|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Parsifal:
[Darwinism] is NOT an accurate view of the natural
world. In fact very few of the 22,000 or so
known species of animals compete directly against
each other in a way that leaves the vanquished
losing out on mates, territory or food. [Parsifal
is an agnostic who opposes both Darwinism and
Creationism]
eadon-com:
A lot of people are out to discredit Darwin.
It is hard to take seriously smears against
him by people who don't seem to understand his
science
JGR:
Parsifal, species compete with their own.
FishOn:
parsifal...basic axiom is that two species cannot
occupy the same niche
eadon-com:
Yeah, ecosystems are highly dependant entities
PriestPyramid:
I wonder
what if any relationship there is between the
ontological truths of the bible vs. the science
of evolution and the theories currently associated
with them.
FishOn:
say the evolved to be such eadon
eadon-com:
exactly FishOn, it is called group evolution.
Group evolution is back in fashion after it
was discredited in the 1970's by oversimplified
models
eadon-com:
It has been proven in experiments in the lab
JGR:
We ourselves are dependant on all other life
forms no?
JGR:
Maybe not all, but some.
OnCrackAndJesus:
evolutionary
theories are far-fetched.
eadon-com:
No they are not Jason, they have proven evolution
in the lab for chrissakes
Parsifal:
the idea that only one species can colonise
an ecologically created niche strikes me as
just wishful thinking
PriestPyramid:
Does evolutionary
theory answer the basic question: How can you
be in two places at once when you're really
nowhere at all?
OnCrackAndJesus:
hopeful monsters,
order in chaos, primeval broth, it's all ad
hoc.
FishOn:
they have proven that processes like evolution
occur....but they haven't resolved all the forces
which drive speciation
FatherBugKiller:
perhaps British
relatives were monkeys, but not mine, sir [alluding
to Serpent's English nationality]
Parsifal:
there are countless ways of adapting to one
and the same environment, some of which are
so tortuous and complex that adaptation is ludicrous
as an explanation for them
FishOn:
agree parsifal.. that is the mystery for science
to yet uncover
eadon-com:
Give an example Parsifal please
Parsifal:
a frog
Parsifal:
a dragonfly
Parsifal:
a butterfly
Parsifal:
why all the rigmarole
Parsifal:
fitness??
eadon-com:
Yes, what is it about the frog that is so amazing?
OnCrackAndJesus:
What's the
probability that thousands of carbon, oxygen,
nitrogen, and hydrogen atoms are going to react
and from human DNA? 4 raised to the zillionth?
WickedMerlin:
given time OnCrackAndJesus probably quite high
JGR:
They aren't. Nobody says they have.
eadon-com:
a good question Jason, the idea is the positive
feedback loop... Things that can use those raw
materials to reproduce themselves will become
more prevalent and so reproduce more and gradually
become more complex as they compete
PriestPyramid:
<wonders
how a 'dead' universe 'peoples'>
Parsifal:
why a tadpole, and then destroy yourself and
turn into a frog, when the tadpole does fine?
JGR:
We have parasites living within us that are
crucial to our survival. We have adapted together.
Take that bacteria out of your stomach linings
and you can't digest food. Even mitochondria
is considered to be an ancient organism that
entered into a symbiotic relationship with our
ancient cellular ancestors.
eadon-com:
Parasites that are crucial to our survival are
not parasites but symbionts. Parasites give
nothing in return
Parsifal:
survival of the fittest is hopeless as an explanation..as
are all other explanations
Parsifal:
The Flattid bug, found in Africa, swarms on
bushes in such a way that it emulates a flower...
pistil...stamens..petals..all artificially simulated
in appearance by the swarm of bugs...but it's
a flower that does not exist in the real world...Darwinism..
Parsifal:
... Myth?
JGR:
? I thought Gould treated this in one of his
books Parsifal.
eadon-com:
Why does it simulate a flower?
JGR:
It is not going ignored.
eadon-com:
to avoid being eaten?
Parsifal:
it simulates a flower as a disguise
eadon-com:
yeah, an example of group evolution, the bugs
work together to achieve a goal
Parsifal:
how eadon?? How do they cooperate to each be
a bit of a flower?? How?? Not a stick insect
looking like a stick but a colony cooperating
to make a non-existent flower?
JGR:
4.5 Billion years of evolution can produce amazing
things Parsifal. Try counting to 4 billion,
your grandchildren will be dead before you get
there.
DeadlySin:
"Flowers also sing...only we aren't up to listen
to them" (Strindberg)
eadon-com:
group evolution!
eadon-com:
This is the science of evolution that says that
sometimes the individual is a weak force in
DNA evolution compared to the group. Therefore
the DNA that dictates the behaviour of the group
is passed on even at the expense of DNA that
benefits the individuals. This effect has been
proven recently in wheat beetles in the lab.
They bred the beetles not to move out of a jar
Parsifal:
and you truly, honestly believe that Darwinism-
or anything else for that matter- can explain
it??
eadon-com:
They did this by selecting A) by individuals
and B) by the group. They found that the behavior
of the beetles staying in the jar was evolved
far swifter by selecting by group instead of
individual, a recent and radical experiment,
one of many similar
JGR:
Ok Parsifal, Gawd did it. Is that he answer
you need or are you willing to base all your
arguments on our current ignorance? Wouldn't
you rather want to try to figure it out?
eadon-com:
To answer your question parsifal, I do believe
that evolution can explain it yes
Parsifal:
I just want to think for myself, and where obvious
anomalies occur, or where a theory cannot cope,
I want to see honest, open public debate on
these points. Not spoon fed like a Religionist...or
a Darwinist
eadon-com:
And - Darwin invented the theory of Group Evolution!
he was a true genius
Hard-Boiled:
discovered, not invented
Parsifal:
I am unimpressed with almost ALL of the advanced
evidence in every area of the so-called Synthetic
theory (Darwinism). I therefore point this out
JGR:
Why take something amazing and just use it to
"disprove evolution" . Why not read up on it
or look into explanations? Why must people here
evoke the supernatural where there is current
gaps in our knowledge? "God of the Gaps"...phooey
Parsifal:
and why must the "supernatural" per se, be unthinkable
JGR?? As I say in my book, the spirit of 20th
century science is that everything MUST have
a purely physical explanation. That is Rule
1. Having accepted that rule Natural selection
becomes a NECESSARY TRUTH. But why accept that
rule, unconditionally??
eadon-com:
It is true that history teaches us that we know
very little. Science always comes up with huge
surprises that overturn the existing orthodoxy.
relativity, quantum mechanics, Darwinism etc.
We must not be complacent
Parsifal:
Perhaps...just perhaps..there really is an invisible
dimension to the universe, which, for want of
a better word, we might term Spiritual?
JGR:
Parsifal, because we haven't by far explored
the full potentials of nature. That's why. It
is too early to stuff God in gaps.
Parsifal:
I see nothing irrational in entertaining that
possibility, but most 20th century scientists
would...and THAT'S why Darwinism MUST be true
to so many of them,
eadon-com:
But what would this invisible spiritual dimension
explain?
JGR:
We must not give in to ignorance as an explanation.
I for one, will not do it.
OnCrackAndJesus:
evolution
implies that life is meaningless
eadon-com:
sure, why should life have a meaning?
DeaconNihilo:
the sad reality is science will always be severely
limited. it can do great practical things but
when it comes to explaining anything were minimizing
complexity is impossible it is hopeless
OnCrackAndJesus:
the probability
of evolution happening must be at most 2 to
the minus zillionth. yet you say, here we are,
so it must have happened.
eadon-com:
that is not such a wise argument OnCrackAndJesus.
the chances of any reality are zillions to one,
but a reality must exist eh?
JGR:
Evolution does happen Jason. The probability
is 1 0f 1.
OnCrackAndJesus:
what if a
better explanation is a personal God?
eadon-com:
The chance of a god forming out of thin air
must be of a tiny probability eh?
Parsifal:
I do not know eadon... organisation... organisms
adapting in wildly improbable ways, like those
flattid bugs, near death experiences... meaningful
coincidences... or perhaps, we can explain ALL
of those things without resort to the idea of
a hidden dimension??
FatherBugKiller:
Stop wasting
your time talking about chickens turning into
lizards and join the true Church. We will accept
all the heretics back without question
eadon-com:
chickens evolved from lizards FatherBugKiller
:)
FatherBugKiller:
lizards turning
into chickens, monkeys turning into birds, fish
turning into trees. enough already
Parsifal:
"WE must not give in to ignorance as an explanation"..says
JGR.. and that means defending exclusively materialistic
models of reality - such as Darwinism- whatever!!.
Right!?
JGR:
No, not defending but rather searching for answers
in reality first Parsifal.
OnCrackAndJesus:
consider
this chemical reaction. 10000000000 CO2 + 10000000000
H20 + 10000000000000 N2 + 1000000000 H3PO4 ->
C100000000000H1000000000000N1000000000000O10000000000000P1000000000000000,
the one giant molecule that controls life. What's
the probability of that reaction ever occurring?
CryoWolf:
just because the odds are heavily against something
happening, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I
can throw a set of marbles on the ground, and
however they land, the odds are probably 1/1,000,000,000
that they would ever land that way again using
the same path. I could also repeat this "miracle"
over and over again, with a different result
each time.
WickedMerlin:
besides, Jason Evolution tells you it doesn't
produce that in on giant leap
eadon-com:
The key to OnCrackAndJesus's fallacy is that
the human DNA molecule didn't spontaneously
appear out of nothing. It evolved from simpler
molecules over millions of years
CryoWolf:
the key to OnCrackAndJesus's fallacy is that
he's looking at the heavy "odds" against the
world evolving as it did, but he's ignoring
the infinite other, equally unlikely, possible
ways that it DIDN'T happen.
eadon-com:
I agree [with Parsifal] that there might
be a supernatural force, but until there is
evidence that can be repeated in a lab it is
not easy to say much about it. I cannot say
it exists other than by anecdotal evidence,
which admitted, is sometimes convincing
JGR:
Reality has always overtaken ignorant supernatural
explanations of the past. It just has a better
record of explaining stuff. Galileo, Copernicus,
etc....all wacked the ignorant explanations
we had before them.
Parsifal:
my dear eadon, look back at what you just wrote...
it is from one confused man!! The 20th century
was defined as that of "Half Belief". What you
just wrote exemplifies that... but I mean that
in no hostile tone
DeadlySin:
I like to replicate with my girlfriend...
eadon-com:
sure parsifal, I don't claim to be unconfused!
But I do think that evolution by sexual gene
juggling and mutation, shaped by forces of ecosystems
can explain life and humans
JGR:
Would you agree Parsifal that natural explanations
using science have a better track record over
history than devils, demons and goblins?
Parsifal:
devils demons, goblins? , when did I punt for
those?? No JGR
FatherBugKiller:
I'm still
waiting for my cat to turn into one of the super
models. Just where is the missing link, eadon?
JGR:
It isn't missing anymore FatherBugKiller.
eadon-com:
missing links are being found in fossil hominids
FatherBugKiller.
FatherBugKiller:
you have
the link between monkeys and British men?
eadon-com:
there have been about 19 humanoid species discovered
to date. The older they are the more ape-like
they are.
WickedMerlin:
Darwin talks a lot about the missing links (which
they were in his day). He also explains why
they are there
JGR:
They are supernatural explanations that were
used for things we didn't understand no? A god
brought down the rain..etc...
Parsifal:
as Darwinian theory seems founded upon Evidence
which, when scrutinised, proves baseless, the
Supernatural MIGHT be a part of reality
eadon-com:
might, but I say that Occams razor says don't
invoke a complex explanation where a simpler
one will do. nature loves simplicity. in the
past supernatural explanations for phenomenon
have been superseded by science.
Parsifal:
ah eadon! Proto-human... extinct ape.. it's
all opinion, based upon fragments and very few
complete fossils
eadon-com:
those fossils are rolling in fast. A new fossil
found recently is a 6 million year old ape that
may have walked upright (ish).
Parsifal:
maybe apes evolved from men!?
JGR:
Parsifal, I hate to see you quoting creationist
propaganda .
Parsifal:
my views JGR. NEVER call me a Creationist please
eadon-com:
Lucy was a very complete skeleton Parsifal
DeadlySin:
if GOD exists...and made us...he is GUILTY OF
ALL OUR SINS!! and he's a serial killer too.
eadon-com:
The fossil evidence indicates that humans evolved
from apes parsifal
DeadlySin:
The fossil evidence indicates that humans evolved
from GOD, GM Parsifal
Parsifal:
could be an ape...could be a human...could be..who
knows??
eadon-com:
The discovery of DNA does seem to validate Darwin's
ideas, an amazing thing!
Parsifal:
Lucy was complete...but so what? Tells you little
if anything
JGR:
I have gone to rather great lengths over these
skulls and what. Comparing a human, chimp, and
skull x in front of me through books and print-outs.
Even trying to get firsthand looks at the museums
when they come around here with the Darwin exhibits.
Fossils are rather great evidence.
eadon-com:
It showed a creature that was half ape half
human. The missing link, or one of many
Parsifal:
does not indicate that to me eadon, not conclusively...
but it might be true
JGR:
Mendel confirmed Darwinism. true.
FatherBugKiller:
I remember
when my Uncle, the atheist, died. there he was,
in his coffin...all dressed up, nowhere to go.
BloodInWater:
We obviously are all alien, the only plausible
explanation :)
eadon-com:
well if we plot the 19 or so hominid species
found so far we do find that the older hominids
are more primitive than the recent ones. Lucy
was more primitive than Neanderthal for example
CryoWolf:
the point is, no matter how things are, it defies
probability that they would be that way.
eadon-com:
Exactly, the christians can't prove that god
is more likely than no-god. I would say the
opposite is true
JGR:
It is no easy fact to ignore that we share 98.5%
of the genetics of a chimp. Something Predicted
by Darwin 150 years ago confirmed by modern
science.
DeadlySin:
I only believe in God if she is like Elle McPherson
eadon-com:
Exactly, DNA evidence backs up evolution to
an amazing degree
FatherBugKiller:
now figure
how much of our genetics and a pigs are similar
and explain that one, monkey man
JGR:
Not much FatherBugKiller. Maybe 50-75%?
eadon-com:
All animals, when early embryos, are nearly
identical
eadon-com:
fish embryos look identical to human embryos
BishopHavoc:
rubbish
eadon-com:
it is a fact that has been known for ages, the
similarity is startling
JGR:
Parsifal, we will backtrack for you.
eadon-com:
It is very easy to compare early embryos of
animals
JGR:
It is no easy fact to ignore that we share 98.5%
of the genetics of a chimp. Something Predicted
by Darwin 150 years ago confirmed by modern
science.
WickedMerlin:
you didn't use to be a wombat, FatherBugKiller
Hard-Boiled:
his great great great great... great grandfather
was a wombat.
FatherBugKiller:
oh no, not
the monkey story again
JGR:
FatherBugKiller, I corrected you last week on
this "I didn't come from a monkey" stuff. Just
wondering why you are still living off this
strawman?
eadon-com:
how do you explain the fact that early embryos
of nearly all animals are similar to a remarkable
degree, even though they look different in later
life?
BloodInWater:
the mechanics of lifeforms?
RabbitMunch:
eadon, you can explain almost anything that
it is God's design. God wanted humans to have
very similar DNA to apes.
WickedMerlin:
and he is not disputing that RabbitMunch!!
eadon-com:
that is a non-explanation. it is just a non-verifiable
comment, RabbitMunch
RabbitMunch:
right, non-verifiable, but can't be dismissed
either. The best you can get is to show that
God must wish to deceive us if the Earth is
less than 10,000 years old, or if humans did
not evolve from lower life forms.
FatherBugKiller:
well, where
did I come from if not monkeys and wombats?
FatherBugKiller:
But where
did Uncle wombat come from?
WickedMerlin:
take a biology-class, FatherBugKiller
FatherBugKiller:
Was Uncle
wombat once a moose?
JGR:
I told you last week. Maybe this time it will
get through to you. Evolution doesn't say that
you came from a monkey. It postulates that you
share a "common ancestor" with them.
eadon-com:
All evolved from single cellular animals ultimately
Hard-Boiled:
my grandma was a hamster and my grandfather
was a wombat - no one believes me.
eadon-com:
I believe you HardBoiled :)
WickedMerlin:
well, they won't Hard-Boiled, I read a biology-paper
on evolution giving 400 000 generations as a
trifle :)
FatherBugKiller:
Was I ever
a horny toad?
eadon-com:
you still are, FatherBugKiller :)
FatherBugKiller:
heh
Parsifal:
it's not evolution per se that bugs me, JGR
FytinFrank:
The Creator must have had quite the sense of
humor, any road
Parsifal:
it's how it could have come about, and the view
that all of Nature is nothing more than just
machines in action : machines whose functions
are ultimately reducible to just Chemistry and
Physics, and which have assembled themselves
via Darwinian trial and error
FatherBugKiller:
let's say
my grandfather's grandfather used to be a dog
but his wife used to be a tulip. Does that mean
that I will never be a goat?
Parsifal:
take for instance the polyp which feeds on the
pond HYDRA. Having ingested the hydra, the polyp
then manipulates thru its body certain stinging
mechanisms that Hydra uses to capture prey.
The Polyp then mounts these on its outsides
..and fires them off like missiles at ITS prey.
How the heck can Natural selection hope to explain
such weird behaviour.
eadon-com:
Lets take it step by step.
eadon-com:
the ancestor of the polyp just ate hydra, then
the polyps that became resistant to the hydra
poison were more likely to service and pass
on the genes that do so
Parsifal:
I applaud, to a degree, your attempts to defend
materialistic models and not bow to the temptation
to "Supernatural explanations". But there comes
a time we when a man realises that trying to
defend the naiveté of Darwinism is just intellectual
dishonesty
BloodInWater:
how did they become resistant to a deadly poison?
eadon-com:
then the polyps that retained the poison were,
when eaten themselves toxic, and so evolution
made them keep the poison as a threat to predators.
Then the next step is that the polyps then used
that poison they stored as a weapon. So if you
think of it as an evolutionary series of adaptations,
it is not so amazing after all
FatherBugKiller:
I truly see
how species 'evolve" to adapt, but this idea
of lizards tuning into postal workers has a
way to go
eadon-com:
short step if you ask me FatherBugKiller :)
Parsifal:
all of that thru chance mutations? Plausible?
JGR:
How can *we* explain it Parsifal? I don't see
any other rational alternatives being put forth
here. I think personally that giving in to ghosts
and other supernatural explanations show maybe
an intellectual laziness. We don't have all
the answers but be sure 2000 years from now
they will be laughing at our questions
eadon-com:
like CryoWolf pointed out earlier parsifal,
over time there are a lot of possibilities
Parsifal:
or is it just a dogged defence of 20th Century
science's self proclaimed first rule: All natural
phenomena must have a purely physical explanation??
eadon-com:
some mutations are good some bad, but the good
adaptations are more likely to survive. Hence
a positive feedback loop.
WickedMerlin:
oh, do give in, Parsifal, You came up with a
"riddle", eadon solved it, now you are on to
the next line of defence
JGR:
Nobody here mentions simple isolation I notice
either. Gene drift. Maybe as important as natural
selection. The simple splitting of a species
geographically and the resulting speciation
from accumulated mutations.
Parsifal:
the polyp also uses these ingested parts of
the Hydra as defensive missiles. Immunity: how
is it sieving it all around thru its system??
Face facts. ANYTHING must be defensible by Natural
selection, no matter how unlikely or impractical.
=
eadon-com:
One thing I know about people... People are
bad at judging what is unlikely and what is
impractical. People are very bad at judging
probabilities. We are notoriously bad instinctive
judges of such things. I do not trust people
when they say something is not likely.
JGR:
Parsifal, maybe it had evolved structures to
get the poison out of its body? From there,
the missile launchers develop?
Parsifal:
Do not forget that the simplest of all organisms.monocellular
bacteria, thrive EVERYWHERE...this one fact
alone makes me profoundly suspicious of the
whole proposed Darwinian story. If the simplest
thing is more hardy and ubiquitous than all
other living things- and they still comprise
more than 50 per cent of life on Earth, then
I find the idea of natural selection and adaptation
very, very unlikely to account for evolution.
Although, for the 100th time, it is quite feasible
to me that evolution MAY have occurred
FatherBugKiller:
I've watched
my cat for 10 years now and it has yet to turn
into anything but a cat
RabbitMunch:
FatherBugKiller, do you believe that evolutionist
claim mutmatuations occur within one generation?
If not, stop making a defense against a non-existent
argument.
SpeedyMcGreedy:
evolution
does not account for single generational mutations...
eadon-com:
Gould [amongst others] answered that one parsifal,
the simplest organisms are inevitably more common
than the complex ones. More niches.
FatherBugKiller:
I just want
to know how long I have to wait before my cat
turns into a new car
RabbitMunch:
you are not making a serious argument. Nobody
will take you seriously
eadon-com:
FatherBugKiller plays devil's advocate well
RabbitMunch:
I don't see anything being played well right
now.
eadon-com:
I was being extraordinarily generous to him,
RabbitMunch:)
RabbitMunch:
ok eadon :)
FatherBugKiller:
it's your
theory that living things turn into other things.
how long before I actually see it happen? Will
my pizza delivery boy turn into a Saint Bernard
in my lifetime?
RabbitMunch:
do you really want to know the answer FatherBugKiller?
FatherBugKiller:
if you have
it, yes
Parsifal:
is FatherBugKiller joking , or what??
WickedMerlin:
you have been told 100 times, FatherBugKiller
FatherBugKiller:
if you are
just guessing, no
eadon-com:
FatherBugKiller, the history of life is 3,000,000,000
years. You expect to see that in a few decades?
RabbitMunch:
evolution is comprised of mutations, all of
which occur during reproduction. Therefore,
no evolution can occur in a creature that has
already matured, so the answer is your cat will
never be anything but a cat
FatherBugKiller:
any the pizza
guy will never become a dog?
RabbitMunch:
based on what I just said, you tell me.
eadon-com:
Not all, if you work in a nuclear power station
and your knackers are irradiated :)
Parsifal:
well why do they change into Whales then , eadon??
eadon-com:
Whales are otters that got fat parsifal :)
eadon-com:
ichthyosaurs were lizards that evolved into
whale like creatures. An example of convergent
evolution there.
eadon-com:
we have missing link skeletons of whales with
legs. Legs not good for swimming. The legs disappeared.
Parsifal:
again eadon... those are very much open to interpretation.
could be missing links...could just be isolated
specimens in the fossil record
eadon-com:
in any one instance maybe so parsifal, but the
pattern is repeated ad nauseam over all fossils.
FatherBugKiller:
can't wait
for my cat to turn into an orang-utan
Parsifal:
evolution... quite possible, although no conclusive
evidence for... neo-Darwinism... cobblers is
the usual outcome
eadon-com:
fossils. One word
SnafuFoobar:
everyone knows the aliens planted fake fossils
Parsifal:
what fossils are clearly transitional?? Isolated
specimens in the fossil record, not clearly
transitional from or to anything...inconclusive..and
if they WERE accepted as transitional, that
would tell you nothing about the method by which
evolution had occurred
eadon-com:
there are endless examples. A whale with legs
count? Reptiles with feathers? Fish with lungs.
Parsifal:
no. Whale with legs is isolated specimen
eadon-com:
I don't know what to say Parsifal. You refuse
t believe the fossils?
Parsifal:
Many professional biologists have major doubts
about Darwinian theory but there really is a
suppression of such dissent
eadon-com:
what about the early ichthyosaurs? They are
similar to lizards, a clear example of a transitional
fossil - lizard to ichthyosaur. Other fossils
show the transition from fish to amphibian to
reptile. There are the primitive dinosaurs of
the Triassic. They were transitional
Parsifal:
I believe that there is no clear evidence there
for transition or sequential evidence...but
I am certainly NOT saying that it did not or
COULD not have happened
eadon-com:
I think that if you spoke to a palaeontologist
Parsifal, he might find cause to disagree :)
Parsifal:
no they do not eadon
Carpathian:
name some
eadon-com:
All fossils are transitional in a sense, since
evolution is happening all the time
Parsifal:
Simultaneous transition of many coordinated
physiological processes makes a mockery of all
Darwinian mechanisms
eadon-com:
Ah yes, Parsifal, we brushed on this earlier,
didn't we conclude that these transitions are
not simultaneous? Remember the polyp discussion?
eadon-com:
no need for all those adaptations to appear
at once. Evolution is just that, evolution
Parsifal:
like from amphibian to reptile?
eadon-com:
we didn't go from pure amphibian to pure reptile
in one generation. The fossil record tends to
show beasts that are transitional, they are
partly what they evolved from and partly what
they are turning into
FatherBugKiller:
My neighbor
just turned into an artichoke. I now believe
in evolution!
Parsifal:
there most certainly IS a need for all such
adaptation to occur thru simultaneous changes
in the transition from amphibian to reptile,
as in the development of the reptile egg
FytinFrank:
it is eggsistential, eh, Parsifal?
eadon-com:
Amphibians lay eggs in water, reptiles on land.
But what happened to groups of amphibians in
places where the pools would dry up? Those eggs
that were able to survive exposure to air would
have a greater chance of survival. So it is
possible that eggs gradually adjusted over generations
to pools that were not always full of water.
I think that over time eggs may have adapted
to these wet/dry conditions until eventually
dependence on water was no longer a feature
of the eggs. Look at lung fish, they have adapted
to surviving on land without water until the
next rains come.
Parsifal:
simultaneous transformations...working in concert
eadon... poses big, to my mind, insoluble probs
for Darwinism
eadon-com:
Sure, but the eggs didn't go from wet straight
to dry. There was probably an intermittent period
of amphibians eggs being in pools that were
susceptible to periods of dryness but mostly
wet. And so over time in unreliable pools the
eggs acquired features that prolonged survival
without water. It seems sensible that the eggs
would have acquired the vessel to lock in moisture
gradually. The first vessels were insubstantial
as the eggs mostly in water. But gradually mutations
that strengthened it were rewarded.
FatherBugKiller:
so then they
turned into chickens?
Parsifal:
it's not just about water. Look at the list
of changes that have to happen TOGETHER
eadon-com:
I don't see any problem with this. Over time
the shell hardens from generation to generation.
In turn the creatures that can't break the shell
die. Hence inevitably the creatures adapt to
be able to hatch from the shell.
FytinFrank:
life got clever, and created hard shells, what
is the problem with this formulation?
eadon-com:
Sure! I have just described such a thing, the
hardening of the shell TOGETHER with the ability
of the hatchling to crack out of it. So what?
It all makes sense to me. I don't see any problem
with the gradual evolution of several features
together.
Parsifal:
it's all or nothing...that's the point. and
almost every major evolutionary change calls
for a combination of alterations in physiological
structures, and very often behaviours too. Random
mutation and natural selection just won't do
to account for it.
eadon-com:
If egg too soft then dies. If hatchling can't
escape from hard egg then dies. Only the combination
survives.
FatherBugKiller:
When to they
turn into monkeys?
eadon-com:
Yes, Parsifal, but if you think about it, the
creatures that are best able to cope are rewarded.
Over time they will adapt. The creatures that
first solved the problem of evolving those multiple
features were rewarded with more breeding space
and freedom from predators. Oh and more food
too. Big rewards. it was bound to happen.
FytinFrank:
someone took out an ad in evolutionaries wanted,
saying, big rewards, first species to opposable
thumbs will get major bennies, then they just
sat back and waited
Madpole:
eadon and Parsifal are arguing about eggs JGR
- save their souls!
JGR:
still?....damn. Parsifal is a smart mofo as
is eadon.
FatherBugKiller:
wet eggs,
dry eggs, wombats turning into chickens sigh
JGR:
I'll take on a creationist mentality here for
a second. -------Ya know FatherBugKiller, I
SAW with my own eyes a wombat turn into a man....so....try
to debunk that now...na nana nana
Parsifal:
they will adapt.. even though they were doing
fine before, even as bacteria, and even though
very often the "prototype' remains even after
the supposed "improved versi" has come into
existence...
eadon-com:
No! not so true parsifal, there is something
called evolutionary pressure. For example predation.
If that amphibian can keep its eggs away from
predators in the water, then those eggs are
more likely to survive, hence more land amphibians.
LordHugger:
which came first the chicken or the egg? Answer....they
both evolved together
JGR:
eadon is a man of great patience and vigor.
FatherBugKiller:
Bottom line
is: maybe you are the one who's wrong. Would
that be so earth shattering that your ego couldn't
handle it?
JGR:
Debunk my position FatherBugKiller. Try it....
Then you will see what it's like talking to
a creationist.
eadon-com:
To look at single celled animals... why did
single celled creatures evolve into multi-celled
animals? Because if they are multi-celled animals
then they are too big to be eaten by other single
celled predators.
FatherBugKiller:
maybe you're
right, maybe not, but to come off as a know-it-all
makes me doubt it
eadon-com:
FatherBugKiller, you believe in Adam and eve?
FatherBugKiller:
no
eadon-com:
creationism?
FatherBugKiller:
Some sort
of God inspired start, yes
eadon-com:
so god created all the creatures? when?
FatherBugKiller:
unlike you,
I don't know
eadon-com:
so you put your faith in your ignorance?
FatherBugKiller:
no more than
you do
JGR:
I can't stand the way people put words in your
mouth here. Strawman heaven. I *Never* said
I know everything. I know more than you though,
obviously.
eadon-com:
FatherBugKiller, at least parsifal can put forward
intelligent objections to evolution theory.
You cannot, other than you prefer to believe
in the supernatural.
FatherBugKiller:
I was talking
to eadon, not you, JGR, sorry if you misunderstood
eadon-com:
I never said I know everything either.
FatherBugKiller:
Prove to
me that wet eggs became dry eggs and chickens
became turtles. if you can't than what do you
expect with wild theories like that?
JGR:
He was putting words in someone's mouth then
eh?
eadon-com:
but if a man says eadon is wrong because I think
eadon is wrong but cannot elucidate his reasoning
then I don't feel obliged to credit that man
with knowing better than me
FytinFrank:
actually it is more like turtles became chickens,
eh?
JGR:
I told you FatherBugKiller. I saw it happen.
Debunk that.
FatherBugKiller:
so eadon
is always right unless someone can prove even
the most outrageous theory wrong?
eadon-com:
fossils are rock solid evidence FatherBugKiller.
if you educated yourself then you would realise
this is true.
FatherBugKiller:
fact is:
no one knows what happened, to come across as
the authority on all life in the universe is
a reach, to say the least
eadon-com:
You don't even come up with a reasonable objection
to evolution theory other than fatuous arguments
that you don't think it is right, FatherBugKiller.
Fossils are the evidence FatherBugKiller. You
have no evidence to support your god
Parsifal:
Darwinian theory is VERY important FatherBugKiller...if
it is intellectually defensible, then it MUST
be defended, as the only non metaphysical process
to account for life on earth. But, if it falls,
at any point, then a world view falls with it.
Don't belittle eadon-com...he is the loyal opposition!
FatherBugKiller:
I admit Darwin
may be right, so may be eadon et al, they just
can't prove it, neither can I and it's a wild
theory to begin with. If eadon and his followers
would admit it can't be proved, I would let
them babble on in the peace of the season
eadon-com:
parsifal is a true opponent indeed!
FatherBugKiller:
hell, I may
let them babble on anyway, because it's getting
old fast
FytinFrank:
well it certainly seems very difficult to demonstrate
this stuff beyond any doubt, eh?
eadon-com:
all the evidence taken together is so compelling
that there is no reasonable objection FatherBugKiller.
it is a myth that there is no proof. if you
can't accept the proof of palaeontology and
genetics then you are denying the very process
of knowledge.
MeatKiller:
FatherBugKiller, I recommend you visit a natural
history museum
FatherBugKiller:
a moose turned
into a chicken, eh?
eadon-com:
erm. no.
JGR:
Evolution has been observed in the wild and
in the lab FatherBugKiller. Evolution is a fact
of nature like gravity. The only opposition
to it comes from the religious who feel it is
a threat to their precious creed.
FatherBugKiller:
why not a
moose into a chicken?
eadon-com:
FatherBugKiller see MeatKiller's tell above.
Isolani:
I watched a movie about the Dalai Lama, forget
the title. In Tibet the Buddhist monks spent
their days meditating, living simple lives.
But later in the movie, by the 1940's that is,
I noticed they had electric lights in the monastery.
Religion, I mean to say, benefits from science.
Grant:
Since none of us have monitored the earth for
the last 4 1/2 billion years, certainty in this
area is elusive...that does not mean all of
our guesses are equally valid
Parsifal:
Back to speciation. I insist that no instance
of speciation has ever been observed
dlh:
Parsifal, why is it that university trained
scientists believe in Darwinism?
Parsifal:
because they are told to
dlh:
lol
WhiteBeard:
good one Parsifal
LordHugger:
if you deny evolution...you deny the living
hand of god
eadon-com:
Even Darwin's ideas of group evolution are back
in fashion In fact Darwin's ideas of group evolution
have been shown to be valid in lab experiments
involving wheat weevils
ObeeSpun-One:
because religion is just one step above superstition
eadon-com:
Superstition is less high than religion? why?
Is one untruth higher than another? Is Pinky
higher than Perky? Is Tweedledum higher than
Tweedledee?
dlh:
well, teenage son must be fed so off to restaurant,
later all!
eadon-com:
dlh means that dlh needs to be fed :)
ObeeSpun-One:
superstition is at the bottom
 Please add your comment to this page | | | | | | From: |
Dustin Kelley | Subject: | 2001-04-25 02:30:05 |
| | | | | | From: |
JGR | Subject: | 2001-05-14 13:42:12 |
| | | | | | From: |
JGR | Subject: | 2001-05-14 13:44:22 |
| | | | | | From: |
JGR | Subject: | 2001-05-14 13:45:28 |
| | | | | | From: |
XxDoubleHelixX | Subject: | 2002-07-03 23:53:55 |
| | | | | | From: |
XxDoubleHelixX | Subject: | 2002-07-04 00:34:52 |
| | | | | | From: |
Helix | Subject: | 2002-07-04 00:36:03 |
| | | | | | From: |
Helix | Subject: | 2002-07-04 00:45:32 |
| | | | | | From: |
GOD | Subject: | 2003-09-01 16:56:10 |
| | | | | | From: |
denny | Subject: | 2003-11-05 10:36:47 |
| | | | | | From: |
John | Subject: | 2004-08-01 09:31:58 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 4702
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
