(January 26, 2015 at 3:32 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 11:27 am)Chas Wrote: No, no one who understands evolution would say that. Not one.

No true scotsmans would have failed in this thread as hard as you have failed Chas. You can't go one post without committing a blunder.

Please find an evolutionary biologist who said anything of the kind.

And, no, that was not a NTS fallacy.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 3:44 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 25, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Surgenator Wrote: This is not how evolution works, and this one of many reasons your automobile example fails.

If you need example of automobile evolution that looks more closely like biological evolution, take a look at this:

---

---

How is that an example of a 'system'?

While you might loosely call this 'evolution', it bears no resemblance to biological evolution. It is a silly example that does nothing to support your argument.

(January 26, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: All those things you describe are small changes. Here is another small change...this time though, it is in a human.

---

---

What part of accumulated changes did you miss? You cannot accumulate a smaller rear (1953 to 1955) and drop it off like it never happened (1956) in one generation. Plus, evolution doesn't give you 5 different changes at once (1961). Removing (1962) or adding (1967) a developed heritable trait in one generation isn't allowed by evolution. Your horn examples is not a heritable trait.

The horn example is an example of a small change. You see a woman that grew a horn on side of her head and is in the process of growing a horn on the other side of her head. You might think that is a radical change, but it isn't. The woman is still a human being. The change had no significant impact on what she is. There Ferarri doesn't stop being a Ferrari because in one year it has a smaller rear end.

The human species started out colored brown. Then white skin emerged. But White skin will go away. Some changes come and go but others accumulate.

In the case of the Ferarri, changes which didn't last were eliminated because the engineers felt they decreased fitness. The changes were selected against.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Surgenator Wrote: What part of accumulated changes did you miss? You cannot accumulate a smaller rear (1953 to 1955) and drop it off like it never happened (1956) in one generation. Plus, evolution doesn't give you 5 different changes at once (1961). Removing (1962) or adding (1967) a developed heritable trait in one generation isn't allowed by evolution. Your horn examples is not a heritable trait.

The horn example is an example of a small change. You see a woman that grew a horn on side of her head and is in the process of growing a horn on the other side of her head. You might think that is a radical change, but it isn't. The woman is still a human being. The change had no significant impact on what she is. There Ferarri doesn't stop being a Ferrari because in one year it has a smaller rear end.

The human species started out colored brown. Then white skin emerged. But White skin will go away. Some changes come and go but others accumulate.

In the case of the Ferarri, changes which didn't last were eliminated because the engineers felt they decreased fitness. The changes were selected against.

Your horn example is not heredity. Hense, it is not part of evolution.

I really think you guys getting caught up in defining evolution is pointless. I'd accept Heywood's version of evolution as a simple definition: the change of species' phenotypes in response to statistical pressures. But all this is just a giant redding herring. He wants to assert the existence of intellect in the universe (aka God), but does not have actual evidence for said existence. He's therefore drawing parallels between things we know and things we cannot know-- but hasn't provided either logical proof or evidential support for that process, either. He has not shown his parallels to be either valid or meaningful.

In the end, the situation is pretty clear: Heywood believes in God, and is trying to find a way to make the God idea fit into a sensible word view. But when a sensible world view includes a demand for him to accept the BOP, he just can't provide any meaningful evidence for his idea.

What if one of these arguments actually worked one day, and they finally found out they have all been worshipping the devil? I suppose I should have told you guys that already. You're all worshipping the devil. He killed all other gods long ago. You'll see everything fits perfectly with this narrative.

(January 26, 2015 at 4:56 pm)Chas Wrote: While you might loosely call this 'evolution', it bears no resemblance to biological evolution. It is a silly example that does nothing to support your argument.

What makes biology special in your mind that it can be the only thing in the universe which can evolve? Why can't cars, or sets of variables in a computer evolve?

---

(January 26, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Your horn example is not heredity. Hense, it is not part of evolution.

I don't know why the woman grew the horn. Maybe a gene mutated. Maybe something in the environment activated a dormant gene. Maybe it is just cancer(I suspect not though because she is growing another horn on the mirror side of her forehead). It is a small but very noticeable change. Noticeable changes do not change what something is. Your claim that the car did not evolve because its rear end shrank in one year doesn't hold water.

(January 27, 2015 at 7:41 am)Heywood Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 4:56 pm)Chas Wrote: While you might loosely call this 'evolution', it bears no resemblance to biological evolution. It is a silly example that does nothing to support your argument.

What makes biology special in your mind that it can be the only thing in the universe which can evolve? Why can't cars, or sets of variables in a computer evolve?

I have not said that.
However, your whole thesis is about demonstrating that biological evolution requires intellect. If your 'evolution' examples aren't isomorphic to biological evolution, your argument becomes trivial and uninteresting.

(January 27, 2015 at 7:41 am)Heywood Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Your horn example is not heredity. Hense, it is not part of evolution.

I don't know why the woman grew the horn. Maybe a gene mutated. Maybe something in the environment activated a dormant gene. Maybe it is just cancer(I suspect not though because she is growing another horn on the mirror side of her forehead). It is a small but very noticeable change. Noticeable changes do not change what something is. Your claim that the car did not evolve because its rear end shrank in one year doesn't hold water.

List of risks for developing a cutaneous horn.

Quote:According to reports, men have been found at risk or have more occurrences of malignant cutaneous horn development at the base lesion. Another risk for cutaneous horn is age; the old-aged individuals as victims of the skin problem. Other risk factors include the following:
History of radiation exposure
Immunocompromised
Artificial tanning beds enthusiasts
Works outdoors

Source

Notice family history is not on the list. Your example is not heridity and not passed down to famnily members. It is correlated his prolong radiation exposure and likely a local growth like cancer. It is not evolution because it happens in one generation and not passed on to other generations.

Susceptibility is inheritable. There are many issues that skip generations then pop up again.

But you would still expect family history to be a risk factor.