Yep folks.. it's established scientific fact that Micky Mouse is the result of natural selection and colouring pencils..
Evolution is a Fact #31 - Micky Mouse
by GodZoo 10 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
jhine
In 4mins 41 secs , wow nature sure didn't drag her feet !
Jan
-
cofty
Yep folks.. it's established scientific fact that Micky Mouse is the result of natural selection and colouring pencils..
Could you explain how natural selection was involved? Do you know what natural selection is?
Godzoo - In my thread "Evolution is a Fact #28 - Something Darwin Didn't Say" you asked me two questions. One was about the Intelligent Design movement and so-called "irreducible complexity", and the other was about the reason behind the increase of complexity.
I took the time to answer them both in detail. You completely ignored my answers.
I will paste them here for your convenience.
Question 1
Godzoo your post is 100% copy-paste but you fail to acknowledge that or provide a source. That is bad form.
It turns out you got your material from an article by ex-Jehovah's Witness Jerry Bergman on the ICR website. The article is dishonestly titled "Creative Evolution: An Anti-Darwin Theory Won a Nobel".
Bergman is referring to a book written in 1907 by Henri Bergson for which he won a Nobel Prize in 1927. The article dishonestly implies that the prize was for an anti-Darwinian biology paper. It was not. It was the Nobel Prize for literature.
Bergson argued that the natural processes underlying evolution are supplemented by a nonmaterial élan vital. It was an idea that caught the imagination of some non-scientific academics for a while, but by the 70s it had completely been discarded. I am willing to bet SBF will resurrect the notion any day now.
I will address so-called "irreducible complexity" in detail later in this series. Basically it is the vacuous assertion that some feature of living things has no use unless all its parts are in place therefore it could not have evolved. It is nothing more than "Paley's Watch" in a new disguise. There was a time creationists loudly proclaimed that the eye was so complex it must have been created; "what use is half an eye" etc. Often they would even quote-mine Darwin to make it sound as if he agreed. Now that the step-by-step evolution of devices like the eye have been explained in detail creationists have turned their attention to smaller things such as the bacterial flagellum.
It is an argument from ignorance. Imagine coming across a stone arch for the first time. If just one stone is removed the whole arch will collapse, therefore it is clearly not possible to build an arch.
Until I get around to a thread on this topic here is an article that describes how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved by a step-by-step process.
Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design by Kenneth Miller ...
As for the "Intelligent Design" movement it was thoroughly exposed in the case of Kitzmiller v Dover.
Here is a video that provides proof of their rank dishonesty..
You should also spend some time investigating the background at the NCSE website...
Here is Kenneth Miller discussing his role in the Dover trial.
Question 2
Your second question was about why "Darwinism had failed to explain why life evolved in the direction of greater and greater complexity."
This is an odd question since the entire theme of "Origin of Species" addresses this question in incredible detail. The short answer is that increased complexity is driven by competition for limited resources. It is very well illustrated byLenski's experiment that I described in #12
If resources - food and mates - were unlimited there would be no selection pressure for new features. In the real world resources are always finite. An individual who can do stuff that it's competitors can't do as well will have a better chance of leaving genes to the next generation.
Look at the simple features of this water bear - or tardigrade. It is only 0.5mm long but it's simple limbs and mouthparts give it an advantage over its ancestors who were simple segmented organisms.
Tremendous progress is being made in understanding how these changes occurred. Even the specific genes that initiate limbs and the differentiation of segments are being discovered.
Maybe when people make an effort to answer your questions you could take a moment to read them and respond. That's why it's called a discussion forum.
-
GodZoo
Absolutely Cofty.. I know some of these concepts are hard to grasp if you have not done the research so I'll try to make it easy for you.
Walt Disney naturally selected the right colour pencils after his kids knicked some of them and then breaking the tips on a few others.. so 'naturally' he had to 'select' and make do with what was left.
I hope this helped.
PS: I have not had time to visit that other thread yet.. Will try to make time. So busy enjoying life and perusing the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong -
cofty
So busy enjoying life and perusing the Guardian.
You are so busy enjoying life that you have time to read a 6 year old book review on epigenetics?
If you read the article, as opposed to lazy google-trawling, you would have noticed that contrary to the headline there is not one word in it that challenges evolution in the least.
I would take the time to explain further but we both know you have not the slightest interest in facts.
-
cofty
Is that all you have got Godzoo?
No answers to reasonable questions or evidence just a load of personal insults.
You sent me a PM a while ago boasting about content you were to remain ignorant of the evidence regarding life's big questions. But that wasn't true was it? What you meant was you want to be left alone in your self-imposed ignorance while insulting those who disagree.
You think that your ill-informed opinions are as valid as 150 years of scientific research. What does that say about your hubris?
As far as SBFs opinions are concerned nothing could be less interesting to me.
I have changed my worldview exactly once in my life. (you can't even count up to three - how is JW to Evangelical to unbeliever three changes?) That is not a weakness it is a virtue and a sign of humility.
When I left the cult and became a theist that was not any sort of change at all. It was just swapping one set of superstitions for another. The only change came 9 years later when I began to seriously pursue and evidence-based worldview.
I should probably be flattered you take so much time to trawl through my posts.
-
Heaven
GodZoo said: Walt Disney naturally selected the right colour pencils after his kids knicked some of them and then breaking the tips on a few others.. so 'naturally' he had to 'select' and make do with what was left.
GodZoo is incorrect about Walt Disney selecting the right colour pencils for the 1995 and 2004 Mickey Mouses in the image provided. Walt Disney died in 1966.
-
-
cofty
Hi Mickey.
Godzoo is taking your name in vain!
-
Simon
GodZoo - your personal attack post has been removed. Don't repost it.
This is a lame topic indeed but typical of the retaliatory bitter approach that some theists take to having their empty beliefs laid bare.
But don't feel bad, most of us would have had the same knee-jerk reaction at one point. Take advantage of the information on offer to save yourself some wasted time.
But if you just want to carry on petty grudges, find someplace else to do it.
