The Antichristian Phenomenon

I got a bit carried away with something yesterday and totally forgot to make my post.
Anyway, now that it is Wednesday, new posts are overdue!

If you remember in our last episode, Aelnathan asked us to go to HIS review if we wanted to continue commenting, as he just can’t keep up with posts on someone else’s review. Whatever. I did it. Previously, Cleric had gone to his review and continued a discussion that was already in the comments section, but we will start with my post, as there is a gap in time and the old debate (The bible promotes genocide! No it doesn’t, there are wars but wars aren’t genocide! Yes it does, God asks them to kill all living beings in a city…! BUT BUT BUT TEH WERE TEH EVULS…) Kind of died. If you would like to read it for yourself you can go to his review here. The content I am posting starts on page 2. There’s also another person who steps in and gives similar arguments to the ones I presented, but all of the previous debates were months old by the time I got there.

Anyway, on with the debate. I will keep it short, 2 posts, because from here on out, the posts become… EPIC.

If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude and Part 1.

First it is worth looking at Aelnathan’s review of Expelled. “Headdesk” is a good adjective to describe my thoughts about it.

I just want to thank you for making the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It takes great courage, wit, and knowledge to take on the anti-scientific Science Establishment. I respect and appreciate people like you, who provide knowledgeable debate on the issues of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Congratulations on a job well done!

And that’s it. Really. Honestly, I’m not sure the word “review” even applies to a blurb like this, but lets move on from writing criticism and see how the debate is going.

Anath Said:
I’ll respond here since you mentioned I should. Admittedly I don’t keep track of Amazon much either, usually Cleric alerts me of replies since I don’t really use the site much.

>>The “decrease in genetic diversity”, as I put it, does not just relate to artificial selection. Case in point; try getting a sun bear cub from breeding polar bears. It is not going to happen (not by natural breeding means, anyway) However, these two bear species descended from some original bear ancestor. They both are better adapted to their respective environments than their ancestors, but they will not be able to produce the range of breeds that their ancenstors produced. That is my point.

But your point is invalid and not accurate to life. Two polar bears cannot produce a sun bear, but their ancestors didn’t spontaneously produce random breeds of bear either. Their common ancestor was only ONE specie and the species diverged over time. The polar bears and the sun bears both have the same potential their ancestors did to generate new species based on adaptations and changes in environment, so imagine that each species spawned two new species, that makes FOUR new species where previously there were only TWO. How exactly is 4<2?

Also there remains this possibility. Imagine that a population of Sun Bears found themselves in an environment that was growing increasingly cold and snowy year round. In order to survive, they will adapt, and their offspring will begin to exhibit different traits than their parents. One good adaptation, found by countless arctic species, is to have a white coat, so imagine that after generations, the Sun Bears have white coats, as a gene from their ancestors is expressed - let's imagine it's incidentally the same gene sequence that turns a polar bear's coat white. Does that mean a Sun Bear has just given birth to a Polar Bear? NO. Did the genetic diversity go down? NO. Do we have a new species? Maybe in a few generations, but not yet. When we do get a new specie from this isolated population, will the genetic diversity go down? NO.

What makes you think that our "modern" animals are incapable of becoming ancestors for future species or are not in the process of doing so? It's like saying that YOU PERSONALLY can't become an ancestor.

>>Concerning the “what good has evolution done for us?”, you make some interesting points. In the case of medicine, however, is not the study of family history called Heredity? Perhaps I am merely splitting hairs here. With Evolution’s effects on computers and such, one could argue that the Evolutionary Algorithm is merely an attempt to mimic human reasoning faculties, despite its inspiration.

Heredity is a branch of Genetics which is under the very large umbrella of Evolution. When you talk about family-history heredity, you are talking about evolution through genetics on a VERY small time line, and when you talk about “Evolution”, you are talking about heredity and genetics on a very LONG time line.

The Evolutionary Algorithm works more like genetics in order to solve problems by elimination. This is DIRECTLY evolutionary theory. The AI program you are thinking of that tries most directly to mimic human reasoning is called the Artificial Neural Network, which attempts to “learn” in a similar method as a human brain. Yes, the goal of all AI is to mimic human intelligence, but to imply that this somehow overrides the fact that the Evolutionary Algorithm was DIRECTLY created due to knowledge of evolutionary theory is confusing the order of carts and horses.

>>P.S.—-Just one last question for Anath, in response to the argument with All-Access Customer. Did man descend from apes??? I have noticed that Evolutionists are so…….not unified on that point.

This depends largely on what one defines as “apes”. If one means the gorillas or orangutans or chimps we currently see in the zoo, then of course not, but if one means a common primate ancestor, then yes. Biologically speaking, homo sapiens–man, didn’t just “descend” from primates, we ARE primates.

I don’t know what “evolutionists” you’ve been talking to that would disagree that we have a common primate ancestor, I haven’t found any yet.

Here’s a couple other points from your posts that I feel should be addressed:
>>so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. (and surrounding text)
>>Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature?(and surrounding text) Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt?

“Survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean survival of the physically strongest or most “powerful”. In many cases, such as our own evolution, the most co-operative can be the “fittest”.

What removes us from the bonds of classic, natural evolutionary theory is our ability to CONTROL our environment. Other animals operate within their parameters, we take charge of ours. Normally the physically infirm die by disease. We are able to keep them alive and help them overcome their handicap and live a full life, or simply give them a chance at it. Normally there is a portion of any species that becomes prey for predators. We have been able to nearly wipe any would-be predator from the face of the earth, and combat any remaining, so we are no longer subject to the predator-prey dynamic that keeps populations in check. But what does this REALLY mean? Does it mean evolution no longer happens to us? NO. It means that we are effectively directing our own evolution instead of natural processes. We are creating our own environment to adapt to, and we are in the process of eliminating as many natural kinks as possible. No one knows where this will lead, but there is a lot of speculation, especially in the realm of neuroscience as our interaction with new technology directly affects the wiring of our brain.

Is sentience unnatural is also an important question. I argue that it is not. We are not the only “sentient” beings on this planet, and we have not been the only sentient beings in the course of history. Dolphins and elephants display a remarkable intelligence and sentience, and even a pigeon is self-aware and can recognize itself in a mirror. The difference is our ability to create and manipulate tools due to being bipedal with opposable thumbs. As a result, a capacity for greater abstract thinking was “fittest”, where other mammals found other advantages, such as size or speed. This does not make them any less sentient.

>>Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. (and surrounding text)

I would agree, but none of your analogies ACTUALLY represent microevolution.

A friend of mine once made a very correct analogy on the relation of microevolution and macroevolution. I mean no offense by quoting it here, but try and understand what it is saying:
“Saying that microevolution is a fact but macroevolution is not a fact is like saying that you can pick your nose for 5 seconds but you can’t pick it for a full minute.”

Microevolution and macroevolution are essentially the same thing. All that is different is SCALE. Microevolution talks about a couple genes here and there within a very small time frame. Macroevolution talks about many genes over an extended time frame. Should an alien visit earth and believe that all life here used photosynthesis, that would be due to a small sample size. The “sample size” of macroevolution is ALL life on earth and EVERYTHING that has ever happened in microevolution.

Also as a comment to this
>>I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere.

We are stating facts that you misunderstand and elucidating the areas in which your knowledge or beliefs clearly contradict well-known peer-reviewed scientific fact. Stating that bears today have less genetic diversity than the bears of yesterday IS ERRONEOUS, and while I understand how you have drawn that conclusion, it is incorrect. I can tell you with certainty that it is incorrect because I know the correct answer due to question, study, and evaluation of both sides of the argument. I know the creationist arguments, where they are valid and where they are flawed, and you do not have to give up your Christian belief to understand how evolutionary theory works, despite what others on both sides would have you believe. If you would like, I will help you fill in the gaps and understand where you are being misled.

Or you can just believe that you can pick your nose for five seconds but not for a full minute, and wonder why people keep telling you that you are wrong.

As always, I made my epic post thinking, MUAH HAHA! THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN SAY TO THAT! I CAN’T EVEN IMAGINE WHERE HE’D START ARGUING THAT! But watch him. Its quite sad really. Oh and pad your desks and palms, there are SERIOUS headdesks and facepalms on the way, and lots of them.

Aelnathan said:
I see your point on “decreasing genetic diversity”. Perhaps my arguments have been erroneous, due to my research of the Global Seed Vault ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault ). Here, however, one can see what happens when a person applies one branch of science (in this case, agricultural biodiversity) to a wider field (biodiversity as a whole).

When I said apes, I meant APES, not primates. My question is, did man descend from apes? I have heard of numerous evolutionists argue for and against this theory.

If we can “CONTROL our environment”, why does that remove then from “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Are we not then just “super-evolved”? We are still operating within our “parameters”; we just have more power, a greater ability to “take charge of ours”. It is not like other creatures lack this ability to “take charge”. Take a look at termites, or bees, or ants—-slave-making ants in particular. This species actually goes out of its way to raid other ant colonies, taking their population as “slaves” to work in the slave-maker ant’s colony. In addition, many animals do care for their handicapped. Dolphins lift their wounded to the surface to breath (assisted respiration, anyone?) In one fairly recent case, a dog dragged an injured dog off of a highway and into safety. If you have ever raised dogs, or cats, or horses (as I have), you will see how a mother will care for her young when they are injured. The fact that the most they can do is often merely licking wounds does not change the fact that they are doing all they can to keep their loved ones alive. Regarding predators, how many predators does a polar bear have in its natural habitat? Man. What else? I am sure that you will find this question difficult to answer. Man has his fair share of predators. In addition to the obvious animals (bears, lions, alligators, crocodiles, caimans, etc.), there is also disease. So the idea that man has eliminated nearly all of his predators is—-how shall I say?—-erroneous. We are nowhere near that point. Even the predators that we can “combat”, disease namely, are still oftentimes far beyond our control. It is not like a polar bear can not “combat” his predators (Man), either. It has been successful in many cases. Yes, we are creating our own environments. By the way, termites have air-conditioning. We are not alone.

It is interesting that you should mention dolphins. They can create tools (such as using broken sponges as nose-guards during foraging), and these skills are passed down by education, not by inheritance. Some have also been known to engage in acts that often are unaccountable in relation to the natural order of things. Their still mysterious, occasional killings of porpoises may be do to some discord among their “cultures”. This poses some interesting questions. If dolphins engage in these irrational activities, are they also to be excluded from the scope of “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Also, considering their apparently extreme intelligence, how come they have never evolved hands with opposable thumbs? I am sure they could find a use for them.

Concerning microevolution and activities involving noses, one could also consider the axes of the planets. Every planet’s axis is aligned in a generally perpendicular position compared to the plane of the Solar System, [here, the speaker's voice lowered to a whisper, a nervousness shading his face, his eyes looking down] except for, uh, Uranus [He kicked the ground, cursing his misfortune]. There are always exceptions to scientific expectations, like the expectation that all planets should rotate in the same direction, due to their alleged emergence from dust swirling after the sun appeared. Yes, I know, Uranus is said to have been hit by a comet, or asteroid, or rogue planet, or so some of the theories go. Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age. It seems highly unlikely that the speed of this expansion is becoming more and more rapid, especially when entropy is accounted for.

Now I have stated facts that I do not expect you will find reason to “misunderstand”. Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day. As I have said elsewhere, the scientific establishments contemporary to Galileo persecuted him for his discoveries. I appreciate what the scientific community has accomplished, but generally my admiration is with the individual scientists (Aristarchus, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Tesla, etc.) rather than the “establishment”. I think it is clear that neither of us are “scientists”, though we both are interested the workings of the universe. I am afraid I must pass on your generous offer to “fill in the gaps” of my allegedly “misled” understanding. I believe my arguments have been as clear as yours, and have suffered from no more (if perhaps no less) holes in logic. The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

Author of the Aelnathan

That’s right everyone, “Why didn’t dolphins develop opposable thumbs”? After all, we all know that if a creature doesn’t have a human or human-like form it most certainly CAN’T actually be intelligent, and a dog licking its sick puppy is exactly the same as developing and administering antibiotics! Seriously.

Here we also witness one of many attempts to duck out, and the continual denial of the real problem: Aelnathan doesn’t understand evolution in the first place. What’s that AA saying… the first step to recovery is admitting there is problem?

Next time, three epic posts as Cleric comes back, I explain taxonomy, gravity, and technology, while Aelnathan sticks his fingers in his ears and thinks we called him a fool.

Continue the debate? Part 3.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.