

Originally posted by CamabanIII


Nonetheless, cars evolved (or their designs did)

Many traits have come and gone, there have been many bad ideas, or ideas that don't work too well (IE, Digital speedos which, while more accurate, are a distraction because of their accuracy (constantly ticking)) that have come, then been rejected because the form of natural selection that cars undergo (what the consumer likes) didn't like it.

Many good traits have come and stayed. (IE, Seatbelts)

They might have had many designers, but they evolved as surely as any biological and undesigned creature did (but much faster, seeing as there was some intelligence behind it).

almost everything you use today has undergone evolution of sorts. and many things (different categories of items, IE, computers have definitely undergone evolution, as have knives, lights, ovens, anything you care to name, and normally, these have undergone changes in small steps, and most of these things (categories) such as computers have also had their common ancestors. Yet none of these things "evolved" without a designer therefore your analogy is a bad one.

[CamabanIII]

Yet none of these things "evolved" without a designer therefore your analogy is a bad one.

I didn't say they evolved without a designer

All I said is that they effectively have a common ancestor, and that all their designs are modifications heaped on modifications.

in response to this That is an incorrect relation. We may have SIMILAR DNA, but a Ford mustang and a Chevy camaro look similar and "Share" all the same componants, i.e. similar engines, have 4 tires, steering wheels, etc. That is because the design is similar.

Their design is similar because their common ancestor is similar.

The closest belief to this is theistically guided evolution. (But evolution, nonetheless and having a (and coming from, in a way) a common ancestor, nonetheless.)

[Knight]

Originally posted by CamabanIII

I didn't say they evolved without a designer

All I said is that they effectively have a common ancestor, and that all their designs are modifications heaped on modifications.

in response to this

Their design is similar because their common ancestor is similar.

The closest belief to this is theistically guided evolution. (But evolution, nonetheless and having a (and coming from, in a way) a common ancestor, nonetheless.) I understand what you are saying but it was RB who originally stated...but a Ford mustang and a Chevy camaro look similar and "Share" all the same componants, i.e. similar engines, have 4 tires, steering wheels, etc. That is because the design is similar.And you attempted to refute him with your "cars evolved" comment which in this case is flawed due to the fact that cars do not "evolve" without intelligent design.

[Knight]

The only true evolution I see happening to my car isn't beneficial! :D

[Knight]

Well.... I guess it might be beneficial to my local mechanic. ;)

[rbisback]

knight and bob,

Isn't it interesting to note that we are flawed because we believe something, yet every situation is viewed by the evolutionist as evolution. Evolution in the micro level HAS to mean evolution on the macro level. Yet Cam argues that a car is not a car because it evolved! Funny, I have never seen a car give birth, divide or lay an egg. Can't see how the Model T (which was NOT the first car) gave rise to a Lotus Esprit?

[CamabanIII]

Yet Cam argues that a car is not a car because it evolved!

I never said it wasn't a car

what I said (or meant to) is that the car designs have evolved from earlier designs. Usually in small steps.

It's a rare bit of technology that doesn't evolve in this fashion (look at the evolution of the design of computers as a classic example)

Similar design because, as far as their designs are concerned, they all started with one common design, from which these were all modified.

All I was doing what giving the reason why the design was similar(One of these days, I'll learn to express myself clearly)

[bob b]

>>they all started with one common design<<

False.

[rbisback]

Cars are cars, they do not evolve. Designs do not evolve. Computers do not evolve. A 286 chip has NOTHING to do with a 486 chip. Operating perameters are different, power usage is different, function is different. Operating systems are made to accept data from earlier systems, but just try to operate a program written for 32 bit on an 16 bit system.

There is not EVOLUTION in THINGS, there is only preference differences.

[Knight]

Originally posted by rbisback
Cars are cars, they do not evolve. Designs do not evolve. Computers do not evolve. A 286 chip has NOTHING to do with a 486 chip. Operating perameters are different, power usage is different, function is different. Operating systems are made to accept data from earlier systems, but just try to operate a program written for 32 bit on an 16 bit system.

There is not EVOLUTION in THINGS, there is only preference differences. That is not true cars DO evolve.

My car has evolved the following features:
1. Cracked windshield
2. Small leak in engine compartment
3. Less treaded tires
4. Less shiny paint
5. Disfunctional stereo volume control

[CamabanIII]

False.

proof?

There is not EVOLUTION in THINGS, there is only preference differences.

There is evolution in design, particularly in the design of modern technology.

Even the seat you're sitting on while you fail to comprehend what I'm saying has many ancestors in design

It's simply the steps taken to aquire that technology (start from the bottom and move up)

Can't be that difficult to understand, can it?

talking about DESIGN

[bob b]

Apparently the evolutionists here have given up trying to present legitimate examples of evolution (in effect conceding there aren't any), and now claim that intelligent design is also "evolution".

The old bait and switch.

[CamabanIII]

I never tried to complain that intelligent design is also evolution

the old straw man.

what I DID claim is that most technologies (well, most everything) we use today's designs are improvements on earlier "ancestors"

Intelligent design (What I've gathered you're thinking of at least) is that whoever designed it got it right first times, it's rare that we do this, and so use the 20/20 vision of hindsight to improve on the original design.

(IE, There was a time when lightbulbs didn't last long at all, now look at them, there was a time when we didn't have colour film, now we've found chemicals which will allow for colour, and added them to the ORIGINAL design)

[CamabanIII]

Or are you claiming that every bit of technlogy, etc we use today was gotten right first time, from scratch, and that we haven't improved the designs of them at all?

[Mr. Ben]

Intelligent design is simply an elaboration of biological evolution.

The brain evolved to process environmental information in order to improve the survival chances of the organism.

The homonid brain evolved (or perhaps greatly improved upon) symbolic thought and problem solving in order to predict and exploit his environment.

Tool making and tool improvement is made possible by the ability to think symbolically, problem solving, modeling and prediction.

Human beings further improve their ability to survive and have sucessful offspring by using tools, and imagining, designing, and implementing new improved tools based on older designs.

In effect, the process of intelligent design is still driven by the same age old imperative to survive, but the process itself has become rather elaborate and indirect.

In effect, spoken and written communication have become a second form of DNA, and culture and technology evolve in this secondary medium through the process of "intelligent" selection (this subject is called memetics by the way). In the case of technology, this higher level "evolutionary" process consists of the modeling and prediction of the effects of changes to a tool or implement to predict its usefulness before it is produced. Mutation (a considered change or alternative design), and selection (the imagined effect of this change or alternative) take place in the mind of the designer, and not in his DNA. The plans, methods for making the objects, etc. are replicated not through asexual or sexual reproduction, but through spoken communication and written plans, blueprints, books, magazines, symposiums, etc.

But intelligent design can only be carried so far. The more complex the set of interellated variables in a design, the more difficult it is to predict the effects of the changes. In fact, many systems are so complex and interrelated that the designers simply avoid the problem by creating static sub-optimal interfaces between system units in order to simplify the process of design.

But for truly efficient designs, this is not acceptable, so modern egineers are turning to a third level of evolution.. simulations of designs represented by mutating genomes being selected for optimal efficiency. So now we have biological evolved intelligent designers using intelligent design to simulate biological evolution.

So now we have three layers of various forms of evolution stacked on top of eachother. But all of them still serve the fundamental imperatives of increasing our chances of survival, mating, and raising successful children.

[rbisback]

"Intelligent design is simply an elaboration of biological evolution. "

Opinion, not fact.

"The brain evolved to process environmental information in order to improve the survival chances of the organism."

Opinion, not fact.

" The homonid brain evolved (or perhaps greatly improved upon) symbolic thought and problem solving in order to predict and exploit his environment."

(Evolved from what?) Opinion not based in fact.

" Tool making and tool improvement is made possible by the ability to think symbolically, problem solving, modeling and prediction."

Truth, but has no bearing on evolution. Has bearing on previously garnered intelligence. If Evollution were in on it, birds that use stones to crack open mussels would now be using jackhammers. sheesh.

"Human beings further improve their ability to survive and have sucessful offspring by using tools, and imagining, designing, and implementing new improved tools based on older designs."

Editorializing not based on fact.

"In effect, the process of intelligent design is still driven by the same age old imperative to survive, but the process itself has become rather elaborate and indirect."

Not, there are plenty of people around the world that do not have to slaughter cattle in order to survive, that do not drive cars in order to survive, that do not make AR15's in order to survive. False dilemma

"In effect, spoken and written communication have become a second form of DNA, and culture and technology evolve in this secondary medium through the process of "intelligent" selection (this subject is called memetics by the way)."

BahahahaahhahahhhahahahahahahhhhhaAAAAAHAH

"
In the case of technology, this higher level "evolutionary" process consists of the modeling and prediction of the effects of changes to a tool or implement to predict its usefulness before it is produced. "

He sees that there rabbit named George every where he looks.


"Mutation (a considered change or alternative design), and selection (the imagined effect of this change or alternative) take place in the mind of the designer, and not in his DNA."

Boy those designers of the 70's clothing, musta regressed quite abit. Preference is not concidered in this non-thought of his. For you see there were those that dressed in nice clothes back then also, a nice dark grey suit with light grey pinstripes. Funny how we go from vested to non-vested, or double row button to single row button suitcoats every ten years or so, evolution of disign must have hit a scratch like a CD on that one.

"The plans, methods for making the objects, etc. are replicated not through asexual or sexual reproduction, but through spoken communication and written plans, blueprints, books, magazines, symposiums, etc."

Fact, but not proof of evolution.

"But intelligent design can only be carried so far. The more complex the set of interellated variables in a design, the more difficult it is to predict the effects of the changes. In fact, many systems are so complex and interrelated that the designers simply avoid the problem by creating static sub-optimal interfaces between system units in order to simplify the process of design."

I don't believe this statement, as knowledge increases, answers to the problems increase, that is intelligence.

"But for truly efficient designs, this is not acceptable, so modern egineers are turning to a third level of evolution."

You can call it what you want, but that don't make a skunk a cat. What that makes it is alternative testing.

". simulations of designs represented by mutating genomes being selected for optimal efficiency. So now we have biological evolved intelligent designers using intelligent design to simulate biological evolution."

No, what you have is intelligent designers building into programs pre-answerd questions.

"So now we have three layers of various forms of evolution stacked on top of eachother."

Not. Not based on fact. Take out evolution and replace it with technology and that would be fact.

" But all of them still serve the fundamental imperatives of increasing our chances of survival, mating, and raising successful children."

There are some people out there who haven't evolved pretty faces that do not have an increased potential for mating, exept if they have enough cash.

[bob b]

Apparently the evolutionists have given up on showing legitimate cases of evolution (since there aren't any) and have turned to adding another definition of evolution.

[1] change of gene frequency in a population

(Trivally true since any birth or death in a population of necessity alters the gene frequency of that population.)

[2] all life has descended from a single hypothetical protocell which in turn arose naturally from lifeless chemicals.

(Not true or at least no direct scientific evidence that it is true)

[3] changes to previous human design

(An unfortunate use of a word already misused because of multiple definitions)

[Stratnerd]

Bob,
(Trivally true since any birth or death in a poulation of necessity alters the gene frequency of that population.) I've already went over this but they way you mentioned is not the way it is measured - which would be meaningless. Didn't you know this?

[bob b]

>>I've already went over this but they way you mentioned is not the way it is measured <<

Actually it is unmeasurable from a practical standpoint.

But that is neither here nor there because you have missed the point, which is that such a definition is trivially true and as such should not enter into the debate over "protocell to man" at all.

The fact that it frequently does only demonstrates that evolutionists have little else to show to make their case.