Armstead Update: "A Different Situation"

[Drawmeomg]

I think that's describing adaption, meaning how they survived not how they arrived. In your example, the birds best suited for life were able to build complete nests but...why? They figured out they had to? I don't think so, IMO...it was because it was programmed into their DNA.

"Why" is an irrelevant question. Mutations accumulated. Some individuals had genetics that caused them to build nests slightly differently from others. The ones whose nests helped them survive and pass on their genes, did. More mutations accumulated, starting from a slightly better spot. Etc.

It WAS programmed into their DNA, though, ... by natural selection. Natural selection is, fundamentally, a process that designs with no need for a designer. There's no question begging involved; it just turns out to be possible for physical reality to produce well-designed (though not all that well designed - if it turns out God did design all living things, he did a just plain terrible job at it given his supposed omniscience and omnipotence) stuff without needing an intelligence involved.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

the two headed or multi limbed things are similar if not the same thing as conjoined twins.. which happen when two embroys are fused together .. occasionally the fuse happens earlier or the fuse is more complete leaving just the head or an extra limb.. they started out as two seperate objects and continue to form that way..

The embrios do not fuse together, they do not completly split. The egg and sperm meet, become one and begin to divide. One cell divides into 2, then 4, 256...In twins they split and keep replicating. These are referred two as monozygotic twins. If the split happens too late (2 weeks?) the split may not become complete, resulting in conjoined or siamese twins.

Dizygotic twins are 2 eggs and two sperm.

And as an example of addaptation, many people are now born without an appendix, as it does not serve the purpose intended (by god?) and is no longer needed.

Is that full circle? Or more figure 8

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Word is or was he play's lazy at times. Now that may have been because he was disgrunteled with Oakland and who could blame him. But if he does play to his potential we will be solid up the middle. Does anyone else think Armestead might play DE?

Moss 2.0?

Could we see the single season sack record???

 

[briz almighty]

theres only one person that truely knows all the answers, and that is john stamos.

 

[briz almighty]

I think Kelly will be an inside force this year with Vince, he's powerful and can move. I'm liking what they did this year and looking forward to seeing what Collins can do.

kelly will probably start and he'll do well, he seems motivated getting out of oakland. i had high hopes for armstead thought he would come in and have an impact like dennard, long as hes not out for the year and can get going before midseason i think we'll be ok. hoping collins starts too.

 

[briz almighty]

The embrios do not fuse together, they do not completly split. The egg and sperm meet, become one and begin to divide. One cell divides into 2, then 4, 256...In twins they split and keep replicating. These are referred two as monozygotic twins. If the split happens too late (2 weeks?) the split may not become complete, resulting in conjoined or siamese twins.



Dizygotic twins are 2 eggs and two sperm.



And as an example of addaptation, many people are now born without an appendix, as it does not serve the purpose intended (by god?) and is no longer needed.



Is that full circle? Or more figure 8

good stuff man, you guys know alot more about this stuff than i do. i can go into details about comp programming cuz i got a degree in that but biology i just know the general stuff. dyzogoa whah?

 

[JDM]

I think that's describing adaption, meaning how they survived not how they arrived. In your example, the birds best suited for life were able to build complete nests but...why? They figured out they had to? I don't think so, IMO...it was because it was programmed into their DNA.

Random mutation. You start with patterns built in. Way back, they were very weak, and as those whose instincts are most beneficial continue to survive, the comparative disadvantage of having the trait weaker than the rest, even if it is stronger than it ever used to be, results in them reproducing the least. Maybe back in the day a nest was just a pile of grass. Over generations, the tendencies that work get stronger.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Random mutation. You start with patterns built in. Way back, they were very weak, and as those whose instincts are most beneficial continue to survive, the comparative disadvantage of having the trait weaker than the rest, even if it is stronger than it ever used to be, results in them reproducing the least. Maybe back in the day a nest was just a pile of grass. Over generations, the tendencies that work get stronger.

That's natural selection.

Big man wants food. Little man has food. Big man grabs club. Little man turns 180 and runs off cliff. Big man has food. Woman likes big man with food. Big man looks for little man #2. Little man #2 does not have a low sloping forehead. Little man with high forehead turns 180, runs 10 yards out then cuts back to the sideline and the big man with a low sloping forehead runs off the cliff. Now all the women like the little man with the high forehead and the food.
The post is to easy to defend, Moss was gone. Crisp routes are needed. Dobson, Bryce, Thompkins, Amendola are in because they are adaptable. They probably spell better then me too.

 

[JDM]

I am aware. I was attempting (and probably doing a poor job) to explain how instincts and character traits can be honed by the same process.

 

[TKO]

Any evolutionist care to explain to me how a Monarch butterfly can migrate to and from the same forest in Mexico every year? Just make sure to explain the following:

In the spring the monarchs leave Mexico and start moving north...along the way, say in the Southern USA, the female lays her eggs and when that egg turns into a butterfly, it begins to fly north and does the same thing as its parent did etc. etc.until finally the great-great-grand-butterfly ends up in Canada somewhere... until Fall arrives. That third or fourth generation butterfly migrates back to the same forest in Mexico where the journey began. It was never in Mexico before that. It never made the trip to Canada. It never knew where it came from. Somehow it knew it had to migrate to the same forest in Mexico in the Fall while all the others leading up to it knew they had to migrate North.

It just happened right?

 

[JDM]

Yes. I don't know the specifics of how their location skills works, but it really is a sum of extremely simple parts. Instincts developed for it to be able to avoid weather by migrating.

 

[Drawmeomg]

It just happened right?

All of the arguments you've presented have been of the same form, an argument known as an Argument From Irreducible Complexity (if you're a creationist) or an Argument From Personal Incredulity (if you're not). The form is, "I cannot imagine how this could have occurred. Therefore it could not have occurred."

There have been dozens of famous cases of this argument over the decades - the eye, the bacterial flagellum, etc. In each case, a careful look has resolved it.

The Monarch Butterfly is a particularly weak example of it. Unless you mean to suggest they do it by the direct, personal intervention of God in the lives of each individual butterfly (and they're not even ensouled, per most Christian doctrine!), there must be some physical mechanism for it, whether they evolved or were the subjects of Special Creation. Without even knowing what that physical mechanism is, how can you possibly declare it irreducibly complex?

The thing that gets me is that if you discard evolution in favor of creation, you're saying:
Here's an example that we can't account for right now, so I will embrace a 'theory' that can't account for almost anything." Junk DNA. The remarkably complete fossil record (gaps? ha!) of human ancestors over the last 6 million years. Observed mutation in the laboratory. Evidence of extinct species which are dated at hundreds of millions of years old. Biogeographical data that suggests evolution in the strongest terms and, more to the point, can't be accounted for on the creationist 'theory' except as the whim of a capricious deity. In short, if creationism is true, then the deity who set it up set it up maliciously to mislead us.

 

[TKO]

All of the arguments you've presented have been of the same form, an argument known as an Argument From Irreducible Complexity (if you're a creationist) or an Argument From Personal Incredulity (if you're not). The form is, "I cannot imagine how this could have occurred. Therefore it could not have occurred."

There have been dozens of famous cases of this argument over the decades - the eye, the bacterial flagellum, etc. In each case, a careful look has resolved it.

The Monarch Butterfly is a particularly weak example of it. Unless you mean to suggest they do it by the direct, personal intervention of God in the lives of each individual butterfly (and they're not even ensouled, per most Christian doctrine!), there must be some physical mechanism for it, whether they evolved or were the subjects of Special Creation. Without even knowing what that physical mechanism is, how can you possibly declare it irreducibly complex?

The thing that gets me is that if you discard evolution in favor of creation, you're saying:
Here's an example that we can't account for right now, so I will embrace a 'theory' that can't account for almost anything." Junk DNA. The remarkably complete fossil record (gaps? ha!) of human ancestors over the last 6 million years. Observed mutation in the laboratory. Evidence of extinct species which are dated at hundreds of millions of years old. Biogeographical data that suggests evolution in the strongest terms and, more to the point, can't be accounted for on the creationist 'theory' except as the whim of a capricious deity. In short, if creationism is true, then the deity who set it up set it up maliciously to mislead us.

The deeper science peers into the complexity of life the more ridiculous their theory of "it all just happened" becomes. Six million years? Do you how they arrive at that date for fossils? They date rock found near them. The only problem with that is the Earth and the rock in it could have existed for billions of years before life on it did. You can't date fossils accurately by using rock. Try working the problem backwards....do you agree that at one time the Universe didn't exist? Where did it come from? Did it just happen? At some point you have to come up with a cause just like LIFE ALWAYS COMES FROM LIFE. Evolutionists can spout their theory but they can't make anything live that didn't come from something else that was alive. Surely if life happened by itself in all its complexity...scientists with their accumulated knowledge can create a living blade of grass from it's materials??? Nope guess not. FAIL.

 

[JDM]

I'm sorry, but it is foolish to try to debate a subject you have limited understanding of. You're making a lot of philosophical assumptions with nothing behind them. Either the universe always existed or it didn't. You can't claim everything has to have a beginning, therefore the only possible beginning is god, because, by your logic, god must have a beginning. Just because we can't replicate what we believe happened doesn't mean we are wrong. There would be a lot of randomness and chaos involved in life sprouting out of nothing, and we don't have the knowledge to reproduce all the conditions.

I also don't see why believing god made it rules out evolution. You're arguing something different than is being said.

 

[Drawmeomg]

The deeper science peers into the complexity of life the more ridiculous their theory of "it all just happened" becomes. Six million years? Do you how they arrive at that date for fossils? They date rock found near them. The only problem with that is the Earth and the rock in it could have existed for billions of years before life on it did. You can't date fossils accurately by using rock. Try working the problem backwards....do you agree that at one time the Universe didn't exist? Where did it come from? Did it just happen? At some point you have to come up with a cause just like LIFE ALWAYS COMES FROM LIFE. Evolutionists can spout their theory but they can't make anything live that didn't come from something else that was alive. Surely if life happened by itself in all its complexity...scientists with their accumulated knowledge can create a living blade of grass from it's materials??? Nope guess not. FAIL.

I'm moving on from this topic. The only effect of it is, as usual, to upset people. I apologize for having mentioned it earlier.

 

[briz almighty]

its the same thing with turtles the babies hatch on a beach the 40 years later return to lay eggs on the beach. that is weird along with the butterflies. i think scientists said something about the magnetic field but doesnt that move around some a flip and change as well? i dunno you might be on to something krafty!

 

[briz almighty]

The deeper science peers into the complexity of life the more ridiculous their theory of "it all just happened" becomes. Six million years? Do you how they arrive at that date for fossils? They date rock found near them. The only problem with that is the Earth and the rock in it could have existed for billions of years before life on it did. You can't date fossils accurately by using rock. Try working the problem backwards....do you agree that at one time the Universe didn't exist? Where did it come from? Did it just happen? At some point you have to come up with a cause just like LIFE ALWAYS COMES FROM LIFE. Evolutionists can spout their theory but they can't make anything live that didn't come from something else that was alive. Surely if life happened by itself in all its complexity...scientists with their accumulated knowledge can create a living blade of grass from it's materials??? Nope guess not. FAIL.

i think some scientist dude made a working ribosome in a lab thats not a living being but its incredibly complex and the start of making life, you need a ribosome first to read dna and rna to make a living thing.

i dont think its easy to make life in the lab because life begins on the molecular and atomic level and we just dont operate in that realm. everything is so tiny.

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

Moss 2.0?

Could we see the single season sack record???

Im hoping

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

Any evolutionist care to explain to me how a Monarch butterfly can migrate to and from the same forest in Mexico every year? Just make sure to explain the following:

In the spring the monarchs leave Mexico and start moving north...along the way, say in the Southern USA, the female lays her eggs and when that egg turns into a butterfly, it begins to fly north and does the same thing as its parent did etc. etc.until finally the great-great-grand-butterfly ends up in Canada somewhere... until Fall arrives. That third or fourth generation butterfly migrates back to the same forest in Mexico where the journey began. It was never in Mexico before that. It never made the trip to Canada. It never knew where it came from. Somehow it knew it had to migrate to the same forest in Mexico in the Fall while all the others leading up to it knew they had to migrate North.

It just happened right?

I believe they were grandfathered in on one of the original frequent flyers miles programs

 

[TKO]

I believe they were grandfathered in on one of the original frequent flyers miles programs

Just goes to show they couldn't do it by themselves