K. My Debate with TheEricZombie

I got into a debate with a guy who calls himself TheEricZombie. Of course he uses the typical evo-strategy of demeaning, which is always expected. He also plays the religion card, which is so inane, since I am not . This debate is a perfect example of “eye of the beholder”. Eric is completely convinced he tuned me, and “won” big time. He is so proud of himself, he posted the debate as a first page of his blog, “TheEricZombie”.  And of course, I think I tuned him. His “peer reviewed papers” that he so proudly cited as evidence that I am wrong were just below the garbage level. And should be trashed. Not one of them gave evidence for his point of view, but he so confidently thinks that because they are ‘peer reviewed” they did. A perfect example of how papers about “evidence” for evolution themselves become the “evidence”. They are all anatomy, embryology, and genetic lessons. And “fish had ’em, earlier animals gottem, then we gottem”. None have any idea about the invention, design, assembly, and improvement of bio-systems. Not one. But indoctrinated evolutionauts like EricZombie are convinced they do. They must have horrible reading comprehension skills. I copied the debate from Eric’s blog, and left in the wonderful things Eric had to say about me, which just makes it all the more fun. I am always proud someone would expend so much effort trying to make me look bad. This is another typical debate between an evolution indoctrinate, and me.  Of course they ALWAYS think they win, and are proud of it. As far as how well I did, I will let you decide. I added a few notes in green, noted Eric’s use of the religion/magic card in chartreuse, and evo-excuses for why things didn’t evolve in red. Of course the fossil record shows no evolution, but argue a few points and they will argue back those points and pretend like evolution showed up in other fossils, which, of course, it doesn’t/didn’t. Anyway, if you read this EricZombie, thanks for the fun.
Friday, August 28, 2009

(EDITED!) My wonderful conversation with YouTube user stevebee92653
Current mood:  horny
Category: Blogging

I came across a video made by stevebee92653, that was a YouTube recommendation to my own video on the possible evolutionary path of the eye. His video was utter bullshit, claiming that an intelligent designer was necessary for organisms to evolve certain body parts. Here’s what I posted in the comments section…
On your site, you ask “Why didn’t the T-Rex grow longer arms?” and “Why didn’t the Coelacanth grow legs?”
Because there was no need to. The organisms in question reached an evolutionary plateau. Just because YOU believe that longer arms may help a T-Rex, does not mean that natural selection will select that particular trait. Tyrannosaurus may have been hindered by longer arms, or it may have taken away from a more important trait.
Coelacanths, like sharks and crocodiles, are well suited for the ecological niche they fill. There is no need to evolve random extra limbs just for the sake of progress.

He private messages me this little gem…
Actually what I am asking is why didn’t ANYTHING evolve. No species shows evolution or development of any body part. T. Rex arms actually got me to thinking about evolution. I was a full on believer just like you. But, why didn’t those damn arms change a bit in millions of years? Or any other species? You are devoid of proof for your belief. Change should be all over the place. For all of nature to be formed by evolution, it should be everywhere we look. Obvious. Huge. But it isn’t. What a failure coelacanth was. What a disappointment for evolution when it was discovered still living. Nothing in 410 million years? So why do you believe? That is the big question. Why do people believe in something with no evidence? Take a good look at your cartoon on eye evolution. Do you really think that could happen in a world with an IQ of nothing? Of all of the trillions of directions those wrinkles could move in, you actually think step by step it went to complex visual system? Evolution is remarkable for that fact. So many believe in such a nothing. Such a huge science is built on zero evidence plus fantasy. I am disappointed I went for it for so many years. What a sucker I was, and you are.
I respond with…
Besides a few examples of organisms so efficiently filling their ecological niche that they have no need to adapt, change IS everywhere. It is obvious to anyone who chooses to look. The proof is in the fossil record, as well as the genome of all living organisms.
Self organizing systems are everywhere. Weather, geology, crystal formation, (brains, complex visual systems, consciousness, four chambered hearts?) and yes, even evolution. There is no “intelligence” needed to guide any of these things, only the natural laws of physics. You have your own cartoon about eyes, in it you claim that the eye could never detach from the rest of the animal, and that there is no good use for a half mobile eye. Both your points are wrong. If it were true, we wouldn’t have eyes that could rotate in a socket, or semi-developed eye spots on more primitive creatures. Natural selection tried trillions and trillions of different variations, and the ones that failed to meet the criteria for survival, DID NOT SURVIVE TO PASS ON THOSE TRAITS. This is not a “random” process by any stretch of the imagination. It is guided by mathematics, physics, and a delicate balance with the environment.
How would you explain the existence of an eye, then? At what point did a magic being step in with his supernatural touch? Did it develop only to a point, then magically become complex? Or were we poofed into existence on the sixth day?
That is MY big question. Why do people believe in something with no evidence? So many people believe in the fantasies of Bronze Age tribal cultures, and they will die for their beliefs. You state that you are not “religious”, yet you welcome the belief in an imaginary creator, just because you cannot comprehend a very simple )concept.  (Nature was built by a “simple concept”?) Seeing the short arms of a T-Rex isn’t proof that evolution doesn’t occur. It is merely proof that you aren’t nearly as creative as natural selection.
He shoots back with…
Re: Species didn’t evolve anything because “they have no need to adapt”
The forever excuse for the changes necessary to prove evo not being present and accounted for.
Re: “The proof is in the fossil record”
Sorry, there are no species in the fossil record that show much change over millions and millions of years.No growth of arms, no appearance of eyes in non-eyed species. Nada. Nothing.
Re: “Self organizing systems are everywhere. Weather, geology, crystal formation”
Surely you jest. None of those are what we are talking about. Except in an evo-fantasy world. Your list doesn’t include systems assembled with different engineered parts utilized for a single purpose. Like vision, smell, joint movement. Sorry. But nice try. Your list is right out of the evo-indoctrinates handbook. You are too smart to fall for that.
Re: “There is no “intelligence” needed to guide any of these things”
I’m glad you know this for certain. Of course intelligence is needed to make a ball and socket joint. To match maxillary teeth with mandibular from different genetic pathways. (Even the same, if that were the case.) To construct a camera-like eyeball. You have blinded yourself to the fact that intelligence is absolutely necessary. Is there anything you have experienced in your entire LIFE that can self-assemble incredibly complex devices without intelligence? I mean single purpose devices from multiple complex parts. Your examples of weather and crystals don’t count. I will answer for you. OF COURSE NOT. So, why do you go for this bullshit? Why do you believe something that you know can’t happen?
Re: Mobile eye. Would a half freed-up eyeball move at all. OF COURSE NOT. And, there would be no “selected for” here, because an eye 1/3 freed up for rotation wouldn’t rotate a lick. Use your logic instead of looking through your evo-filters.
Re: “At what point did a magic being step in with his supernatural touch?”
Trying to turn a completely obvious conclusion, intelligence required, into a silly notion is absurd. You think animals killing and eating other animals in a particular order, or not, and non-occurring good mutations is the source of incredible bio-mechanical systems? THAT notion is absurd. You actually think that is the source of a four chambered heart/lung/blood vessel/blood system? And you try to make me look silly for stating the obvious? Our visual system is nothing short of a damn miracle that we don’t recognize as one because we all have them. Ditto our dentition, smellers, feelers, auditory system. So, these are common place miracles that you describe as shit? And trying to make the obvious notion that intelligence is required look silly shocks me every time you or one of your evo-peers does it. You are blinded by your indoctrination.
Re: Math and physics: You are right. Animals eating other animals IS guided by math and physics. The biggest, fastest and strongest eat the little and weak. And if the little and weak can detect light from dark, that doesn’t mean shit. The big strong fast guys could care less. They eat anyway. The “selected for” thing is really the shit you talk about. Not our visual system.
Re: “Why do people believe in something with no evidence?”
You do. If you really want an answer to that question, go to a mirror and ask yourself. Your GOD is natural selection. You think natural selection can accomplish miracles. It sounds so pretty….natural selection. You never think what it really is. Animals choosing to kill and consume other animals. And you think that event, done millions of times, will cause the non-intelligent invention, design, and assembly of incredible bio-electromechanical devices. THAT is the big laugh.
Bronz age religious notions stick because there is no answer to the formation of all of nature. That is why absurd religious beliefs don’t go away. Your belief system is just as absurd. The idea that an entity with an IQ of nothing can assemble nature is just a newer absurdity. And you have been indoctrinated by your teachers just as much as the religious have been by their leaders. In my case I had both. As a kid the religious, as a college student evolution. I believed the absurd twice. Not no mo.
I’m getting tired of his bullshit…
It’s all trial and error. The shit that doesn’t pass muster, gets canned. The shit that does, gets passed on. This may seem like design, but it’s merely physics doing what physics does best.
You’re quite in love with your idea that evolution doesn’t occur. Since you’re spouting incoherent gibberish and half baked ideas, I’m going to end this conversation. Take it elsewhere, bub.
He’s giddy to respond with…
When you eat it in a scientific discussion, time to get rid of the guy that made you eat it. Bye, sucker. Keep believing your fairy tales, and pretending like you are really smart because you don’t go for fantasy A. You do go for fantasy B!. You are no different than a believer in Adam and Eve and the snake.
Bye
Of course, he got my goat. I responded with…
Don’t fool yourself into believing you made a valid point. I read each one of your refutations, and found each one lacking in a little thing called “proof”. You want to dismiss evolution and the processes that make it up? Disprove natural selection, variation, genetic drift, and even DNA. Show me that change DOESN’T occur, (Of course it does occur. Change just cant invent and assemble complex bio-systems.) not just in a few isolated cases such as your Coelecanth and T-Rex arms. Show that every organism is exactly the same as it’s ever been, or show how a supernatural deity made every change that’s ever happened. Biologists have already shown their work, and it passes muster. You’ve come up with a wildly incomprehensible answer, claimed it to be absolute truth, yet don’t have a lick of actual evidence to back it up, just your personal observations of a few evolutionary adaptations that don’t make sense to you.
With ALL that education in your background, you still can’t wrap your mind around something so simple. (Something so simple made something so complex?) Until you can bring something to the table, there’s no point in arguing with you. Think about it. Really think.
He responds with attacks, but not the evidence I asked for…
The absolute truth is Darwinian evolution could not have possibly formed a complex visual system, or any other complex biological systems The proof is in that impossibility. It’s just plain old damn impossible. Why do you believe it did/does? Because someone told you, not because there is evidence. And you chose to believe that person. And you may be reacting to your childhood religious beliefs. But you have forfeited you ability to reason and be skeptical to another person/teacher/book. The evidence is missing, the scenarios in you vid are not possible. You are intelligent, but you are so indoctrinated, and convinced that you can’t be skeptical. You react to all of the kudos and pats on the back. BRILLIANT comments make you feel real good. And makes you a stronger believer. And, to me that is the miracle. Why did you forfeit your skepticism and ability to reason in only this subject? Why did I when I did? Group psychology is very powerful. More than I had ever thought, as I was caught up in it myself. Look at your writing and vid. You don’t have a lick of skepticism. You can’t even entertain the thought that what you have in the vid is pure impossible BS.And it’s real bullshit to continue with your rant about my belief in a supernatural deity. I am no more religious than you. I look at this subject on a purely scientific level. I got rid of religion as a source when I was in high school. And I grabbed evolution and was a staunch believer for a very long time. The difference between you and me is I was able to take a critical look. You can’t. And most likely never will. You’re thinking has been overwhelmed by group psychology and indoctrination. You are stuck. Brainlocked.

My response…
“It’s just plain old damn impossible.”
Prove it. You keep making claims and not backing it up. Your personal opinions and observations are not enough to convince anyone. Obviously, the complex systems exist. If not for millions of generations of natural selection, then how? What magical process formed the eye? (Eric doesn’t think nothing inventing, designing, and assembling complex bio-systems SLOWLY is magical. Fast is. Slow isn’t.)
I’m always skeptical. I reevaluate my beliefs on a daily basis. The evidence for natural selection is so strong that there’s no conceivable way for me to deny it. There’s not ONE SHRED of evidence of magical happenings. Nothing super-natural. Nothing beyond the natural mechanics of the universe. That you don’t comprehend how natural selection works is your problem. (Right. It’s sooo complicated and hard to understand.)
Group psychology is very powerful, agreed. This is why I firmly oppose belief systems that affect how we run our lives. Superstitions, religions, urban legends, cults, misinformation, (evolution) et al.
You claim that you are not religious, yet your “scientific” belief requires something. Personally, I think you can’t comprehend natural selection. You take it on it’s most shallow definition, and when you see something that doesn’t seem to fit your narrow definition of natural selection, you claim that it couldn’t have happened on it’s own. Delve deeper. Realize that you don’t know what’s best for nature, only nature does. When you see something that doesn’t make sense (such as your magical rotating eye socket problem), you need to educate yourself further, not dismiss it outright. It’s a simple concept, yet delves very deep into every bit of the natural world. THINK about it. If you still can’t figure out how killing off unsuccessful traits and promoting successful ones can create variation over time, THINK HARDER. (Variation forms alimentary tracts? Consciousness? Intelligence? Brains? Lungs?)
Retard ID supporter’s response…
Re: Obviously, the complex systems exist. If not for millions of generations of natural selection, then how?We aren’t even close to figuring it out. Right now there are two horrible guesses. Genesis and Darwin.

Re: Superstitions, religions, urban legends, cults, misinformation, et al.
Evolution is in this group.

You keep mentioning magic, which of course is to make me feel silly, as if that’s is somehow what I am promoting. Give that one up if you like talking on a scientific basis. What do you think the BIG BANG was? A whole universe out of a singularity the size of a proton. Magic doesn’t even describe it. Can you imagine that show on a Las Vegas stage? It’s beyond anything we can conceive.

Re: Realize that you don’t know what’s best for nature, only nature does.
Then are you saying, since nature “knows”, nature has an intelligence?

Re:such as your magical rotating eye socket problem
This isn’t my problem. This is yours. Explain how this can happen with non-occurring good mutations being selected by animals consuming other animals….or not. This is a giant problem for you. You are too blinded by your indoctrination to see that Darwin can’t explain it. So you accept without question. Try questioning. And if you can’t see it QUESTION HARDER. Variation isn’t the argument. Of course variation occurs. No argument there. Inventing, designing, and assembling complex systems doesn’t.

My response to his vacuous statements…
Not close to figuring it out? It’s already been done. It’s been figured out by thousands of scientists with minds far greater than your own. You just don’t agree with them, and refuse to believe the evidence that’s ALREADY there, because a pair of dinosaur arms didn’t change, and that confused you.If it didn’t happen by science, then by something outside of science. Science is the study of reality. If reality doesn’t pass muster with you, maybe you need to change your view.

Since neither you or I was around for the “Big Bang” (a poor name for an event that defies most people’s ability to comprehend it, maybe more like a Big Expansion, or a Big Beginning) then neither of us can say with any certainty what happened. I’m pretty certain it didn’t happen a mere 6,000 years ago, and didn’t involve 50 foot tall invisible bearded men. You don’t believe in that either, I assume by your objections at being called religious. You keep trying to comprehend it in human terms, yet the “singularity” that might have been the beginning of the present version of the universe, could only be described outside the normal definitions of space and time. It wasn’t an event that occurred within an already defined space, at an ordained time, it was the ACTUAL EXPANSION OF SPACE AND TIME ITSELF. More than likely a meeting of higher dimensional membranes.
But really, why are we on the subject of the Big Bang? This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, mutation, or natural selection. (The beginning of the universe has nothing to do with life?)

Nature has an intelligence? Nope. I was waiting for that question, though. Just like how Creationists like to ask “Well, if there are laws to the universe, who passed those laws?”. Nature is not sentient, at least not like humans are sentient. Natural selection tries every conceivable combination, an almost infinite number of variables. Your finite mind tries to make sense of eyes, hearts, arms, and flagellum, yet it doesn’t make sense to you. For you to truly understand how something complex can form through natural selection, you’d need a few billion years of trial and error.

Non occurring good mutations? What is this drivel you are spouting? A mutation is neither “good” or “bad” until it is defined by an observer, mainly us. A mutation is an error in copying the genetic “code”. (again, a term I must be careful about, otherwise you’ll be asking “Well, if there’s a code, who’s the programmer?” We borrow design from nature, not the other way around. We did not invent cameras, camouflage, motors, pumps, inclined planes, fire, language, codes or any other wondrous thing, we merely looked at the world around us and copied it.)  (No, something “simple” did. Animals selectively killing and consuming other animals, and wonderful mutations that never occur diddit.) A mutation will remain neutral until forces act upon it. Y’know, like NATURAL SELECTION. That’s the balance. Random mutations and natural selection drive the “complexity” and “design” you claim to see in the world.
I think I’ve already come up with a fairly good explanation for your “rotating eye problem” Just like I explain in my video, a pit that can sense the direction of light would be more beneficial than one that does not. In a thousand offspring, if some had slightly more mobile “eye pits”, they would have a better chance at escaping predators, and passing the trait on to their own offspring. (Of course he doesn’t get that an eyeball cannot be partially fixed.  If it is 1/3 freed up, it won’t rotate any more than one that is fully fixed. So, no advantage. No “tiny steps”.  If evolutionauts see advantage, by golly, that means IT EVOLVED!) Tiny muscles that can direct a pit can only pull so far though. If there is even the slightest variation in the next generation of offspring, and some of that variation involves the detachment of the pit from the rest of the organism, thus freeing the pit for more mobility and less friction, it would be favored. If natural selection continues to favor partially moving pits with greater and greater detachment, you will eventually see a fully separated ocular orb. JUST like the ones rolling around in your head. (Did he make that up? Or does he have fossils or modern species with partially freed up orbs?) It doesn’t just work on one trait at a time, though. At the same time as it’s working out the motion problem, it’s still working on the retina problem, making the cells at the back of the pit more sensitive. It’s working on the focusing problem, making use of already existing constricting tissue, to create the Iris. It’s also working on the lens, keeping the insides safe from debris.
Still, it’s a work in progress. We have tiny remnants of cells floating in our eyes, obstructing the view. We have blind spots that our brain must compensate for. We develop cataracts much too easily. But, who am I to say what nature will prefer? Maybe if we didn’t have cataracts, blind spots, or floaters, our eyes would be far worse in some unimaginable way?

The only inventing, designing, and assembling being done, is being done by trial and error, though variation (those gawd-awful mutations you complain about) and selection (environmental pressures that cull the less successful). (Variation invents?)

Babbling shit for brains responds with…
Re: “At the same time as it’s working out the motion problem, it’s still working on the retina problem, making the cells at the back of the pit more sensitive. It’s working on the focusing problem, making use of already existing constricting tissue, to create the Iris. It’s also working on the lens, keeping the insides safe from debris.”
Just think. And all of that from no intelligence. Remarkable. Your inability to see the folly is astounding. Your long explanation of what you must realize I already know shows you are not trying t convince me. Why would you waste so much time on writing what you must realize I already know? You are trying to convince yourself.I’ve been where you are, and I know too much to go back. Just like Christianity was for me as a kid. You are too indoctrinated to have even the slightest bit of skepticism. None ever comes out in your writing. Not a lick. Not a word. Good science requires lots of skepticism.

Let’s let your essay be the last word. Or if you want one more shot, that will be the last. If you do want one more, I will read it, and acknowledge. Bye.

And my final message to him…

“Just think. And all of that from no intelligence. Remarkable.”Yes, it is *very* remarkable. No intelligence was needed. No designer. No deity. No space aliens. All the mechanics are already there, just natural properties of the universe. (Where did those absolutely perfect natural properties come from? Dumb luck?)
“Why would you waste so much time on writing what you must realize I already know?”

Obviously, you know jack shit of natural selection. You talk as if mutations don’t occur, or if they do, none are ever beneficial. You talk as if the environment doesn’t weed out the organisms that are less fit. (Less fit being eliminated invents?) You think in broad terms, yet give no regard to tiny details. You repeatedly accuse ME of being “indoctrinated”. You claim I have no skepticism. You say I should question science. Believe me, I have. (No he doesn’t. He believes. He is a goddam believer.) And not one thing you have stated thus far has caused me to reconsider. You ridicule, you accuse, you mock, yet the ONE thing you haven’t done is provide evidence to back up your bullshit claims. (Evidence that variation doesn’t invent? Animals selectively killing and consuming other animals doesn’t invent?)
Remember, I realized four messages back that you were hopelessly self obsessed, and not worth arguing with. What was your response? “When you eat it in a scientific discussion, time to get rid of the guy that made you eat it. Bye, sucker.” So it seems you yourself just “ate it”, and now you want to call this whole conversation off. Seems like you want it to end on your terms. Nice power play, bub. (Bub?) Makes you feel good, thinking you’re right, just because you “think outside the box”. Maybe you should consider a belief in Bigfoot as well. Or are you indoctrinated in the “there is no Bigfoot” belief?
I assure you, you need to be more skeptical of your own beliefs. (My only belief is that evolution is bullshit. I have to be skeptical of that?) Hold that accusatory mirror up to yourself. Think long and hard about what you don’t seem to comprehend about the natural world. Meditate on the processes that refine life into neat, organized packets. Realize that no magical designer is necessary. Maybe in time, you’ll really understand how natural selection works, and how it can create such remarkably detailed systems.

peace!

Well, it’s been a few days, and here’s what he sends me…

……..

Re:You talk as if mutations don’t occur, or if they do, none are ever beneficial.
I am correct. Good ones don’t. Oh, except for bacteria eating nylon, moth wings,mosquitoes changing their diet, et al. The little invisible nothings that evolutionauts always claim.
Re: the ONE thing you haven’t done is provide evidence to back up your bullshit claims.
That an event or series of events is impossible, and has never been observed by any man who lives or ever lived, is proof. You are just too blind to see it.
Re; bub? bub? That’s a new one.
The only reason I wanted to cut it off is I have done this argument too many times with people who swallowed the whole enchilada. Like you. You think lots of animals eating other animals over a huge time span, and non-occurring good mutations can form complex visual systems, hearts, alimentary systems. I never will. Never. So all we can do is go in circles. You are not going to go for what I think, and I certainly will NEVER go for yours. Too absurd.
We are just going in circles, and that will never end. So I think we should leave it that we disagree, because our minds won’t change.
Peace to you too.
I respond…
“That an event or series of events is impossible, and has never been observed by any man who lives or ever lived, is proof. You are just too blind to see it.”Beneficial mutations have occurred, and have been observed directly AND indirectly. That’s proof enough for me. You? Nothing to offer except your claim that it doesn’t occur. It’s easy enough to look the other way and say something doesn’t exist, isn’t it?

Natural selection created efficient systems to pump blood, observe the environment, and defend the organism. It didn’t happen overnight, and it started with very simple prototypes that only became more complex through the selection process. You think humans DESIGNED socket joints? Or pumps? Or cameras? Nope. We copied them from nature. And nature didn’t design them either, just refined them with trial and error through variation (aka, those pesky beneficial mutations) and selection (all those animals eating each other over a very long time). (They are designed, but nature didn’t design them. Humans copied natures designs that aren’t designs. Humans didn’t design them. Nature did. But didn’t. How do you “refine” a design that isn’t a design? That’s impossible. To refine something that isn’t.)

You’re absolutely right, though. Your mind isn’t going to change. You’re self obsessed in your belief that you came across some enlightened viewpoint, that somehow solves the age-old question of where we came from. You’re not even close, and you still don’t know jack shit about the actual concepts behind evolution.

Gosh, more stupidity from his mouth-hole…
Re:Beneficial mutations have occurred, and have been observed directly AND indirectly.
Oh, you have seen retinas, heart, brains, form by mutations? In your dreams? That is pure indoctrinated bullshit. Please cite some examples. I can’t wait to see!
Re: And nature didn’t design them either.
Oh, so what did? They had to be invented, and designed, and assembled, because 3.7BYA they didn’t exist. So nothing invented these complex devices? That Eric, is a damn miracle.
Re:You’re self obsessed in your belief that you came across some enlightened viewpoint.
No, actually I do real science. I admit I have no idea what the source of intelligence is. I don’t believe in some phony entity like you do.
Re:you still don’t know jack shit about the actual concepts behind evolution.
Oh yea, it’s sooo complex.

Time to cut this fucker off.
“Oh, you have seen retinas, heart, brains, form by mutations?”
In the short time we humans have been here, we’ve seen shit-tons of beneficial mutations. You’ve even cited a few yourself. Once an eye, heart, or brain has formed, there’s no need to un-form and re-form them again. Thus, you’re not likely to see one develop in your lifespan. (Of course you could see systems in mid-formation, but alas, there aren’t any.)
“That is pure indoctrinated bullshit. Please cite some examples.”
What’s your infatuation with the word ‘indoctrinated’? Maybe you guys should get a room.
Examples of soft tissues in the fossil record? Soft tissue doesn’t preserve like calcified bone. You and your ’scientific’ mind should know that. Even still, here’s a few examples.
Eyes:http://www.ebiomedia.com/Eyes/What-was-the-most-primitive-eye-like.html

http://www.arkive.org/fluted-clam/tridacna-squamosa/image-G24318.html

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/execsumm/nrn2283.html

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/fig_tab/nrn2283_F1.html

(I suggest you join nature.com, so you can fully appreciate this article.)
Hearts:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Development/heart_evolution.htm

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5.html

http://biochemicalsoul.com/2009/02/darwin-heart-of-evolution/

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17028969

Brains:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYT-4R8KNK4-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=994263733&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a0c046065a1428bb3fd853d622c7e8ed

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ht54123236r87268/

http://www.livescience.com/animals/090623-primate-brain-model.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/34876.php

Though I feel that offering you these meager examples is casting pearls before swine. You’ll be crying that they are all “indoctrinated”, and it’s all a bunch of propaganda meant to brainwash the masses. Not that any bullshit articles from creationism.org ever convinced me.
“I can’t wait to see!”
Smug ass.
“They had to be invented, and designed, and assembled,”
Oh, did they HAVE to be invented? Humans invent. (Wait. I thought nature invents. We copied, Now WE invented?) Nature refines. Natural selection took reproducing amino acid polymers (all following the laws of physics!), destroyed the ones that didn’t reproduce, or reproduced poorly, and allowed the quick and accurate reproducers to flourish. The amino acid molecules that self polymerized inside lipid membranes (still following physics!) had a better chance of not being destroyed by a harsh environment. Once a “proto cell” (Sorry, no such thin as a protocell.) reached a certain size, pure mechanical motion broke it into smaller pieces (Isn’t physics grand?).
Let’s skip ahead. Now these simple chemistry bubbles have become chemical factories. Using nothing more than chemistry, mathematics, and physics, they have developed longer and more stable polymers. They’ve begun to ambulate on their own, using outside nutrients to sustain the chemical reactions that keep them from degrading to nothingness. They are by no means “smart”, It’s just chemistry doing what chemistry does. Natural selection promotes “good” chemical reactions, and destroys “bad” ones (You know, the reactions that cause a proto cell to NOT exist). These proto cells may even be consuming one another, or living symbiotically inside one another. Modern example, mitochondria may be the remnants of symbiotic single celled organisms that invaded larger cells for protection.
Let’s look a little further down the road. Ever hear the term “safety in numbers”? Single celled organisms that group together have a higher chance of not becoming non-existent. Get that? They survive. Because it is safer. Not because they KNOW it’s safer, but because the ones that did not, would fucking die. Boom, multicellular life is born. Not very well put together, mind you. About as organized as a sponge or coral, but still, a good starting point. Now, imagine if this colony of single celled organisms (which we’ll call a multicellular organism from now on) could move itself around. Maybe to a better spot for food, or maybe to eat another multicellular organism. Think of something akin to a Portuguese Man O’ War. Now, what if some of the single celled organisms that make up this colony were specialized to do a certain task? What if some were better at defending the colony, and some were better at sending messages? Not that these cells are any smarter than the other ones. Just that the colonies that could not function as well, the ones that could not communicate, would inevitably FAIL. Now, using that bundle of nerve cells atop your spinal column, consider this trial-and-error method (again, gotta love physics!) being applied to EVERY “living” thing. (only in quotes, because all “life” is but a complex chemical reaction. without chemistry or physics, life would cease.) Imagine a simple clump of cells becoming better at evading other clumps of cells, better at finding the chemical nutrients it needs. Imagine primitive worms with simple cordite nerve bundles(hint: brains), simple nutrient delivery systems through circulatory means(hint: hearts), simple aggregations of cells that can detect wavelengths of energy(hint: eyes), specifically the wavelengths in abundance in the environment that they were developing. Variation and competition drives the world. And you deny this? You can’t figure out that mutations lead to variation, and competition leads to natural selection? You can’t see how natural processes can create organized systems? How complexity is just a byproduct of chemistry combined with eclectic branches of mathematics, and just a dash of physics? If not, them maybe this IS just too complex for you. (Eric is desperate. Doesn’t he know that I MUST know this suff? But a whole essay on abiogenesis fantasies? My gawd.)
“So nothing invented these complex devices?”
Yes, nothing INVENTED these complex devices. Physics DEVELOPED them over time, with much trial and error. (What is the difference between inventing and developing something that never previously existed?)
“I admit I have no idea what the source of intelligence is. I don’t believe in some phony entity like you do.”
Intelligence? Just a collective reaction to help an organism survive. Humans have intelligence, nature does not. Humans copy designs from nature, (Now nature designs? I thought it didnNature refines through trial and error, with a shit-ton more errors than successes.
YOUR viewpoint is the only one that requires some phony entity to exist. You just claim to not name the specific entity.

He still responds…

Why “indoctrinated”?  Because you are. You have NEVER posted a single bit of doubt about what you say. Only the devout religious do that in my world. “It’s an absolute that eyes didn’t need any intelligence to form.” Period. The end, in your mind. Man, with intelligence, took 500,000 years to make a very poor copy what nature did with, as you say, an IQ of nothing all by itself.
For the fun on it I checked these. I have read most before, so I am very familiar with them.

1.Oh, euglenia. Gee, more fake evidence. A single celled species that has EMR spots. Why didnt it evolve into a multi-celled? Why didnt it evolve eyes in hundreds of millions of years? I know. “It didnt need to.” Your example is evidence against your belief. Sorry.
2.More evidence against your belief. You eat it with the primitive eye thing. The fluted clam didnt evolve eyes even though it had thousands of times more time to do so. You better give that one up
3.Hey just draw how you think chordate eyes evolved, and that becomes science! Same as your vid. They have no idea, except to make cartoon drawings of the steps that couldnt happen.
4.I am very familiar with this site. It starts out with a single chambered heart, and says that it evolved into a multi. Just like that. This site has absolutely no idea how the first pump came about, or how a single chambered heart evolved from nothing, then into two, then three then four. Or how the blood became blood, or how the vessels formed. Or..never mind. The heart of fish are the simplest vertebrate hearts. A good heart anatomy lesson, but again, absolutely no idea.
5.So more chambers formed and hooked themselves up to vessels, blood flow, nerves, the lung. Gee, cartoons are so scientific.
6.From the site: Now imagine an individual of this species is born with what others of its species would consider a defect (if they had brains with which to consider such a concept). This individual has certain cells that have formed a small simple tube-like structure. Perhaps it is only a vague cavity or some extra space between its cells. Now when this individual swims around, contracting its primitive muscles, the fluid within its body spreads a little bit more and a little bit faster through this cavity or space. Now that is science.
That’s as far as I can go. Eric, you can’t see what a pile of bullshit these are? Hard to believe. Do you believe everything you read? If it’s in print it’s true, as long as it’s evolution? Your pages are just a bunch of cartoon fantasies. Again, you have absolutely no skepticism. That’s just not cool.

Again, your long essay is your MO for convincing yourself. It’s kind of like describing how a building would design and build itself. “And then the second floor was added. Then the doors, and then….” And if you can do that with a straight face, you are true believer.

No more!  I can’t take his stupidity any longer.  My LAST message to him.

You can take your “indoctrinated” accusations, and shove them deeply up your rectal orifice.
Why don’t things evolve past a certain point? Because they fill an ecological niche. If they all were at the top of the evolutionary ladder, there’d be a ton more competition with more developed creatures. Life settles into a place where it balances with the outside environment.
You keep saying these complex systems self assemble. That things just hook up with one another, fully formed. That’s not the way evolution works. We’re talking tiny adaptations through the course of billions of generations. (Billions of generations are his god. And he has no concept. Goddiddit and Evolutiondiddit, one fast, one slow, are equal.Both are religions, one says it is, one says it isn’t.  But both are.)
Buildings aren’t life. Life is based on chemistry. Buildings don’t build themselves. That’s the lamest strawman argument you’ve yet to spout.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. Alejandro said,

    “Seeing the short arms of a T-Rex isn’t proof that evolution doesn’t occur. It is merely proof that you aren’t nearly as CREATIVE as natural selection.”

    Yes, they need to be creative and use their imagination to make up stories, and defend them as proven facts. Until new evidence contradicts one of these stories and they need to rewrite it so it fits the new evidence and again they are defending this new rewritten story as proven fact.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Roger that and right on. My favorite is punctuated equilibrium. “Let’s name the fact that there is no evolution in the fossil record so we can continue fooling the herd.” Or how about convergent evolution. The notion that lots of different species can evolve nearly the exact same organs. What a house of cards.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: