Comments on: The Scars of Evolution http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Obwon http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-69237 Obwon Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:30:36 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-69237 All well and good for believers in science. My question is: How do we overcome the assertion of "miracles", which are needed to make creationism; ala all aka's, work? I think we need to think about what tasks these creationist theories must be able to perform. Thereby reversing the equation. Instead of the scientists having to prove again and again, this and that. The creationist should be required to prove somethings. Because until we can think of what they should be able to do with their silly ideas, we're going to constantly be confronted with the re-emergence of this never ending metamorphosizing hydra. Obwon All well and good for believers in science. My question is: How
do we overcome the assertion of "miracles", which are needed to
make creationism; ala all aka's, work?

I think we need to think about what tasks these creationist theories
must be able to perform. Thereby reversing the equation. Instead
of the scientists having to prove again and again, this and that.
The creationist should be required to prove somethings.
Because until we can think of what they should be able to do with
their silly ideas, we're going to constantly be confronted with
the re-emergence of this never ending metamorphosizing hydra.

Obwon

]]> By: Ziggy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-54247 Ziggy Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:30:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-54247 As for why we have wisdom teeth, our ancient ancestors had much larger mouths than we do, and were able to accommodate more teeth. By the time we evolved heads that were too small to house that many teeth, our diet had changed so that by the time we reached the age wisdom teeth erupt, tooth decay had opened a few vacancies in out mouth, making room for the new additions. Any selection against them would have been fairly weak, at least until the advent of improved oral hygiene. As for why we have wisdom teeth, our ancient ancestors had much larger mouths than we do, and were able to accommodate more teeth. By the time we evolved heads that were too small to house that many teeth, our diet had changed so that by the time we reached the age wisdom teeth erupt, tooth decay had opened a few vacancies in out mouth, making room for the new additions. Any selection against them would have been fairly weak, at least until the advent of improved oral hygiene.

]]> By: Juan Felipe http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-41837 Juan Felipe Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:29:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-41837 Great essay, translation posted here: http://www.ateosmexicanos.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105:las-cicatrices-de-la-evolucion&catid=34:articulos&Itemid=54 Great essay, translation posted here:

http://www.ateosmexicanos.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105:las-cicatrices-de-la-evolucion&catid=34:articulos&Itemid=54

]]> By: sgtpauper http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-35919 sgtpauper Fri, 23 May 2008 08:44:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-35919 "We evolved from unseen pre-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules to amino acids, to bacteria and viruses, to ?, to apes, to Homo sapiens" Hey, whatever happened to the formed-out-of-dust theory in Genesis? One of the theories of abiogenesis credits life to the self replicating clay molecules that were formed when the earth cooled down. So is anybody evenly remotely suggesting the idea of life being formed out of dust by the infusion of some divine breath? Well, you never know which head the x'ian fanatics might rear in these post-modern times. The latest Christian creed (justifiably called "post-modernist view" since that just shows how much the bible has evolved/corrupted over the last 2000 years) holds it inappropriate to take the creation account literally. That, I think is taking the "different interpretation" theory to an entirely higher plane. Now, believing (or not believing) the Genesis account is immaterial and therefore in no conflict with science. So Biblical fanatics are mellowing down finally. Is the day of reckoning still too far? Grow up kids, follow reason and do something!! "We evolved from unseen pre-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules to amino acids, to bacteria and viruses, to ?, to apes, to Homo sapiens"

Hey, whatever happened to the formed-out-of-dust theory in Genesis? One of the theories of abiogenesis credits life to the self replicating clay molecules that were formed when the earth cooled down. So is anybody evenly remotely suggesting the idea of life being formed out of dust by the infusion of some divine breath? Well, you never know which head the x'ian fanatics might rear in these post-modern times.

The latest Christian creed (justifiably called "post-modernist view" since that just shows how much the bible has evolved/corrupted over the last 2000 years) holds it inappropriate to take the creation account literally. That, I think is taking the "different interpretation" theory to an entirely higher plane. Now, believing (or not believing) the Genesis account is immaterial and therefore in no conflict with science.
So Biblical fanatics are mellowing down finally. Is the day of reckoning still too far? Grow up kids, follow reason and do something!!

]]> By: Brandonazz http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-35136 Brandonazz Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:48:44 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-35136 Dutch: "It is impossible to believe in evolution and be a christian." How is that "Impossible?" You are speaking in absolutes. I am a Christian and I believe in evolution, in fact our ancestral tree is very interesting. I also find it very interesting to read about the beginnings of the universe. How did we get from no atoms(just quarks and leptons)to the human mind? We evolved from unseen pre-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules to amino acids, to bacteria and viruses, to ?, to apes, to Homo sapiens. Evolution is more than just the study of the origin of man. For me, the greatest wonder is not how we got from ape to man, but how we got from quark to ape? _____________________________________________________________________________________ Because "Christian" creed flatly contradicts evolution. Your almighty, holy, infallible book explicitly states that the world was created in 7 days, roughly 6000 years ago. The latter perhaps by counting and not directly stated, but the point stands. Evolution requires more than a few millennia, and I really don't want to hear that "different interpretation" crap. It's just a means of wiggling around contradictions without admitting that your religion is false. And just in case you feel like falling back on "God created the big bang," that makes you a Deist, not a Christian. A Deist is an atheist who substitutes the words "big bang" for "God" and leaves it at that. Dutch: "It is impossible to believe in evolution and be a christian."

How is that "Impossible?" You are speaking in absolutes. I am a Christian and I believe in evolution, in fact our ancestral tree is very interesting. I also find it very interesting to read about the beginnings of the universe. How did we get from no atoms(just quarks and leptons)to the human mind? We evolved from unseen pre-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules to amino acids, to bacteria and viruses, to ?, to apes, to Homo sapiens. Evolution is more than just the study of the origin of man. For me, the greatest wonder is not how we got from ape to man, but how we got from quark to ape?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Because "Christian" creed flatly contradicts evolution. Your almighty, holy, infallible book explicitly states that the world was created in 7 days, roughly 6000 years ago. The latter perhaps by counting and not directly stated, but the point stands. Evolution requires more than a few millennia, and I really don't want to hear that "different interpretation" crap. It's just a means of wiggling around contradictions without admitting that your religion is false.

And just in case you feel like falling back on "God created the big bang," that makes you a Deist, not a Christian. A Deist is an atheist who substitutes the words "big bang" for "God" and leaves it at that.

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-34167 OMGF Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:07:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-34167 <blockquote>If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation it would appear that God has a special fondness for stars and beetles. -J.B.S. Haldane</blockquote>

If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation it would appear that God has a special fondness for stars and beetles.

-J.B.S. Haldane

]]> By: sgtpauper http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-34111 sgtpauper Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:24:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-34111 bopolar, there's nothing surprising about your proposal since it's been like that for millions of years. But recently, in the 60s, the saviour of the beetles appeared in the form of John Lennon. We're all grateful that he shone the light on the fact that we are not homosapiens redeemed by a compassionate revolutionary of divine provenance some 2000 years ago, but that our calling is to worship the creator of The Beatles. He overthrew the previously held beliefs. He even proclaimed it to the world with his famous statement, but the cruel homosapien infested world wouldn't pay heed and on that fateful day of Dec 8, 1980, he was shot dead by a deranged fan. He didn't even have time to establish a ritual for us all to remember him. His death was brutal, but there was no Mel Gibson to show that graphically. But hey, why don't we all write about his virtues and his mission on earth so that 2000 years from now, he'll have an even bigger following and even we might get to bask in the glory by proxy...:) bopolar,
there's nothing surprising about your proposal since it's been like that for millions of years. But recently, in the 60s, the saviour of the beetles appeared in the form of John Lennon. We're all grateful that he shone the light on the fact that we are not homosapiens redeemed by a compassionate revolutionary of divine provenance some 2000 years ago, but that our calling is to worship the creator of The Beatles. He overthrew the previously held beliefs. He even proclaimed it to the world with his famous statement, but the cruel homosapien infested world wouldn't pay heed and on that fateful day of Dec 8, 1980, he was shot dead by a deranged fan.
He didn't even have time to establish a ritual for us all to remember him. His death was brutal, but there was no Mel Gibson to show that graphically.
But hey, why don't we all write about his virtues and his mission on earth so that 2000 years from now, he'll have an even bigger following and even we might get to bask in the glory by proxy...:)

]]> By: bipolar2 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-34066 bipolar2 Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:54:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-34066 ** from a true believer to all xian know-nothings ** Ancient Egyptians surmised that a dung beetle created the Earth. I accept the fecal gospel of "intelligent design" as long as it is extended -- the entire cosmos emerged from the collective wisdom of committees of dung beetles. The committees are still in charge . . . and having some problems (as committees always do): ** The mistaken Anthropic Principle -- note from HQ ** To: All From: CEO, Sentient Beings Inc. Subject: Major anthropic screw-up, causes and proposed solutions It was the Corporate Committee on Systematic World Ordering which initiated an RFP, cost-plus basis. Failure to recognize that Hellaburton was an unreliable contractor, created certain problems with shoddy workmanship and substandard materials which quickly emerged. These however were plastered over for at least 4 billion years until the first multicellular creatures appeared in planet’s Precambrian oceans. By then it was too late to adjust any nucleotides. After all, it is a double blind test. The last 550 million years, however, have proved one unforeseen disaster after another, culminating in Nature’s Greatest Mistake, homo sap. Currently, almost 7 billion cases of hypertrophy of ape prefrontal cortex! [Walking and talking mutants all of them!] Delicious irony though. The defect provides an illusion of having "free will." Of course, homeostatic causes are still causes. But, as delusions go, this one is a sicko. Unfortunately, the trait is far too entrenched now to be wiped out by laws of population genetics. Looks like human heads must roll. The Corporate Committee on Oort Cloud Exploitation hopes to find a suitably large comet in the next 65 million years, give or take 5 million years. However, let there be light! The standing Corporate Committee on Bio-organics has estimated that the average species lasts only about 2 million years. Patience hath its rewards. Personally, I want the testing to continue. I find myself inordinately fond of beetles. Let it be called the arthropodic principle. bipolar2 © 2008 ** from a true believer to all xian know-nothings **

Ancient Egyptians surmised that a dung beetle created the Earth. I accept the fecal gospel of "intelligent design" as long as it is extended -- the entire cosmos emerged from the collective wisdom of committees of dung beetles.

The committees are still in charge . . . and having some problems (as committees always do):

** The mistaken Anthropic Principle -- note from HQ **

To: All
From: CEO, Sentient Beings Inc.

Subject: Major anthropic screw-up, causes and proposed solutions

It was the Corporate Committee on Systematic World Ordering which initiated an RFP, cost-plus basis. Failure to recognize that Hellaburton was an unreliable contractor, created certain problems with shoddy workmanship and substandard materials which quickly emerged.

These however were plastered over for at least 4 billion years until the first multicellular creatures appeared in planet’s Precambrian oceans. By then it was too late to adjust any nucleotides. After all, it is a double blind test.

The last 550 million years, however, have proved one unforeseen disaster after another, culminating in Nature’s Greatest Mistake, homo sap. Currently, almost 7 billion cases of hypertrophy of ape prefrontal cortex! [Walking and talking mutants all of them!]

Delicious irony though. The defect provides an illusion of having "free will." Of course, homeostatic causes are still causes. But, as delusions go, this one is a sicko. Unfortunately, the trait is far too entrenched now to be wiped out by laws of population genetics.

Looks like human heads must roll. The Corporate Committee on Oort Cloud Exploitation hopes to find a suitably large comet in the next 65 million years, give or take 5 million years.

However, let there be light! The standing Corporate Committee on Bio-organics has estimated that the average species lasts only about 2 million years. Patience hath its rewards.

Personally, I want the testing to continue. I find myself inordinately fond of beetles. Let it be called the arthropodic principle.

bipolar2
© 2008

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-33172 OMGF Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:21:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-33172 Then, if you are just assuming evolution, it makes your arguments for evolution into circular logic and they are fallacious from the get-go. Or, maybe evolution isn't an assumption, but a conclusion based on actually observations and facts. I don't know how I can explain it any better, but evolution is the result of the scientific method, which seeks to start from a blank slate that does not depend on assumptions. Simply because we can continue those observations and make determinations on the state of the real world based on those observations doesn't mean that we have taken anything for granted. We do NOT take gravity for granted, and if you do it's only because it's been proven beyond a doubt. Yet, that's not the same as taking gravity into account as an assumption. Should I assume other laws and facts about the universe? That's absurd. I accept them and use them because they are concluded from real, empirical observation; hence not assumptions. Then, if you are just assuming evolution, it makes your arguments for evolution into circular logic and they are fallacious from the get-go. Or, maybe evolution isn't an assumption, but a conclusion based on actually observations and facts. I don't know how I can explain it any better, but evolution is the result of the scientific method, which seeks to start from a blank slate that does not depend on assumptions. Simply because we can continue those observations and make determinations on the state of the real world based on those observations doesn't mean that we have taken anything for granted. We do NOT take gravity for granted, and if you do it's only because it's been proven beyond a doubt. Yet, that's not the same as taking gravity into account as an assumption. Should I assume other laws and facts about the universe? That's absurd. I accept them and use them because they are concluded from real, empirical observation; hence not assumptions.

]]> By: mikespeir http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-33168 mikespeir Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:09:48 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-33168 No. Any argument begins with assumptions. The conclusion of one argument becomes an assumption in the next. When one tries to account for the motion of the planets gravity is taken as an assumption; i.e., it is "taken for granted." It's taken as an assumption because we have observed it to be true. In light of that truth we can then see that other things are true. But I know how hardheaded I am. I'll never stop this unless I make myself do it; and we're getting dangerously off-topic. Go ahead and have the last word. (No, seriously! Not like Bill O'Reilly. :) ) Then let's move on. No. Any argument begins with assumptions. The conclusion of one argument becomes an assumption in the next. When one tries to account for the motion of the planets gravity is taken as an assumption; i.e., it is "taken for granted." It's taken as an assumption because we have observed it to be true. In light of that truth we can then see that other things are true.

But I know how hardheaded I am. I'll never stop this unless I make myself do it; and we're getting dangerously off-topic. Go ahead and have the last word. (No, seriously! Not like Bill O'Reilly. :) ) Then let's move on.

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-33167 OMGF Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:49:20 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-33167 <blockquote>as·sump·tion /əˈsʌmpʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-suhmp-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. something taken for granted </blockquote> From dictionary.com. Gravity is not an assumption, but an observation. If we improperly take gravity for granted, it is only because we have proven it beyond the point that it is rational to doubt it. You are using your terms improperly, which is compounded by the fact that the colloquial usage is quite different from how you are intending the word be used. We don't begin with the assumption of gravity to explain the motion of the planets, but with the observation of gravity. We don't assume evolution, we observe it. It's NOT the same thing.

as·sump·tion /əˈsʌmpʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-suhmp-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. something taken for granted

From dictionary.com.

Gravity is not an assumption, but an observation. If we improperly take gravity for granted, it is only because we have proven it beyond the point that it is rational to doubt it. You are using your terms improperly, which is compounded by the fact that the colloquial usage is quite different from how you are intending the word be used. We don't begin with the assumption of gravity to explain the motion of the planets, but with the observation of gravity. We don't assume evolution, we observe it. It's NOT the same thing.

]]> By: mikespeir http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-33165 mikespeir Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:36:42 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/the-scars-of-evolution.html#comment-33165 Gravity is an assumption. If one argues that the Earth will come back to this same point a year from now in its motion around the Sun, one begins with the assumption of gravity. Likewise, the only thing that would drive one to call toes vestigial is the assumption of evolution. One would not formulate the theory of evolution based on what one can observe about toes. But never mind. We'd never quit going around in circles like this. If I haven't made the point by now, I probably won't. I imagine you feel the same way. Gravity is an assumption. If one argues that the Earth will come back to this same point a year from now in its motion around the Sun, one begins with the assumption of gravity. Likewise, the only thing that would drive one to call toes vestigial is the assumption of evolution. One would not formulate the theory of evolution based on what one can observe about toes.

But never mind. We'd never quit going around in circles like this. If I haven't made the point by now, I probably won't. I imagine you feel the same way.

]]>