+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8452
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 5214 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #120 on: September 19, 2015, 12:02:47 am »
More evidence for the reality of genetic entropy

by Robert W. Carter

My colleague John Sanford and I have recently published a paper in a secular journal with what we believe are profound implications.1

Our basic claim is that ‘genetic entropy’ works in the real world, which brings questions about the role of natural selection and the long-term survival of species into the future.

A new look at an old virus

The paper analyzed mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza genome using over 95 years’ worth of genetic sequences (figure 1).


Figure 1. Mutation accumulation in human H1N1. The published Brevig Mission strain from 1918 was used as the baseline (bold line) for comparison with all available human-infecting H1N1 genomes. There are two distinct trend lines in the data. The 2009–2010 outbreak samples and additional samples from 2011–2012 are circled. These and the scattered points are all derived from swine H1N1 versions. The remaining points represent mutation accumulation in the ‘human’ version of H1N1: from 1918 to its initial extinction in 1957, a break of 19 years, its re-introduction in 1976 (of a strain from approximately 1955, after which the mutation count picks up where it left off), and a second disappearance in 2009.

This type of data is a rarity in the world of genetics, since most sequence data are from recent organisms with long generation times. The influenza virus, however, has been isolated and sequenced from human tissue samples all the way back to 1918.

With a human-to-human transmission on average every three days or so, this makes over 11,000 disease generations and many times more than that number of viral generations.

The number of viral generations is possibly comparable to the number of generations since the supposed human-chimpanzee split.


Full article:
 

http://creation.com/evidence-for-genetic-entropy
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #121 on: April 10, 2017, 06:53:35 pm »
Homo sap's epitaph: Self Preservation beats altruistic behavior any time.     


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #122 on: April 10, 2017, 06:58:55 pm »
I disagree with your implying that its human nature and nothing we can do about it.

I never implied any such thing, in fact I said exactly the opposite that inherently like all pack animals Homo Saps has a cooperative nature that asserts itself in groups around the size of Dunbar's Number of 150.  I have written on many occasions how these behaviors are NOT "Human Nature" but rather the cultural outcome of the development of Agriculture, the Property Ownership system and Money.  I have used on MANY occasions the line "Money is the ROOT of all EVIL".           

I am appalled you can so seriously misinterpret my writing.

RE[/size]


Well you're close RE....

FOR THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil   


 


I know RE claims it's six of one and half a dozen of another. But I don't think so. And, I'm glad to see you and I are on the same page. All that said, I hasten to add, in defense of RE , that he practices a lack of LOVE for money in his life! 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #123 on: April 10, 2017, 07:03:28 pm »
Homo sap's epitaph: Self Preservation beats altruistic behavior any time.

The point AG is that you have to achieve a balance between the two.  You can't be perfectly altruistic, at the very least for self-preservation you have to kill plants and eat them.

RE

No, really? Uh, RE, the last time I checked, using the verb "BEATS" in the above boast is evidence of a LACK of balance to the point of arrogant and totally unjustified ASSURANCE that conscience free predation (which is what  justifying self-preservation over altruism ALWAYS IS in practice) takes PRECEDENCE over altruism ANY TIME.

Now tell me, Godfader, where did you get the strange idea that Saint Palloy was advocating a BALANCE, as in, about as much of one as the other? 

I don't mean to replace GO in some kind of passive aggressive chain pulling exercise  ;), but you are off your meds and on an "apex predator can anything it wants" trip (AGAIN  :P).

Even Darwin said that ain't so. Now don't get your drawers in a bunch about dis ting, old man. I do agree with you that self-preservation has its place in biosphere math. BUT, as far as species perpetuation and survival is concerned, and PARTICULARLY in regard to APEX PREDATORS, individual ALTRUISM plays a FAR more important role than self-preservation. There is NO survival if those two are EQUAL TIME balanced. ONLY when altruism is the TOP TRAIT (i.e. NEVER a balance between the two    ) is species perpetuation not in jeopardy. 

Of course I know you love a good argument, so I will give you some fodder to get a real good one going here.

SNIPPET from The Paradox of Altruism

Quote
Charles Darwin regarded the problem of altruism—the act of helping someone else, even if it comes at a steep personal cost—as a potentially fatal challenge to his theory of natural selection. After all, if life was such a cruel “struggle for existence,” then how could a selfless individual ever live long enough to reproduce? Why would natural selection favor a behavior that made us less likely to survive? In “The Descent of Man,” Darwin wrote, “He who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature.” And yet, as Darwin knew, altruism is everywhere, a stubborn anomaly of nature. Bats feed hungry brethren; honeybees defend the hive by committing suicide with a sting; birds raise offspring that aren’t their own; humans leap onto subway tracks to save strangers. The sheer ubiquity of such behavior suggests that kindness is not a losing life strategy.

For more than a century after Darwin, altruism remained a paradox. The first glimmers of a solution arrived in a Bloomsbury pub in the early nineteen-fifties. According to legend, the biologist J. B. S. Haldane was several pints into the afternoon when he was asked how far he would go to save the life of another person. Haldane thought for a moment, and then started scribbling numbers on the back of a napkin. “I would jump into a river to save two brothers, but not one,” Haldane said. “Or to save eight cousins but not seven.” His drunken answer summarized a powerful scientific idea. Because individuals share much of their genome with close relatives, a trait will also persist if it leads to the survival of their kin. According to Haldane’s moral arithmetic , sacrificing for a family member is just a different way of promoting our own DNA.
https://www.wired.com/201.../the-paradox-of-altruism/


Yup, All these serious scientists have to be drunk to come up with any kind of semi-logical CFS. ::)

But it's still mostly a wild ass guess, if evolution true believers would be honest about it (which they NEVER are!). These pecker heads can't even figure out how a woodpecker evolved, but they arrogantly claim to be "logical" about some mathematical formula for altruism based on the "danger" of not passing on their glorious gene pool. GIVE ME A BREAK HERE! These F U C K S want to reduce loyalty, love and caring to some set of perceptual cues about the family jewels? ???

 



Consequently, I continue to advocate that any claim to "balance" between self preservation and altruism, where altruism has the subservient position, is the MARK of an EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END. As I have said here many times to deaf ears, Natural Selection is a SUBTRACTIVE PROCESS, so I have no problem predicting the logical and well deserved extinction of dumb f u c k ing predators that don't care for their surroundings, relatives or prey species.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #124 on: April 11, 2017, 02:39:30 pm »
Now tell me, Godfader, where did you get the strange idea that Saint Palloy was advocating a BALANCE, as in, about as much of one as the other? [/size]

I never argued any such strange idea.  I just argued that the idea predation isn't part of our makeup is a canard, just as it is a canard to say we are always altruistic.  PY can make his own arguments.  Don't conflate my arguments with his please.

RE


Believe me, I don't. You  have been vociferous about the God footprint on the universe (Fibonacci down to quantum level  ) while Palloy poo poos Fibonacci because "it's not a mathematical function". Anything that stands in the way of Palloy's atheistic Darwinian religion is fodder for him to sophisticate his way around.  ;)

I am looking forward to meeting dumbstruck and sheepish Palloy on the other side.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #125 on: April 21, 2017, 02:35:00 pm »
If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST the validity of the Theory of Evolution!  :o


The End of Irreducible Complexity?

 
by Dr. Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S.on

October 6, 2009

The titles of two recent science news articles caught my attention, “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science” and “Intelligent Design ‘Evidence’ Unproven by Real Science.”1 The evidence in question is a molecular machine. Members of the Intelligent Design Movement and creation scientists have often stated that molecular machines are irreducibly complex and could not be formed by evolution. However, evolutionists now claim the mechanism of “pre-adaptation” is a way that these molecular machines could have evolved.

What Is a Molecular Machine and Why Is It Irreducibly Complex?

Molecular machines are complex structures located inside of cells or on the surface of cells. One popular example is the bacterial flagella. This whip-like structure is composed of many proteins, and its rotation propels bacteria through their environment. The molecular machine of interest in a recent PNAS article is a protein transport machine located in the mitochondria.2 This machine transports proteins across the membrane of mitochondria so they can perform the very important function of making energy.

Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex machines. Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible, see Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?), but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part (by itself non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage and would not be selected for. Since the part offers no advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a survival advantage that could be selected for.

So How Can Evolution Account for Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines?

The inability to find mechanisms that add information to the genome necessary to form parts for the molecular machines and the inability of Darwinian evolution to collect parts for the machines (no direction or goal) have led evolutionists to develop the idea of “pre-adaptation.” Simply stated, “pre-adaptation” is the formation of new parts for a new molecular machine (from currently existing parts that perform another function) before the machine is needed by the organism. Some quotes will help clarify.

Study authors Abigail Clements et al. state, “We proposed that simple “core” machines were established in the first eukaryotes by drawing on pre-existing bacterial proteins that had previously provided distinct functions.”3

Sebastian Poggio, co-author of the study, stated, “[The pieces] were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function.”4

Wired Science writer, Brandon Keim, puts it this way: “[T]he necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine . . . were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.” He also states,

“The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest . . . .”5

These quotes conjure up images of Lego building blocks from my childhood days. The same blocks could be put together in many different ways to form different structures. The study authors suggest proteins that perform one function can be altered (via mutation6) and used for a different function. This eliminates the need to add new genetic information and requires only a modification of current information. Clements et al. state, “This model agrees with Jacob’s proposition of evolution as a “tinkerer,” building new machines from salvaged parts.”7

The problem with this concept is why would evolution “keep” parts that are intermediate between their old function and a new function? The parts or proteins are more or less stuck between a rock and a hard place. They likely don’t perform their old function because they have been altered by mutation, and they don’t perform their new function in a molecular machine because not all the parts are present yet.8 Studies have shown that bacteria tend to lose genetic information that is not needed in their current environment.

For example, the well known microbial ecologist Richard Lenski has shown that bacteria cultured in a lab setting for several years will lose information for making flagella from their genome.9 Bacteria are being supplied with nutrients and do not need flagella to move to find a food source. Bacteria are model organisms when it comes to economy and efficiency, and those bacteria that lose the information to make flagella are at an advantage over bacteria that are taking energy and nutrients to build structures that are not useful in the current environment. Thus, even if new parts for a new molecular machine could be made via mutation from parts or proteins used for another function, the process of natural selection would eliminate them. The parts or proteins no longer serve their old function, and they cannot serve their new function until all the parts for the machine are present.

In particular, notice the use of verbs in the quotes above, such as drawing on, recruited, came together, and snap together. These are all action verbs that invoke the image of someone or something putting the parts together. Going back to the Lego analogy, an intelligent designer (me!) is required to put the Lego blocks together to form different structures. Just leaving the blocks lying on the floor or shaking them up in their storage container doesn’t result in anything but a big mess of blocks! Although the powers to “tinker” and “snap together” are conferred on mutation and natural selection, they are incapable of designing and building molecular machines.

Conclusion

Pre-adaptation is another “just so” evolutionary story that attempts to avoid the problems of necessary information gain and the goal-less nature of evolution. It fails to answer how parts that are intermediate between their old and new functions would be selected for and accumulated to build a molecular machine.

Michael Gray, cell biologist at Dalhousie University, states, “You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre. But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”10 It only makes sense if you start with the presupposition that evolution is true and confer powers to mutation and natural selection that the evidence shows they do not have.

Clements et al. write, “There is no question that molecular machines are remarkable devices, with independent modules capable of protein substrate recognition, unfolding, threading, and translocation through membranes.”11

The evidence is clear, as Romans 1:20 states, that the Creator God can be known through His creation. Many people will stand in awe of the complexities of molecular machines and still deny they are the result of God’s handiwork. But that doesn’t change the truth of His Word that He is the Creator of all things.

http://www.answersingenes...of-irreducible-complexity

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #126 on: April 21, 2017, 09:21:35 pm »


 

The African naked mole-rat can keep its brain alive for more than 5 hours with no oxygen  :o

Last updated on April 21st, 2017  at 2:30 pm by Alexandru Micu

There’s no metabolic tweak that would make them less ugly though.
Image credits Thomas Park / UIC. 

You know what would really ruin your day? A lack of oxygen. 

But that’s only because we’re humans and not the awesome Heterocephalus glaber or African naked mole-rat. Individuals of this species are used to living jam-packed with hundreds of their kin in small, poorly-ventilated burrows — where the oxygen-o-meter often falls below breathable levels. So the hairless critters have evolved to counteract this by copying a part of the plant metabolism. Understanding how their bodies do this could open the way to treatments for patients suffering crises of oxygen deprivation, as in heart attacks and strokes.

Quote
“This is just the latest remarkable discovery about the naked mole-rat a cold-blooded mammal that lives decades longer than other rodents, rarely gets cancer, and doesn’t feel many types of pain,” says Thomas Park, professor of biological sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lead author of the study.

The team exposed naked mole-rats to low oxygen conditions in lab settings, and subsequently found high concentrations of fructose in their bloodstream. This compound was shuttled to neurons via molecular fructose pumps which are only used in the intestine walls of all other mammal species. Park’s team reports that when oxygen levels fall, the naked mole-rats’ brain cells begin metabolizing fructose, a process which releases energy without needing any oxygen. Up to now, this metabolic pathway was only documented in plants — so finding it in the moles was a big surprise.

Fructose metabolism allows the moles to live more than five hours through oxygen levels low enough to kill a human in minutes. Since only their brains are kept at full power by the compound, the moles enter a state of suspended animation in which they exhibit drastically reduced movement and a much lower pulse and breathing rate to save up on energy. It’s the only mammal known to use a suspended-animation state to power through oxygen deprivation.

They’re also seemingly immune to pulmonary edemas — the buildup of fluid which clogs the lungs of mammals in low-oxygen environments, such as climbers at high altitude.

“The naked mole-rat has simply rearranged some basic building-blocks of metabolism  to make it super-tolerant to low oxygen conditions,” park adds.

The full paper “Fructose-driven glycolysis supports anoxia resistance in the naked mole-rat” has been published in the journal Science.

http://www.zmescience.com.../mole-rat-brain-fructose/

Agelbert NOTE: The claim that the naked mole rate "evolved" this ability to survive without oxygen is an assumption lacking evidence.

Until they PROVE that, at one time, the metabolism of Heterocephalus glaber did NOT have this ability coded into it's DNA as a potential ADAPTATION from the ORIGINAL DNA package, it is irresponsible, as well as scientifically inaccurate, to equate adaptation with evolution.

They also need to prove that Heterocephalus glaber burrow populations were once well ventilated or/and had small populations not requiring this ability.

Scientists would have to document the DNA genome difference when the moles obtained that ability. If there is NO DNA difference, there is NO evolution.

A gene coding sequence that is dormant and gets triggered by environmental conditions is NOT a change in the package and is called  ADAPTATION, not Evolution.

Natural Selection is a SUBTRACTIVE process. There is NO evidence that Natural Selection is an additive process.

Rant follows after a simplistic, reductionist video ("allegations of harm by some technology are scientifically invalid bullshit if you personally cannot test the hypothesis") made by an Evolution True Believer that distorts the scientific method AND completely avoids the mention of the Precautionary Principle of Science.


There are many occasions in our lives when a hypothesis cannot be tested. However, the Precautionary Principle of science dictates that a potentially harmful activity, such as vaccination, burning fossil fuels, hormone disrupting chemicals from chemical plant pollutants, ETC. must NOT be allowed to continue.



Also, Evolution is not considered BS, but, so far (and believe me, they have tried FOR OVER 20 YEARS with an ongoing E. Coli experiment to see when they "evolve" WITHOUT SUCCESS), they have not been able to test the hypothesis OR obtain any reproducibility in regard to evolution.

Nevertheless, every single competing theory has been discarded BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY as being "unscientific"...

Have you heard about the scientific community consensus that, because the Fibonacci ratio, and a few more sine qua non conditions required for life in our universe, are totally NON-RANDOM, we therefore must be inhabiting a matrix, rather than a universe created by a Supreme Being (i.e. God). So what happened to Occam's razor THERE, huh?

And spare me the six day creation mockery. The Bible is not a science book!
But Fibonacci down to the QUANTUM LEVEL is evidence of a creator, not a matrix.

Now you can claim we are just a randomly perfect universe in an endless amount of lifeless universes. AGAIN, you discard Occam's Razor and reach for your Atheist endowment bias. And then you claim you don't believe BS. LOL!

Someday, when scientists decide to stop confusing ADAPTATION from a pre-existing DNA package with "evolution", the evolutionists will stop believing in Bullshit. Natural Selection is a SUBTRACTIVE process in complex organisms, despite the ability of bacteria to take up plasmids randomly and mutate. The "bacteria mutated to become complex organisms" dog won't hunt in ANY serious use of the Scientific Method, simply because you CANNOT TEST THAT HYPOTHESIS.

The hypothesis that "Natural Selection is a subtractive Process" HAS BEEN TESTED. Why do you evolutionists refuse to accept the Scientific Method RESULTS?

Have a nice day.

http://renewablerevolutio...n/darwin/msg6917/#msg6917
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #127 on: June 06, 2017, 06:34:58 pm »
Forbidden History, Evolution Theory is Wrong

Out of Place Discoveries TV


Published on Feb 3, 2017

Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.

The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans. If that’s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created?
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #128 on: June 06, 2017, 06:58:08 pm »

Published on Dec 18, 2015

A very well made and informative documentary that I wish had come a long time ago.

Scientists prove that Darwin's theory doesn't hold water. This should be shown at all schools world wide, educating our educators that have lost their way into fantasies and pseudo science.

These days it seems like googling a subject, and throwing big words around, and acting cynical equals intelligence? A world of "google professors" have revealed itself, trolling their way through the life of countless victims.  :(

There seems to be no end to how low the level and/or the stupidity some will stoop to in order tor justify an agenda. 'Never mind the truth. I'm too busy making it as I think it should be', is the end result.  :P

All credits and thanks go to original uploader Vadik Spyder.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #129 on: December 08, 2017, 07:06:20 pm »

Harpa Cristă instrumental em Flauta Andina



Agelbert Observation: Throughout nature, from the microscopic precise non-random symmetry of the ubiquitous Fibonacci ratio to the spectacular variety of color evidencing DESIGNED beauty in bird feathers, not some random assortment of coloring, an honest person cannot but see the non-random hand of the Creator in the creatures populating our biosphere.

Sadly, you will get endless babble from the Darwin worshippers about how such exquisite beauty and variety in bird feathers is the product of random mutations in coloration which "improved" the chance of reproduction and therefore "selected" all that beauty we see...

If that was true, the VAST variety of bird feather coloration in nature, which apparently has absolutely no evolutionary function, would not exist. If coloration was only about mating and getting predators to notice you, then the nature of predator eye function from mammals to reptiles to other birds would have "selected" an extremely narrow type of coloration, not the fantastic variety out there.

But, that fantastic variety of feather coloration out there requires an honest recognition of non-random DESIGN. The atheist Darwin worshipping evolutionary true believers cannot handle honest recognition of design.

Just look at all these amazingly colored birds! LOOK at the WAY those colors are placed on the birds by their genes! The VARIETY, PRECISION of placement, balance, symmetry and BEAUTY CANNOT be attributed simply to some "male bird mating advantages" and/or "attracting predators away from the non-brightly colored female" (there are a LOT of VERY brightly colored female birds the evolutionists do not want to discuss!). Yet the evolutionists will continue to grasp at these ridiculously limited straws.

If you think birds "evolved" such BEAUTY, I have a pair of owl friends who have something to say to you:




Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #130 on: December 13, 2017, 07:13:37 pm »


Intriguing optical illusion proves most humans have ‘curvature blindness’ Intriguing optical illusion proves most humans have ‘curvature blindness’

LAST UPDATED ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2017 BY TIBI PUIU

SNIPPET:

Credit: Kohske Takahashi/i-Perception

Look at the picture above. What kind of lines do you see in the middle, grayed-out part: wavy, straight, or both? The truth is all the lines represented in the image are curvy, but if you’re like most people, you should see alternating rows of straight-angled and wavy lines.

Japanese psychologists found that this optical illusion underlies a newly identified cognitive bias in humans. It’s called the “curvature blindness illusion”. Though it’s somewhat unclear how it works, scientists think it’s caused by the brain using different mechanisms to identify curved and angular shapes. These mechanisms may interfere or compete with each other, producing this strange effect.

Interesting Article, except for the obligatory bow to the (imaginary) evolutionary cause and effect hypothesis  ::):

https://www.zmescience.com/science/optical-llusion-curvature-blindness-432/

Interesting Article, except for the obligatory bow to the (imaginary) evolutionary cause and effect hypothesis  ::):

https://www.zmescience.com/science/optical-llusion-curvature-blindness-432/

Yes, the bit about evolution is not interesting at all!  So in a non-evolutionary world, what could be the explanation? Presumably when God created the world and everything, not only was he prepared to wait 13.6 billion years for humans to pop into existence on Planet 3 of a G-type star in the Milky Way galaxy, but he thought this little trick might demonstrate to us how subtly clever he is - a trick so subtle that we didn't notice until 2017. That makes sense!


Listen Einstein, I do believe the article said THIS:

Quote
The brain might have evolved to prefer angles over curves for some reason that escapes us now.

Now, in case you didn't notice the wording in the above bit of totally unscientific speculation, perhaps you should write that quote on your bathroom mirror and read it 10 times a day until you learn to understand the english language.

Anybody with critical thinking skills would understand that the word "MIGHT" in the above quote, along with the phrase "ESCAPES US" means they do not have a CLUE why this curve bias exists.

If you have some inside info from your God Darwin that somehow explains why this curve bias of ours must be an "evolved" trait, please enlighten us rather than blathering about the billions of years the material universe has been around (at last count - that figure has only changed about 100 times in the past century but I'm sure you will swear on a stack Darwin "Origin of the Species" bibles that the last estimate is the "right" one. ).

Palloy, you are walking example Endowment Effect Bias. You incorporated the Theory of Evolution into your world view straight jacket a long time ago. You reject all evidence of a non-material universe (some call it spiritual and some call it para-normal but basically it is the NON-material reality, an oxymoron to you, we all experience that YOU reject).

Hence the Theory of Evolution is something you OWN. Because you OWN it, you feel the compulsion to defend it any time somebody questions it. This is irrational behavior. True, this bias is not always a psychological condition involving a world view. It is often present in the irrational clinging to physical things like a book or some stocks you bought and won't sell even if they are tanking. However, the endowment effect is present in world view flaws as well.

Quote
Endowment Effect

‘This pattern—the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it—is called the endowment effect (Thaler, 1980).’
Thaler (1992) [book]

‘The endowment effect (Thaler 1980), also known as “status quo bias” (Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988), is the phenomenon in which most people would demand a considerably higher price for a product that they own than they would be prepared to pay for it (Weber 1993).’
Goldberg and von Nitzsch (1999, p. 99)

‘The endowment effect is a hypothesis that people value a good more once their property right to it has been established. In other words, people place a higher value on objects they own relative to objects they do not. In one experiment, people demanded a higher price for a coffee mug that had been given to them but put a lower price on one they did not yet own. The endowment effect was described as inconsistent with standard economic theory which asserts that a person's willingness to pay (WTP) for a good should be equal to their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation to be deprived of the good. This hypothesis underlies consumer theory and indifference curves.’  Wikipedia (2006)

‘We also have a bias toward keeping the securities we inherit instead of investing them in vehicles that are more appropriate to our needs (the endowment effect).’
Nofsinger (2001, p. 3)
http://endowment-effect.behaviouralfinance.net/

Quote
As it turns out, our decisions and behavior aren't always rational, but are instead heavily influenced by emotions and cognitive blind spots.http://www.businessinsider.com/endowment-effect-why-people-overvalue-things-2016-4 [/size]

You are convinced I am bonkers because I disparage the theory of evolution and firmly believe that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING material and non-material. Maybe you are right. ;D But Fibonacci patterns down to the quantom level and several exquisitely fine tuned for life physical constants argue against your random univers(es) evidence free hypothesis. I believe in ONE Supreme Being that made it all and you believe in an uncountable bunch of universes made by NOBODY out of NOTHING!

I think your “status quo bias” world view is far less rational than mine.

And you still owe me an apology for claiming I was wrong in stating that reality is even worse than the RCP 8.5 Global Warming scenario. RCP 8.5 is too conservative. Admit it!

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #131 on: December 16, 2017, 10:35:03 pm »
Aversion to Snakes? 


Hey doomers, do you want to hear a lot of academic mumbo jumbo about why we don't like snakes or spiders much?   

I'm glad you are interested.  ;D The short "answer" is because we are a bunch of monkeys. Also, enjoy the "evolution" word strategically placed here and there to "support" the reasoning.  ;)

Quote

Studies have shown that virtually all monkey species show a fear of snakes in the wild, while most monkeys in captivity do not. However, this does not address the issue of predisposition.

Most humans are not born afraid of snakes, but they are much more likely to become afraid of them than they are to become afraid of most other kinds of animals.

The question is, do other primates show a predisposition toward fearing snakes or spiders?

Don't forget to buy this highly evolved book, even if I think the scientist is trying to make a monkey out of ya!

RE must be a wild monkey  
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Darwin by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 10:35:03 pm

Member Interesting, Hair Raising, Humorous or Otherwise Unusual Experiences by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 10:31:31 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 07:38:20 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 06:19:32 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 04:30:23 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:49:23 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:29:07 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 05:05:03 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 01:35:42 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial