AltonSmith's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of AltonSmith's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Capitalism provides environment in which anyone has an opportunity to succeed. There are certain individuals who would attempt to abuse that, but legal guidelines in truly capitalist countries discourage that.

1 point

The allowance of a period of silence in which students can pray has no moral, ethical, or legal challenge.

1 point

You do not describe any actual cowardice in my instance. Thus, the personal attack fails.

2 points

Clarify how it resembled fascism. It is generally accepted that such statements are merely reflect the talking points distributed by the left-wing media.

1 point

Yes, and "Lottery tickets can never provide a winner because they are random". Except that we know that they do all the time. In fact I've already given an example of such a case which you have already conceded.

You are saying that random mutations would provide the solution to the organism's requirements. Given the fact that they are random, they would not provide the solution to whatever problem may be present. You also assume that mutations occur in a sequence that compliments each preceding phase, which eliminates the notion of any randomness. In addition, a single mutation in the DNA cannot cause a change in phenotype, given the number of genes that generate the features associated with the phenotype.

You will find that there are corrective mechanisms in place to eliminate the problems associated with mutations.

The example of the lottery is ineffective because it is a somewhat guided process compared to evolution.

You like nearly all other creationists ignore the fact that such traits don't have to have the same function, just as long as it has a function.

If it does not have a function that exists properly with the system in question than it could indeed be harmful or at least a useless expenditure of resources.

For example, a semi-formed wing even if it cannot provide flight it can still be beneficial for gliding.

That is assuming that the wing could form partially. You also ignore the utterly critical fact that not every stage of development would have a use.

Furthermore, that does not incorporate the crucial fact that such an organism requires much more than a wing to engage in flight or, indeed, utilize its wings. It requires the metabolism to ensure that it receives the proper level of nutrition to sustain flight, in addition to a musculoskeletal system and vascular system that provide it with the locomotive capabilities to use wings. Thus, one would find that many stages in the development of the wing would produce structures that would be useless.

"Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

-Charles Darwin, 1859

An eye which sees in black and white is better than no eye at all. A light sensitive cell is better than one that isn't. et cetera.

Once again, that ignores the crucial steps that would necessarily have to occur in between each stage of ocular development, as such an assembly is quite intricate.

Should I just take your word for it? You need to provide something substantial to support this opinion. You just stated that there wouldn't be a reason, you never said why.

I have iterated the explanation earlier, but will provide additional detail. Also, you should provide support for your perspective, not repeat statements with no proper description.

The human personality and mental development is quite advanced, much more so than any other organisms on Earth. That is indisputable, as neuroscience proves. As we are aware that other life forms have established forms of communication, it would be reasonable to suggest that the early humans would have as well. In fact, that is a belief held by the evolutionary community. As such, having developed a reasonable form of communication and development, why would there be any need to develop beyond that? You have yet to provide an effective response to this argument.

Emotions communicate to other members of the same species. Fear for example may communicate to other members that there is a potential danger nearby. Anger may indicate a conflict within a group, that needs to be rectified.

You will find that numerous organisms have established forms of communication. As they are capable of recognizing all of these problems, why would there be any need to develop emotions, which can actually hinder effective reactions to issues?

Every extinct species ever discovered.

This is false. There is no evidence that demonstrates the sizeable number of organisms that must have (according to evolutionary theory) experienced random, useless mutations which were genetically rectified in subsequent generations.

I am telling you that this is not how DNA works. There is no ciphering or processing organelle in cells, nor would there be a need for them. The same reason why raindrops don't need to calculate trajectory before falling to the earth, the molecules are simply responding to what is there (namely gravity).

I am not suggesting that the mechanism that you describe above is what actually exists. However, there are enzymes that conduct the processes that occur in gene expression. As such information theory conspires against evolution.

In addition, irreducible complexity is observed in the development of first cells. They could not have developed in stages, given that many of the features would have required other structures to sustain them.

1 point

Why do you debate if facts have no bearing on your position? Are you paid to argue? The point of debate is to find a solution, not to argue for a point simply for the sake of argument.

I do believe that I have provided sufficient support for my points. The purpose of debate, particularly of the informal, leisurely type found on this website is to serve as a forum where opposing ideas are compared and compete, not to find solutions.

I have indeed provided solutions for the issues here.

It is a ridiculous circle. Facts are facts. Our system is poor, every system with a public option or universal care spends less money on better care.

It seems that you are not aware of two key facts.

First, in the countries that provide any acceptable level of quality in healthcare, that must be funded by the government. Obviously, that money ultimately comes from taxpayers. Eventually, they will have to raise taxes to provide for the spending, while increasing the national debt levels.

Second, there are countries with such systems that already offer decreasing levels of care. Look at Canada and the U.K. as adequate examples. Waiting times have increased compared to the United States, in addition to harsh conditions in the hospitals and rampant corruption.,2933,539943,00.html

1 point

I don't see how any of this presents any problem to the theory of Evolution, you just have a few misconceptions about it.

Mutations will not function as providing adaptive properties, as they are random. As such, we cannot believe that they are the solution to evolutionary issues that may arise. In fact, there is no fossil evidence that demonstrates any of the forms that experienced all of the harmful mutations necessarily required by evolutionary theory and subsequently died out.

You have yet to prove that this is false.

None of the examples you listed represent irreducible complexity, whether or not you think that could have developed through evolutionary processes or not.

Many of the systems do illustrate irreducible complexity, as they would not function properly or at all without all of the parts being in existence. This indicates that you do not have a knowledge of what constitutes such a system.

Furthermore, there is no logical or scientific evidence to suggest that the development as required by evolution (in stages, with many useless developments occurring) could possibly occur. This means that, even if we are to assume that one or more of the phases actually produces a useful apparatus, that at the point where a useless structure is developed, the trait will not survive as a result of natural selection.

Yes, it would. Every non-useful structure would be eliminated, until a useful structure was found.

That assumes that a useful structure will necessarily be present at every stage of development. That is not true. In the ongoing evolutionary process, there would have to be biological structures that would serve no purpose, as they would not fulfill the ultimate role required by the change. If a random mutation were to produce a an alteration that may begin enable a sea dwelling organism to survive in a terrestrial environment, there is no reason to suggest that it would continue that pattern of development, especially as such a trait would not suit an aquatic life form. In fact, there are numerous genetic mechanisms in place to eliminate unnecessary mutations.

This is your argument

1. Verbal communication is useful in many animals

2. Therefore, there is no reason for complex speech to develop in humans

Not particularly. I am stating that there would be no reason for primitive man to develop advanced mental capabilities. As we have observed moderately advanced communicative and mental traits in other related species, it stands to reason, that at some point in this timeline, a similar mechanism would have developed at an earlier point. As such features would be adequate for their purposes, advanced traits such as ours would have had no need to develop. Indeed, humans have personalities and emotions (this is scientifically documented). Other animals also exhibit similar features. Of what possible use would personalities and many if not all emotions serve from an evolutionary standpoint?

Evolution works much like trial and error.

It is unfortunate that there is no fossil evidence of the trials that resulted in no gain. One would assume the existence of countless such fossils representing organisms that never passed on their genes.

Except this is not how DNA works. Micro-organisms do not "read" DNA like you and I read words. This requires a certain level of comprehension. This is the problem when people take certain analogies too literally. DNA is an acid, it is in itself a cause of various effects especially in meiosis. It is not the interpretation or comprehension of DNA but the DNA itself which affects the development of organisms, despite the fact that it is often described that way in literature.

I am quite aware of this. An simpler explanation of my point would be to state that such information is useless without any capability for it to be processed into whatever the particular segment might indicate. Indeed, the ability to process the information depends on already possessing it. However, DNA must provide a sequence that serves a function, or it is useless. How, then are we to assume that it arose in any understandable manner, rather than useless strands such as those found during a mutation?

1 point

So, in other words, the costs for the healthcare system is extremely high, which is the exact same criticism that we have come to expect from opponents of the great private system.

Privatized healthcare promotes innovation and ultimately causes novel treatments to become commonplace and, as a result of market forces, much cheaper.

3 points

Absolutely terrible, given unemployment levels, and the fact that certain policies could reverse such outsourcing.

1 point

It is a republic. That supports the notion suggested by the title of this debate.

2 points

For what reason? What evidence suggests that it is superior to a private system?

1 point

You're thinking about this completely ass backwards. Mutation is not 'looking' for any specific genetic code, it is simply the alteration of what is already present.

First, we are not talking about the evolution of the donkey.

Second, mutations, being random, most often cause a loss of information or an alteration thereof. They would not serve as the basis for some type of biological change necessitated by the environment.


Anything that exists or can exist in gradients cannot be irreducibly complex.

None of the examples could have developed in the manner required by evolution. I believe that it has been explained quite clearly at this point. If an organism possessed limbs, and if there was no requirement for a change thereof, the limbs would not be altered. It is also because the development (occurring in phases as mandated by evolution) would not produce useful structures at every instance, even of the first one was.

So human intelligence, thought and social behavior had nothing to do with our dominance of the planet?

As evolutionary theory posits that each feature that develops requires phases, we could assume that the first humans would not have acquired such mental function as modern humans have. However, we have observed the usefulness of primitive mechanisms of communication among other organisms, including vocalizations meant to convey rather specific messages. As such, there would be no biological requirement for anything more advanced in the early humans, yet we are still clearly aware of the nature of human advancement.

Your statement is irrelevant. It fails to take into account the factors enumerated above.

That's precisely why it didn't have that trait at that time. It only acquired that trait AFTER there was a necessity for it.

One would find that many biological necessities are driven by urgent environmental requirements. In many instances, the organism in question would be destroyed prior to adapting properly.

Yes it does.

You fail to take into account the fact that it is random. By the definition of that word, a mutation of that variety would not be a result in the solution to the problem.

"If there wasn't a need for _______ to happen, then ______ wouldn't have happened."

If we are to assume that evolution in this scenario is caused by adaptations to environmental requirements, the lack of a such a requirement would not produce adaptations, as there would be no compulsion to adapt.


You will also find that evolution is incompatible with information theory. This is easily illustrated by the origins of life on Earth. If we are to assume that cells formed, it is necessary to have the genetic information to create the organelles. However, that requires the ability to read that information. However, the ability to read such information suggests that compatible DNA has already developed. However, we will see that there is a paradox. The information would be useless without the any way by which to translate it, and the ability to perform actions is prevented by the inability to read said data.

Also, these cells would not have formed simply because they require multiple structures to operate. Unless we are to assume that they arose simultaneously (which is incompatible with the theory), there is no solution to that problem from an evolutionary standpoint.

0 points

What the hell are you talking about? The development of relevant information? Relevant to what? An event that hasn't happened yet?

In order to develop a biological structure, you must have the genetic information encoded in your DNA to do so. If that DNA has not developed, the mutation will not serve the purpose suggested by the later development.

So prolific that we cannot name even one.

Every organ, wings, limbs, et cetera. How about the human mind. Neuroscientists recognize our complexity in that matter. However, there is no evolutionary reason to suggest the need for such a development. Or consider our complex system of vocal communication. That would not be necessary among the primitive humans, as we have observed in other species vocalizations that enable communication (just consider canines).

Thus mutation.

A random mutation would not provide the solution to the problem.

No, not require. They would feed on different food sources based on what is available and on what they are suited to preying upon.

Then they would not have an evolutionary requirement to adapt to different forms of wood, as other sources of food would be available.

as it is quite difficult to comprehend a non-linear process on such a large scale.

The flaws easily demonstrate the issues associated with evolutionary theory, so it is a simple matter to comprehend how it fails.

I scarcely know what yours even is. As best I am able to surmise it is some form of Old World Creationism. You have shied away from revealing what it really is that you believe, in an attempt to protect it from criticism.

I assume that you would agree with me that universe is several billion years old.

I have over 99% of biologists on my side.

The concept of the atom was considered laughable by the scientific community at one point, as well.

1 point

You love saying there are all these problems with universal health care even though all the other countries which have it have more people satisfied with their care, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortalities, more preventative care and treatment for everyone. please tell me how a privatized system is better for the entire population.

I don't "love" to say it; it merely is a truthful statement.

which only works if you can afford it, which a lot of people can't. That's why universal health care works, because everyone can get these early detection tests, but no, people like you want to have them available for the rich who can afford them but defund things like cancer screenings for poor people who can't afford to live.

Please cease making baseless assumptions about my beliefs. Our private system enables innovation that drastically reduces costs over the years. It is also economically sustainable, whereas a universal system is not.

but your motives are still profit and not healing people.

Our doctors are extremely passionate about what they do. For the developers of technologies and hospital management, the motive for profit necessarily means that quality is pursued because that it how to avoid lawsuits and maintain customers.

that has been shown to work in countries that have it.

Please demonstrate (despite all of the evidence to the contrary) how such a system is economically sustainable, how waiting times are not egregious (they are, however), and how quality is enforced in a universal healthcare system (it isn't).

If anything, your system as a whole is terrible because it has the capability to save lives but holds back treatment in the name of profit.

The current insurance reform law that was signed last year will cause increases in premiums simply because it mandates higher expenditures on the part of insurance companies. That seems to be contrary to the notion that prices must be decreased, and as such is a demonstration of the ways that such reform can be harmful.

Also, the public systems in other nations require government funding. That can come immediately from taxes, or they can borrow, but ultimately raise taxes to repay those borrowed funds. Or, they could control expenditures by drastically rationing care.

so what? what is wrong with that other than it encroaches on a scary word. You are willing to let thousands die needlessly every year because you don't like the idea of having a couple hundred less dollars in the your pocket at the end of the year. Universal health care works for everyone, not just the rich.

I was merely responding to the earlier point that suggested that universal healthcare and socialism may not be interrelated. Economic systems that resemble or mimic socialism necessarily increase debt and must repay that, implementing measures such as the austerity policies in Greece. Just look at it, as well as numerous other nations with mounting debt as a result. Socialism is not economically sustainable.

1 point

It is a far more efficient system that enables innovation and establishes a far more effective system of treatment. One will find that universal healthcare systems derive their revenue from taxes (meaning that you still must pay for treatment) and the quality is vastly decreased as a result.

1 point

by human you mean, a member of the genus Homo, then yes. But by this very same definition the fragments themselves are considered 'human'. This is not what most people mean when they say human. If you are implying that homo sapien remains are found in the same layer then this would be entirely false.

I do believe that this has been explained. Humans were identified as having assailed h. erectus and as such disprove the notion that said species preceded h. sapiens.

Such a transition is entirely feasible.

That is a statement and not an explanation of how that might work.

You mean like this:

None of these supposed transitional fossils represent the critical alterations that one might expect.

Using this data scientists have been able to construct an evolutionary tree up until the point where DNA is still obtainable.

This in no way suggests an accurate depiction of the tree. It has been demonstrated that ERVs have specific functions, and it is a simple matter to document that species possess this virus, but not to state that they necessarily demonstrate development. How is it that they infected the original hosts without causing damage?

Nevertheless the only problem this poses to evolution, is the rate at which scientists believe diversification occurs.

The strata in the region demonstrate that through that point 98% of species ultimately became extinct. This is the converse of evolutionary theory. They also provide evidence showing that most phyla known to us now coexisted during this period. This contradicts the suppositions that are accepted by evolutionists.

Such a transition is entirely feasible.

There is no reason to believe this. If there was no need to begin feeding from trees with more resilient wood, any predecessor forms would not have done so and consequently not have altered. If there was an urgent requirement, they would not have survived to evolve.

1 point

Such as?

The process specifically requires the development of relevant information that will enable the organism to undergo some biological change (i.e. any evolutionary metamorphosis that results in new biological structures), not a mere mutation that alters an insufficient number of traits or, worse, corrupts them.

Yet no one has ever produced even one.

Such systems are prolific in nature. Presumably any one that comes to mind as you read this can be labeled as irreducibly complex.

These are not an all-or-nothing traits, that irreducible complexity requires.

In fact, they easily establish that the developments could not have occurred. Look at the information example for the other element of irreducible complexity.

This is something which can change gradually over time. You need to give up on the woodpecker example. The more you argue this, the more you exacerbate the weakness of your argument.

A woodpecker would not be able to survive a greater intensity if it does not have the necessary features. It would not develop these for that simple reason. You are suggesting that it would require different food sources, and thus a different mechanism of obtaining said food. Were that true, it would be eliminated for lack of food before developing the necessary traits, or, if there was no necessity, it would not have any need for the altered capabilities.

You need to go back and re-read what I said. I never said we don't need to know how evolution works, I never said that. What I said was that we don't need to know how specific evolutionary traits develop, to know that evolution occurs. Please contemplate the difference in meaning here.

I am in no way suggesting that you must no how each species developed. However, it would be prudent to understand the mechanism, and, particularly, its flaws.

As I have responded to your arguments and defended my own, you may want to reconsider yours.

1 point

How does the discovery of Java man and Peking man, cause fossil evidence to cease to exist?

The earlier explanations (which I have no intention of reiterating here) demonstrate that it the evidence of human descent that you posit to exist does indeed not provide the necessary explanation.

You are insisting here, that it is their bias that prevents them from seeing the Australopithecus as something other than a human ancestor. Yet this supposed 'bias' did not prevent them from declaring the Homo Neanderthalensis as not an ancestor to humans.

They merely replaced it with something else.

Tell me then, where is your source stating that skull damage to the Peking man was similar to the way that indigenous people hunted? Or is this as well un-evidenced?

The fifth paragraph provides an accurate description. This also references nature of the injuries as being caused by humans.

A fragment, is still a part of a whole. There is no reason to pluralize it. If you drop a ceramic plate and it shatters into 60 fragments, do you now have plates, or just 60 pieces of one plate?

This is irrelevant.

Yes, because they are completely different species. You would expect to find numerous differences. A wolf has numerous differences from a Chihuahua, but one is still the descendant of the other.

Having been bred in such a manner, one would expect such differences, though they are different in nature than h. erectus and h. sapiens.

1 point

It is not a 'principal' it is your assumption, which you have yet to justify. For the third time, let me ask:

What makes you think that the first stage, cannot be beneficial?

I have described the facts numerous times and do not intend to continue doing so.

It's funny to me, because in another post where I listed Artificial Selection as a mechanism of evolution, you disregarded it off-hand not really even understanding what it was that you were dismissing. This tells me you don't research anything that doesn't support your opinions or are reluctant to do so.

I have researched it and will not waste further time on scientific inaccuracies. Artificial selection is not relevant to the natural world as it incorporates a more intelligent being maintaining the breeding process.

So then you admit you were wrong to say that mutations are always destructive?

I never enumerated thus.

What you continue to refer to as a "stage" is not so. There are no stages in evolution, because there is no goal, there is no end-product. Everything exists and survives on it's own right. In this way all species are transitional species, as they all came from something and will become something else (except the first eukaryotes and Prokaryotes). So as long as there is an accumulation of change, there will be evolution.

According to evolutionary theory, there are quantifiable stages that represent the development of organisms.

1 point

The premise of your argument is that this species had many ape-like characteristics and therefore couldn't be a human ancestor, is completely asinine. Especially given it's distance to Modern humans.

Humans have been found in the same strata as these fossil fragments. This indicates that they would not have been transitional forms.

This also neglects all other instances in which the fossil record fails to demonstrate the transitional forms that would be expected were evolution to be correct.

A genetic relationship does not mean that the one organism precedes another.

Indeed it does. You inability to comprehend a scholarly scientific work, makes it no less of strong verifiable evidence (or proof).

Or my ability to comprehend that it does not overcome the limitations associated with the theory.

If evolution is not true, then what would explain the sudden appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record in direct correspondence to shared traits (ie fish appearing first, then reptiles, then mammals in that order)?

This does not accurately represent the fossil record. There are numerous instances of events that drove the existence of various species. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, for instance, eliminated the dinosaurs. You also may not be aware of the somewhat inconvenient (for evolutionists) Cambrian explosion, which suggests that numerous species emerged during a period that is much shorter than the commonly accepted evolutionary timeline.

They are either related via evolution, or some divine force creates a new species every thousand years or so. Which sounds more reasonable?

Considering that I have demonstrated where evolution fails resist scrutiny, it is obvious that creationism is more believable.

No, you just assume (without explanation) that the first stage of a new trait cannot be beneficial. I've asked numerous time for you to expound on this argument.

I have offered an explanation, without any proper rebuttal.

And you proposed the woodpecker as an example of irreducible complexity. The fact that birds exist which can peck through wood but lack many of the traits of the woodpecker verily refutes this argument as an example of irreducible complexity.

The beaks of numerous birds may have the integrity to withstand several repeated impacts, but that does not mean that they have the capability to sustain that. Woodpeckers possess:

1. zygodactyl feet

2. protective cartilage around the head

3. a barbed tongue to aid in insect extraction

4. a round, smaller brain to alleviate impact force

This nullifies your argument.

1 point

You've just re-phrased the assumption that I was disputing in the first place. This doesn't answer my question at all.

Why do you assume, that it cannot provide a benefit?

I have stated the manner by which the principle is applied.

The difference between wolves and chihuahuas is quite large, but we know that Chihuahuas descended from wolves.

You will find that humans domesticated wolves and bred them for specific purposes, demonstrating a guided process different than natural selection.

Feathers initially may have been useful for body insulation. Colorful feather may have been useful for mate selection. A fan-like appendage may have been useful in making one's self look bigger to scare off rivals, to block wind from offspring while in the egg, to swim, to move foliage/debris, to jump higher through flapping, to glide, and to eventually glide and any other uses that I may not have thought off.

Feathers are not the only aspect that allows an organism to take flight. It requires numerous features that enable the bird to do so.

Most illnesses we have become immune to through mutation. For instance many Caucasians of European descent, are immune or resistant to Sickle-cell Anema, through mutation

It can, in rare instances. However, it will not account for the complexity involved in developing from one stage to another. That would require that the sequence of mutations all complement one another or that they occur simultaneously, which would not happen.

0 points

I believe that the term that you are searching for when describing evolution is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Mechanisms for Evolution:

You ignore the biological processes that must occur in order for such alterations to occur. They are not explained by the above mechanisms.

I don't think you understand what irreducible Complexity actually means. Irreducible Complexity is an apologetic argument, it is a hypothetical natural system, that if discovered would disprove Evolution. The problem is, that no one has actually ever actually found an irreducibly complex system. Some have been proposed, such as the bacterial Flagellum, but none have been verified.

No, the real problem is that evolutionists fail to accept that the majority of biological systems are irreducibly complex.

The woodpecker possesses numerous traits that enable it to drill into trees EFFICIENTLY. Many birds lacking these individual traits are capable of drilling into trees.

The woodpecker possesses protective measures that enable it to survive drilling into trees. Otherwise it would be killed. If those did not exist, it would be useless to possess the other capabilities that allow it to drill into trees.

But it does prove that it is not an irreducibly complex system.

We need not know how specific evolutionary traits developed to know that evolution occurs.

If scientists said that about other fields, we would not have the level of advancement that we do as a society. You profess not to need to know why it works simply because it does not work. However, no evolutionist could admit that.

1 point

How so?

It should be obvious when I say that there is no fossil evidence to support a theory that it means that the theory is not supported in that way and neither are any arguments to that effect.

evolutionary biologist

People who built their careers around a specific theory and have no desire to accept that it is false when proven thus?

Your creationist apologetic websites, perhaps

That is assuming that I use such websites. However, we may draw a parallel here. As you assert that I use these websites while having no evidence thereof, you also have an equivalent amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

The fact that you pluralized this tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Peking Man is ONE specimen, of Homo Erectus, to date there have been at least 222 specimens found worldwide.

This suggests that you are not aware that multiple fragments were found at the Chinese site that gave Peking Man the nickname.

Trying to disprove evolution, by showing that a single specimen of a single species isn't a human ancestor, is absurd and it makes you look like a buffoon.

I have provided numerous arguments to such an effect. The one mentioned above simply refutes one of your points.

What indigeounous people? Homo Erectus is found on three separate continents. I suggest you not use Creationist apologetic websites, they are very unreliable.

The aforementioned fossil fragments indicate that the nature of the assumptions draw around them has no evidence to support it. The Peking Man fragments suggest massive differences between humans and homo erectus.

This supports the notion of evolution but mentions humans found at the site.

Supporting Evidence: Evidence (
1 point

She is highly reasonable and can appeal to voters, so there is a possibility.

1 of 7 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]