(December 6, 2012 at 10:10 am)John V Wrote: In this case it is. Someone typed that stuff out and set the colors, you know.

So, your argument is that, since this specific example is man-made, the entire process it describes is also man-made. Since the Bible is man-made, we can therefore conclude the same about it?

Quote:If you have a point, please make it. The strip mentions sunsets. In thinking about this earlier, I thought first of a rainbow, but that doesn't work, as all colors appear at once - there's no transition over time. I then thought of sunsets. I've never really watched a sunset to see if it fits. There would probably be a number of breakdowns in the analogy, but at least being man-made wouldn't be one of them, as in the case at hand.

The color metaphor does not rely on the passage of time to make its point. It uses the gradual shortening of light waves as an analogue to the passage of large amounts of time. Had I made the image myself I would have reversed the colors because the idea of cosmological redshift would have made it a more demonstrable analogy to evolution. Alas.

Quote:Have you looked in a mirror lately?

Just because you accept evolution doesn't mean you have to defend every argument made in favor of it. This one was lame. Deal with it.

It only appears lame to you because it demonstrates the absurdity of anti-evolution dogma. I defend it not because of the ideology but because it makes a good point childishly obvious to anyone who isn't stupid or deliberately obtuse.

(December 6, 2012 at 10:32 am)Ryantology Wrote: So, your argument is that, since this specific example is man-made, the entire process it describes is also man-made. Since the Bible is man-made, we can therefore conclude the same about it?

No, my argument is that, since this example was created by an intelligent designer, it's a poor analogy for evolution.

Quote:The color metaphor does not rely on the passage of time to make its point. It uses the gradual shortening of light waves as an analogue to the passage of large amounts of time. Had I made the image myself I would have reversed the colors because the idea of cosmological redshift would have made it a more demonstrable analogy to evolution. Alas.

According to the author, the passage of time is key to the metaphor:

Quote:-facedesk- it is supposed to show you that it changes over time, That's evolution in a nutshell, what part of that don't you get. [Emphasis in original]

Quote:It only appears lame to you because it demonstrates the absurdity of anti-evolution dogma. I defend it not because of the ideology but because it makes a good point childishly obvious to anyone who isn't stupid or deliberately obtuse.

The impossibility of gradual change is not a part of anti-evolutionary dogma. Creationists understand that a 6-inch snowlfall doesn't mean all six inches at once. (As snowfall is natural, that's another example that would have been better than the one given.) So what?

I love the idea the idea that a graduated tone is man made.

(December 6, 2012 at 10:56 am)jonb Wrote: I love the idea the idea that a graduated tone is man made.

No one has argued that a graduated tone is necessarily man-made. The example given certainly was, though. [/quote]

(December 6, 2012 at 11:14 am)John V Wrote:

(December 6, 2012 at 10:56 am)jonb Wrote: I love the idea the idea that a graduated tone is man made.

No one has argued that a graduated tone is necessarily man-made. The example given certainly was, though.

This demonstrates how 'intermediate phases' are not crocoducks, and that the lack of crocoducks does not weaken the credibility of evolution. It shows how evolution is a very gradual process, it odens't detail the mechanisms by which evolution works. Would the sunset have been a better analogy because it wasn't man-made?

This is done in 256 steps, due to the 8bit/primary color nature of our displays.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

In which one of these 256 small changes did the color stop being red and started being blue?
Correct answer: none.
Only the last B has no red in it and only blue. Only the first B has no blue in it and only red.

The text in the OP would have been so much cooler if it had been done this way, instead of resorting to an image!

How did you get that many difffernet colors? This is the best I can do, or are there more specifications for the first box that can't be done automatically?

john v
Well if you are going to be that nit picking, the colours were not man made merely utilised.
You argue not for truth, just to try and win, but even in that endeavour your rhetoric lets you down.

(December 6, 2012 at 11:20 am)Darkstar Wrote: [quote='John V' pid='370707' dateline='1354806868']
No one has argued that a graduated tone is necessarily man-made. The example given certainly was, though.

A couple. First, that an illustration created by an intelligent designer is a poor choice for an analogy to evolution. Second, showing that some things can be arranged in a pattern to show gradual change is a trivial observation - a NSS moment.

Quote:This demonstrates how 'intermediate phases' are not crocoducks, and that the lack of crocoducks does not weaken the credibility of evolution.

Uh, OK - I haven't seen anyone arguing for crockoducks here, so perhaps your little kitty should be directed at the OP.

Quote:It shows how evolution is a very gradual process, it odens't detail the mechanisms by which evolution works.

Do we know that evolution is always so gradual? i seem to recall hearing speculation that mutations to Hox genes could have produced immediately evident phenotypic change.

Do you think the illustration is a good analogy for the fossil record?

Quote:Would the sunset have been a better analogy because it wasn't man-made?

Yes, that would have eliminated one problem. Others as noted above would remain, and there may be some specific to a sunset - how gradual is the change over time, does it go in one direction as the illustration does, or back and forth?

This thread is the biggest fail ever by the defenders of faith...

New Scientist Wrote:Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
...
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14...e-lab.html

Micro evolution has been observed to death. You can now stop with all your red herrings.