|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
catdoc:
Given that biology as we understand it has existed
for about a hundred years, less really, it's
a bit premature to be saying what can and cannot
be known.
Parsifal:
I know catdoc it's a personal statement of mine.
[Parsifal is the agnostic anti-Darwinist chess
grandmaster James Plaskett. This debate is chiefly
a battle pitching Parsifal vs Pro-Darwinists]
FishOn:
Parsifal...I know your chess credentials, but
what is your background in THIS area?
Parsifal:
not trying to SELL it to you FishOn
eadon-com:
Having seen how good genetic algorithms are
I don't see any reason to say that genetic evolution
mechanisms are not up to the job of explaining
life
FishOn:
Parsifal, I know...I'm curious as to what your
background (non-chess) is...just curious
Parsifal:
I am an amateur. No biology qualifications
FishOn:
good...so am I :)
Parsifal:
my academic qualifications, FishOn? I was thrown
out of school, unfairly.
Parsifal:
I have yet to hear of any example of natural
selection ever advanced by any Darwinist which
did not crumble under critical thinking, most
usual is the Peppered Moth still advanced by
e.g. Dawkins, or Steve Jones in his eulogised
book Almost Like A Whale. And it's untrue.
eadon-com:
yes Parsifal but I find the arguments of those
guys quite compelling and I have found your
arguments to be unconvincing. But that is just
me
catdoc:
Parsifal, you are like a man in the middle of
a detective story, producing arguments to show
that it COULD NOT have been the butler that
did it, even though it's looking that way, and
that furthermore, since the room with the body
was locked from the inside, it will never be
possible to say who dunnit.
Parsifal:
why is it looking that the Butler did it, catdoc?
I demand that the poor bastard gets a fair trial!!
pmk:
Also, there's no real proof for gravity, either,
Parsifal. Those so-called scientists just have
a THEORY, right?
catdoc:
Because that, at this point in the story, is
the dominant paradigm.
Parsifal:
I say the dominant paradigm is a myth
catdoc:
Of course it is. That's the nature of paradigms.
pmk:
Scientists can't explain why gravity works,
either. [As it happens scientists have some
good guesses about how gravity may work, but
the whole picture is not known yet, because
Einstein's General Relativity is incompatible
with Quantum Mechanics. An evolving theory called
Superstrings/M-theory may rectify this situation-
eadon]
Parsifal:
one which it is very hard to question, as the
overriding rule of modern science is that all
phenomena MUST have a purely physical explanation.
It's their allegiance to that self-erected rule
that makes so many rational people cling desperately
to Darwinism despite its massive problems.
eadon-com:
Parsifal you're alternative explanation involves
invoking a supernatural life force I believe.
Please explain it for the benefit of all here.
pmk:
Parsifal has NO alternative explanation, just
whines that present theory does not satisfy
him
Parsifal:
I am not sure that I have any explanation, eadon.
I am a destructive type.
catdoc:
You have a choice between "It has an explanation",
and "It can't be explained". The latter of these
has never advanced further. The first has produced
endless insight.
catdoc:
You choose.
Parsifal:
at least the Darwinists have had a go at coming
up with an answer, and that I respect. I just
say that their creation myth is as baseless
as any other. It does not even answer the chicken
or egg paradox. Also, nothing else explains
that either!! Unless you say GOD did it
Parsifal:
but then What Made God?? We get nowhere. I have
no answer. I say that that makes me more rational
than you
MST3K:
why does everything have to have a maker? That's
quite an assumption.
Parsifal:
what insights has it generated catdoc??
catdoc:
You get nowhere by setting up crappy questions
that you already know the answer to. Whereas,
if you pose small problems, and find solutions
to them, you gradually advance toward meaningful
understanding.
eadon-com:
Parsifal, I have had so many arguments with
you where you say that evolution doesn't work
and I have found answers that contradict your
objections and yet every time you keep voicing
the same objections over and over
pmk:
I say that that makes you a Looney
Parsifal:
because I have never heard you answer my objections,
eadon. Never seen an example of Natural selection.
Never seen an instance of speciation
pmk:
you won't on a human time scale, Parsifal
Parsifal:
never had any credible explanation of creatures
with very complex life cycles coming about thru
the gradualism of Natural selection, etc
eadon-com:
Well lets take speciation first. I showed you
an instance of scientifically proven speciation.
Do we have to go through this yet again?
Parsifal:
yes eadon. Do not accept that separate breeding
colonies of salmon came about there. Back it
up with more gen. Cite me those instances again
eadon
catdoc:
Everything that we know has been arrived at
by assuming that an explanation can be found.
You can take a mundane example, or an esoteric
one.
eadon-com:
I have also demonstrated Natural Selection,
Parsifal. Natural selection has been shown to
have happened in many instances. One example
is cadmium resistance in insect lavae and other
arthropods living in polluted pools. Do we have
to go through that again also? Do you ever listen
to a word I say??? (answer no)
eadon-com:
Well Parsifal it seems to me that you have a
pathological fear of admitting that evolutionary
theories are correct. The moment I refute one
objection you come up with another and round
and round like some crazed ferris wheel
Dudge:
eadon, you should put them on a website so that
by the time he comes around to the same objection
again, you can just refer him to website. [Good
idea Dudge!]
pmk:
Parsifal, you just can't childishly say I don't
accept this or that
Parsifal:
cite me ONE example of a case where insects
or bacteria developed a resistant strain to
pollution/ insecticides where it was shown that
the resistant strain was NOT already present
at the start, and came to the fore, rather than
arising thru a NEW mutation. If you would be
so kind. And you won't be able to
eadon-com:
One example of natural selection we discussed
was cadmium resistance in insects Parsifal
FishOn:
Parsifal..this is an important point. Even evolutionists
must admit that at minimum the genetic capacity
to resist is inherent and present and did not
"evolve" independently"
LordHugger:
the birdie beaks is an example school children
know about
Parsifal:
the birdie beaks is THE most classic example
of bogus speciation claims, LordHugger! The
123 "species" of finches on the Galapagos are
all capable of breeding with all of the others.
So they are Not species. Like all of the other
evidence for Darwinism, it's unsound
JGR:
yes but NUMBER wise the strong breed MORE
eadon-com:
By a battery factory there were pools of water
used by insects. The battery factory, over time,
polluted those pools with the toxic metal cadmium.
The insect life living in the pool was resistant
to the cadmium. When the same species of insects
from unpolluted pools near by were introduced
into the cadmium polluted pools they died. In
the lab they did an experiment to show that
natural selection caused cadmium resistance
in insects in as few as 3 generations. There
is the evidence Parsifal, for natural selection.
That is only one example.
Parsifal:
the cadmium resistant strain was already there
at the start. It survived...the others died
out...where's the evolution in that?
eadon-com:
No!
Parsifal:
where is the natural selection in that? It's
just population shift
eadon-com:
As I explained on previous occasions, in the
lab the insects were not cadmium resistant.
They evolved cadmium resistance as the cadmium
levels were increased over generations
Parsifal:
geneticists claim again and again in such cases
that something new has rapidly been created
thru selection pressures. It is natural selection
selecting the best of the random mutations
pmk:
you guys, give up, he's hopeless
LordHugger:
on one of the island...they have observed evolution
on a time scale of one month!
Parsifal:
but they never show an example of a study where
it is proven that the "NEW" thing was not there
at the start. Neither have you eadon.
eadon-com:
When they started out the insects were not immune
to cadmium. At the end of the experiment their
grandkids were
FishOn:
I don't disagree that the selection occurs...but
what evidence is the presence "random"
Parsifal:
I defy you, eadon, to show that in the lab test,
they demonstrated that the resistant strain
were not there at the start.
eadon-com:
Well guys I have shown Parsifal an example of
natural selection. In a month he will tell everybody
that he has not seen one example of natural
selection
FishOn:
no you have not eadon!
eadon-com:
Parsifal, they saw it in the wild and they simulated
the wild experiment in the lab, as I have described
to you. In both cases natural selection caused
the cadmium tolerance in only a few generations
FishOn:
you have not answered Parsifal's most basic
challenge -->
Parsifal:
I defy you, eadon, to show that in the lab test,
they demonstrated that the resistant strain
was not there at the start. [note by eadon -
oops missed that challenge in the flurry of
tells. The answer is simple, I already hinted
at it above. ALL insects that have never been
exposed to such high concentrations of cadmium
die when exposed to the cadmium. Only after
generations of breeding in an environment in
which the cadmium levels are gradually increased
does the cadmium resistance occur.]
Dudge:
Yes, he's shown an example of natural selection,
FishOn.
pmk:
I defy you, Parsifal, to show that it WAS there
at the start
Dudge:
He just hasn't shown that it was a random mutation,
or that the trait wasn't in some of them to
begin with.
catdoc:
Tch tch, now you are being obtuse, and simply
insisting against the evidence that what you
want to believe must be true. Mutations certainly
exist - they follow strict and simple laws.
Whether you can get a new species that way may
be argued, but to "just say no" to adaptation
is silly.
LordHugger:
because there is natural selection...doesn't
mean there isn't a god...the god is the universe
and it is infinitely dimensioned....which places
an infinite number of restrictions on any process....which
makes it appear "alive"
Parsifal:
and if they did mutate, as rapidly as you claim,
then that would be even WORSE news for Darwinists,
as it would indubitably point, in so few generations,
to the organism changing Lamarckically. But,
that is not my assertion. I say that the strain
was there and came to the fore.
pmk:
Parsifal betrays his miscomprehension of both
Darwinism AND Lamarckism in one sentence!
FishOn:
pmk...explain
Parsifal:
attentively eadon, but I shall now be away for
5 mins
eadon-com:
the scientists did not need to invoke a Lamarckic
explanation for the cadmium resistance.
Parsifal:
ah pmk! That's not my problem! Unless they show
it was not there to begin with then they have
no case for novelty! it's up to them
FishOn:
I agree Parsifal
Parsifal:
right FishOn. And until they show such a case
they have no claim
eadon-com:
I would recommend reading about the amazing
abilities of Genetic Algorithms to solve problems
when guided by natural selection
FishOn:
GIGO
LordHugger:
further more the restrictions take place in
a decreasing dimensionality which relate items
to other items...it is not to difficult to see
where a foundation for evolution may come
catdoc:
And of course, you can merrily argue away in
favor of what seems pleasing to you. But when
the genome for Drosophila [fruit fly - a creature
often used in genetics experiments] is mapped
(as it is) it becomes untenable to say that
something must have been there all along, when
it clearly was not.
Parsifal:
and catdoc, if any examples of random beneficial
mutations have happened the they are vanishingly
rare
catdoc:
Only because you have decided in advance that
they are.
catdoc:
Instead of trying to actually find out if that
is true or not.
eadon-com:
Genetic algorithms can solve problems that they
knew nothing about at the start. There was no
knowledge of the problem there. They evolve
blindly and are selected for fitness and bred
until they can solve the problem
pmk:
no, Parsifal, I've already bought one fallacy-laden
tome that you recommended
LordHugger:
nothing is random to the universe...but maybe
random for us...randomness is just a cop out
because we can not describe the physical process
in detail necessary
Parsifal:
genetic algorithms... these are models, yes?
eadon-com:
software simulations of genes Parsifal
FishOn:
LordHugger...I see your point...however, the
mathematical concept of random is useful
LordHugger:
true
eadon-com:
genetic algorithms prove that random mutations
can produce a useful solution to some problems
without anything about the problem being coded
at the outset.
Batman:
Perhaps we lack the ability to perceive nature.
Would that make it somewhat random?
LordHugger:
exactly!
HammondEggs:
eadon's right. Genetic algorithms are relatively
simple learning algorithms, yet they sometimes
come back with fantastic results.
Batman:
"What we perceive is not nature, but nature
exposed to our methods of questioning." --Heisenberg.
Parsifal:
no catdoc, the Darwinists must make their case
catdoc:
Which they are patiently doing - you want to
jump ahead 300 years.
LordHugger:
it is logical and no other theory has surpassed
it
Parsifal:
genetic algorithms... do Dawkins' Biomorphs
come under that heading??
eadon-com:
No
pmk:
not in the least
pmk:
sheesh
eadon-com:
Genetic algorithms are a computer simulation
of genetic evolution
catdoc:
And since you cannot jump ahead to the back
of the book and see who did it, you are in a
lather of rejection, and refuse to accept that
pages must be turned one by one.
eadon-com:
[to JGR who just arrived] I was explaining how
genetic algorithms have proven that natural
selection via random mutation has been proven
to be an effective way to solve complex problems,
hence proving that mechanisms of evolution are
at least theoretically provable
FishOn:
eadon...these algorithms are suspect
eadon-com:
do explain FishOn
Parsifal:
I repeat, eadon, are you saying that the biomorphs
of R. Dawkins are an example of such algorithms??
eadon-com:
No
pmk:
no, Dawkin's biomorphs are NOT genetic algorithms
FishOn:
these algorithms are full of assumptions based
on incomplete data
SnafuFoobar:
genetic algorithms sound cool but they don't
converge to optimal solutions at all - they
don't even work in the field of algorithms never
mind genetics
HammondEggs:
FishOn, that doesn't matter. They still work
in a good number of situations.
FishOn:
yes, they "seem" to work...but on careful examination...there
are many assumptions about the rate of genetic
mutation etc. that are suspect
pmk:
a theory's failure to convince idiots says nothing
about a theory's validity
FishOn:
evidence clearly shows that genetic mutation
and the rate of "change" is species is not linear..but
full of fits and starts
eadon-com:
well FishOn the fact is that the mechanism has
been shown that it can work. This is a hell
of an advance, for at least in principle we
know that certain rates of genetic mutation
are able to produce evolution by natural selection
pmk:
the ability of natural selection in systems
with fecundity, heredity, and fidelity was not
in doubt, eadon
FishOn:
well, on this we don't disagree...I've never
once said that random mutation and selective
retention of favorable traits is not a viable
explanation...but not the "full" explanation
eadon-com:
Sure FishOn, evolution occurs in a complex environment
of interconnecting organisms in a huge food
chain. Disturb one species and a domino effect
may affect all the others. Hence fits and spurts
of evolution in the fossil record
catdoc:
There are assumptions made about rates (although
the rate of point mutations isn't just made
up) but - and there's the thing - after you
work up a viable model, you go out and *test*
it.
catdoc:
Incredible as that may sound
dlh:
[quotes BishopHavoc (a Christian)] BishopHavoc:
well scientist,
you are assuming that Jesus is a liars
catdoc:
I think the significance of BishopHavoc's phrase
there may have been lost on the generality of
mankind that is represented here, dlh.
FishOn:
as pmk says...
pmk:
"the ability of natural selection in systems
with fecundity, heredity, and fidelity was not
in doubt, eadon"
eadon-com:
True pmk, I was just trying to explain to Parsifal,
who is the only [non-Christian] person here
who thinks there is grave doubt
FishOn:
you addressed that to me however eadon
JGR:
Well, FishOn, there is much misinterpretation
of Punk Eek. The fossil record shows fits and
starts because speciation demands isolation.
Isolation means that a species must be cut off
and be elsewhere to speciate. That is why gradual
change in any dig is not expected. It *should*
look jerky.
FishOn:
I'm simply exploring the possibility of supplementary
forces to "random mutation". but I have no issue
at all with "natural selection"
eadon-com:
Genetic algorithms are always going to be simplistic
compared to the dirty world of real life. They
merely prove the principle that natural selection
works
FishOn:
although "random mutation" and "natural selection"
are often used in the same sentence...they are
NOT the same thing
Dudge:
FishOn, do you think random mutations are incapable
of explaining it, and that we must postulate
some other force?
eadon-com:
In computer simulations of competing [artificial/virtual]
creatures the resulting variations of species
populations is not smooth. You get periods of
stability punctuated by short moments of violent
extinctions and speciation
FishOn:
Dudge....I'm saying that there is no finality
of evidence that random mutation is sufficient....unlike
eadon, who is convinced based on computer models
that it is sufficient
JGR:
In other words FishOn, *gradual* change should
"look" jerky in the fossil record....
eadon-com:
This jerkiness appears inside the computer simulations
even though it has not been programmed in
FishOn:
JGR...if you get into fossil evidence you raise
many more problems than solutions
Parsifal:
listen to the language here, will you? "idiots.."...
Pathological", hardly any more emotionally-charged
issue than Darwinism...
catdoc:
"Idiots" and "pathological" are practically
terms of endearment on ICC.
dlh:
Fossils is a LIARS!!
Dudge:
Okay, FishOn, I wouldn't say it necessarily
is sufficient. But I also don't have any reason
to say it isn't. :)
dlh:
the DEVIL put fossils into de ground to confuse
da good christian chile!
eadon-com:
Small war going on here dlh. Parsifal versus
the atheists
FishOn:
that is my only point Dudge...and the intellectual
interest in exploring supplementary forces..that
are yet undefined (but for which some evidence
exists)
JGR:
I think scientific exploration should take a
pure materialistic reasoning until we have good
reason to stray....which we don't...yet. I think
you are jumping the gun FishOn.
eadon-com:
FishOn there are 2 types of force that have
been put forward. One is Kant's life force,
long discredited (except by Parsifal probably)
and the other is Lamarckian evolution, which
again is not very useful anymore. Both have
been superseded by natural selection and genetic
evolution
Parsifal:
"beating off"... see?
Parsifal:
not evolution per se, pmk...just the Darwinian
mechanisms
pmk:
give it up, whinging crumpet monkey
FishOn:
JGR....I'm not sure...as long as there is some
evidence that other forces "may" be at work...we
are only seeking the truth
Dudge:
FishOn, I agree that exploring the possibility
is good. What evidence, FishOn?
FishOn:
evidence that species may evolve in "direct"
response to environmental stimuli...rather than
simply through selecting for traits that occur
randomly
JGR:
"evidence that species may evolve in "direct"
response to environmental stimuli."................this
sure sounds like evolution by natural selection
either way you swing it...... I mean, No environment,
no evolution
Dudge:
Yes, FishOn... what evidence is there for that?
FishOn:
Dudge, evidence that species adapt at a pace
too rapid for random mutation alone to explain
the accommodation to new stimuli
Parsifal:
I am not sure I am opposed to Atheists, eadon.
I have said, I do not know what happened. But
I DO believe in a spiritual dimension to the
universe- but that's based mostly on mystical
experiences, and I accept that I have no right
to advance those as evidence to anyone else
dlh:
cool, Parsifal is a mystic. Parsifal, have you
read the famous English mystical work, "The
Cloud of Unknowing"?
eadon-com:
JGR is right. Natural selection mimics a deliberate
attempt at an animal to adapt to its environment
FishOn:
no "change" in environment no evolution?
eadon-com:
Not true. ecosystems are inherently dynamic
FishOn:
eadon..what do you mean by "deliberate attempt"?
Parsifal:
I accept that there is some evidence for LAMARCKIAN
acquisition of characteristics- but I am damned
if I know what that means we ought to think!
eadon-com:
In computer systems even when the environment
is kept constant you see extinctions and spurts.
Jerky population variation and periods of stability,
as I said earlier
JGR:
You can have no environmental change and still
have evolution, that is the beauty of it, genetic
drift it is called, simply the accumulation
of mutations good, bad or neutral......
dlh:
Lamarck was shot down a long time ago Parsifal
pmk:
Deuteronomy 25:11 tells us what to do!
Dudge:
FishOn, when we say it happens "too quickly"
in some cases, isn't it possible that random
mutations caused the genetic differences to
exist, which were then only displayed in the
right environment?
FishOn:
these evolutionists are as dogmatic as any fundamentalist
christians I've ever encountered
eadon-com:
FishOn scientists are dogmatic that gravity
exists. Evidence is compelling!!!
pmk:
we still have no good theory for what CAUSES
gravity
dlh:
Parsifal, when is your next chess tournament?
Parsifal:
chess? Bollukx to that dlh. This is REAL fun,
here
dlh:
true Parsifal, this channel is much more fun
than old boring chess!
FishOn:
"caused" them to exist? Dudge? explain that
in the context of Darwinist evolution
BishopHavoc:
and no evidence to back it up, eh?
dlh:
ah, its brother BishopHavoc, time to study Deuteronomy
25 :)
eadon-com:
I think the mistake most people make is to underestimate
how powerful natural selection is.Again computer
simulations have taught us that natural selection
is a very powerful force
pmk:
Deuteronomy 25:11 tells us that we MUST cut
off the HANDS of TESTICLE-GRABBING WOMEN!
dlh:
notice pmk Deuteronomy is silent if the attackee
has a male friend that comes to his aid and
does the yanking
FishOn:
[evolutionists are] dogmatic nonetheless..and
fascinatingly rigid in holding onto beliefs
JGR:
FishOn, no need for name-calling in a discussion...I
sense you don't like opposition to your ideas...
pmk:
give me a better theory, FishOn, and I'll dump
Darwinism immediately
eadon-com:
Me too
FishOn:
no no! JGR...not at all..please don't misunderstand
me. I was only pointing to an irony that fundies
don't have a monopoly on rigid adherence to
their beliefs
JGR:
We are surely not dogmatic. I have been through
more belief changes than anything. I'm just
refining and testing now.
FishOn:
I did not mean it as "scientists" aren't thinkers....I
apologize if it was taken in that manner. This
is an issue of cognitive dissonance..and that
people are (as a whole) reluctant to abandon
a manner of thinking with which they have become
comfortable
Parsifal:
I am afraid Lamarck was NOT so shot down dlh...
despite the sad case of the midwife toad
dlh:
wasn't Lamarck the one who thought maggots spontaneously
generated from the air?
pmk:
Lamarck believed in the inheritance of acquired
characteristics
dlh:
Parsifal, what is a midwife toad?
Parsifal:
a midwife toad, dlh, is a species where the
eggs hatch whilst nurtured, unusually, by the
male. Hence the name...
FishOn:
and they aren't even "toads" hehe
Parsifal:
right on FishOn... cognitive dissonance
Parsifal:
"I think the mistake most people make is to
underestimate how powerful natural selection
is" says eadon. He also forgets how vague and
elastic a term it is. Warning coloration in
insects... Natural Selection. Camouflage colours
? Natural selection... Any outcome is natural
selection... I mean.. they' re here, for Pete's
sake! So selection must have favoured 'em? right?!
Dudge:
The keyword is "natural," Parsifal.
eadon-com:
Sure Parsifal. Computer Genetic algorithms can
show us the best design of jet turbine blades.
I bet you would have denounced such a thing
were it not true.
Parsifal:
I give you NO better theory, pmk... just that
Darwinism is no good
eadon-com:
Well Parsifal, you must do better than that
if you want to be taken seriously :)
pmk:
Darwinism's failure to convince a chess master
is a small weakness, IMO
Parsifal:
whether that is sound though, just to have a
monstrous gap in the life sciences..I do not
know. Many would argue that a bad explanation
is better than none...
JGR:
Darwinism makes people uncomfortable it seems
and they take that into account when they shouldn't
logically imo. Let's keep searching, this doesn't
"feel" good. I don't know though, I just have
a hard time accepting spiritual explanations
when natural ones have not been fully explored
and explained.
Parsifal:
computers... no computers in nature... no evidence
for natural selection either...and I keep challenging
you
eadon-com:
Parsifal, you reject the idea that computer
simulations have anything to teach us?
SnafuFoobar:
How nice to be like Darwin, independently wealthy
so you can sail round the world studying your
passion for nature, then marrying someone from
an even wealthier family so you never have to
work in your life
pmk:
You've definitely demolished evolution there
for me, SnafuFoobar. Hallelujah, I'm saved!
dlh:
evolution is overwhelmingly believed by established
mainline university and research scientists
Parsifal:
bah SnafuFoobar!, get your ass in the hot seat
on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? and you can
whoop it up better than Charlie Darwin!!
Parsifal:
(Sigh!)
SnafuFoobar:
I would not want the publicity
SnafuFoobar:
can I go on with a paper bag over my head?
pmk:
please
catdoc:
Of course, if you even publish 1/100th of Darwin's
output, you might be in a better position to
speak of "never working a day", SnafuFoobar.
eadon-com:
Parsifal hasn't got a clue about how Genetic
Algorithms work. He just says that there are
no computers in nature and so dismisses an interesting
avenue of learning out of hand
eadon-com:
(sigh!)
SnafuFoobar:
I know how genetic algorithms work and they're
not great shakes
Parsifal:
no, not necessarily... it depends very much,
on this point, how many useful innovations are
generated, and in what sequences
pmk:
if there are no computers in nature, how is
Parsifal connecting to ICC?
PerrinAybara:
via his middle finger :)
eadon-com:
a spiritual link pmk I imagine :)
SnafuFoobar:
well my output is in computer code written while
at work catdoc ... and in any case Darwin's
output was extraordinarily light - it took something
like 14 years of nagging before he wrote his
famous book
dlh:
Darwin sent shock waves through Europe's ministers
from which they have never recovered the amount
of hostility by the religious clerics generated
by his scientific theories is amazing indeed
SnafuFoobar:
I don't think Queen Victoria approved
catdoc:
Mm. Would you care to summarize Darwin's bibliography?
Parsifal:
gradualism in evolution...or punctuated equilibria...I
still have enormous difficulty in performing
these exercises in retro-engineering to construct
a large animal with all of its self- defence,
self-repair, self-reproduction mechanisms...
but maybe that's just me?
eadon-com:
going from small to large is one of the easiest
adaptations to make Parsifal
JGR:
You are leaving out regular old genetic drift
Parsifal....the simple accumulation of mutations...
eadon-com:
4 billion years is a lot of time to produce
something good
pmk:
remember, the vast majority of life on earth
are still bacteria
SnafuFoobar:
search me - but if you sit on your backside
for 14 years you're not exactly super-productive
pmk:
SnafuFoobar, what's your point?
dlh:
Darwin even discusses many of the anticipated
criticisms of his theory in his book Origin
of Species
pmk:
Assuming, of course, that you have one?
SnafuFoobar:
my point is that I object to someone criticising
my "output" when I have to expend considerable
time and energy at work every day instead of
swanning off round the South Pacific
catdoc:
Mm. You figure he just wrote the one book, and
then played croquet, hm?
Parsifal:
ok JGR... but genetic drift is hardly assumed
by anyone to be a major factor... mutation is
the source of the prima materia
eadon-com:
well SnafuFoobar Darwin is a great man. Are
you?
SnafuFoobar:
of course
eadon-com:
Me too :)
SnafuFoobar:
I'm a legend
pmk:
So it's unfair that Darwin was a great intellect,
and that you're an incapable drudge? Well, ok,
it's unfair. I can live with that.
catdoc:
My point is, that if you think Darwin just lay
out on the sundeck on the Beagle, and then wrote
nothing else but the Origin his whole life,
and that you work ever so hard by comparison,
you're deluding yourself.
Parsifal:
and again, if that's how it works in nature
(AND if that is NOT how it works then most likely
something quite unknown would have to be admitted
into our philosophies) then I am puzzled by
the absence of many weirdo fossils: the evidence
for natural REJECTION?!
Parsifal:
will you listen to guys like pmk...? SOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Hostile when people question Darwinism!! NO
more emotionally-charged subject...
pmk:
oh, just get a life, crumpet monkey
JGR:
Jeez, you need to read that Gould book on the
Burgess shale...many weirdo fossils...like opabinia...6
eyes...and other interesting ancient multi-celled
creatures
dlh:
Parsifal, it is like when you criticize the
Sicilian Defense [a chess opening], but then
say it is still the best defense to [white's
first move pawn to] e4 around
Parsifal:
why is Darwin a great man??
eadon-com:
catdoc is right. Darwin performed much, both
observationally and experimentally. He is probably
the most influential philosopher that ever lived
Parsifal:
for producing a creation myth unsupported by
facts??
dlh:
and Darwin was persecuted for his beliefs too
SnafuFoobar:
Darwin was a great scientist - it's the legion
of arselicking followers that I find irritating
eadon-com:
SnafuFoobar is jealous of Darwin :)
Parsifal:
Darwin worked hard... that's for sure SnafuFoobar
JGR:
Darwin wrote a few book as a naturalist that
had nothing to do with evolution...I have Voyage
of the HMS Beagle for example...
eadon-com:
I bet in 100 years time our great-grandkids
will be discussing SnafuFoobar on this channel
dlh:
I bet most scientists today would still say
Origin of Species is one of the most influential
scientific works ever written
SnafuFoobar:
I'm jealous of his money yes. I have to waste
my brain at work.
eadon-com:
diddums
pmk:
get another job, then, and quit whining
dlh:
work is sacred, you should enjoy it SnafuFoobar
Parsifal:
those fossils, JGR, and I have read all of GOULD,
are FUNCTIONING organisms...what happened to
all of the creatures with the beginnings of
eyes or ears on their flanks?? Naturally-selected
out, you say... but not without any fossil traces,
surely?
SnafuFoobar:
I'm not jealous - I am envious ... how marvellous
to be able to indulge your passion all your
life, like a super-GM who can make chess pay
well
Parsifal:
The Blind watchmaker hit a functioning watch
every single time...just like those in The Burgess
Shale... where are the poor bastards that got
the breaks that rendered them not only maladapted,
but broken down absurdities??
JGR:
Parsifal, even today *in nature* we find transitional
eyes and such....
Parsifal:
crumpet monkey? ooooooooo! Guy starts calling
you that..he's probably got the hots...?! Are
you married pmk??
pmk:
read Gould's Wonderful Life again and pay attention...
one critter had FIVE eyes...
SnafuFoobar:
they don't know what crumpet means Parsifal
eadon-com:
Parsifal do not make the mistake of thinking
that in ecosystems it is the best-evolved creatures
that always survive. Luck plays a huge part.
For example if a species of grass disappears
lower down the food chain then that brilliantly
evolved creature will die, where as a horrible
creature else where may flourish
pmk:
a crumpet is basically an "English muffin" here
in the US
Parsifal:
crumpet mans sexy woman, in English vernacular
Parsifal:
yes ..5 eyes. Spider has 8 all in his head
JGR:
You are looking for retards and rejects Parsifal
in a spotty fossil record...good luck.....half-ears
won't be developing in hominids for example
because they already were developed by ancestors.....the
transitionals are there in ancient multi-celled
creatures.....you must read full life..
eadon-com:
changing the number of legs in an insect can
be done by changing a single gene. One mutation.
Parsifal:
yes eadon
eadon-com:
so some adaptations that seem big to us are
actually easy evolutionary speaking
Parsifal:
but where are the creatures, in fossils, or
today, with the beginnings of eyes in less than
optimal positions? After all, even a badly placed
eye confers SOME survival edge
JGR:
I think creationists commonly make the mistake
of thinking that for every lineage there must
be transitionals for eyes, ears, etc...but that
is a strawman....crude eyes need only to develop
*once* in an ancient common ancestor and that's
it
SnafuFoobar:
crumpet is more generic than a single women
.... Lets go looking for some crumpet ... etc
pmk:
Dawkins estimates that eyes evolved over 20
times independently
Parsifal:
and that wings evolved 4 times independently
JGR:
I'm not sure that eye convergent evolution is
going to hold pmk....I read an interesting article
on it a few weeks ago....an ancient common ancestor
may have developed crude eyes
catdoc:
Badly placed eyes don't convey any advantages,
but in fact use up precious nutritional resources
(body parts don't come cheap, nor can you just
add lots of stuff on, without cost). This is
where you actually have to examine ideas, rather
than just having them.
Parsifal:
I think pmk knew that SnafuFoobar, when he called
me a crumpet... so I am getting the admins onto
him. I am a Gm, why should I have American fruit
hitting on me when I partake in a civilised
debate on Darwinism??
JGR:
catdoc is right
Parsifal:
I examine ideas , catdoc, proto-eyes, in the
head, confer advantages, so proto-eyes on the
flanks must do to... not great edges, but appreciable
Batman:
Egg Salad(C) kibitzes: Warning- This is a 100%
Matter product. In the Unlikely Event That This
Merchandise Should Contact Antimatter in Any
Form, a Catastrophic Explosion Will Result.
Parsifal:
(Only kidding, pmk...you big pink flower, you!!)
pmk:
Sic 'em on me, you whinging pommey lunatic.
SnafuFoobar:
I hope your joking about that Parsifal ... isn't
crumpet monkey used in some film
Parsifal:
whinging?? No way... I got it bad for you now,
big boy!!!
Parsifal:
why don't an apeman and a non Darwinist get
it on, big boxer shorts guy???
catdoc:
The advantages are not free though. Neurological
hook-ups require some fairly fancy fats. And
use up energy. There are costs and benefits
in every cell of your body - they're not just
abstractions.
Parsifal:
still ought to be a few such unlucky fossils
there, catdoc... but I take your point
pmk:
calm down, you poor obsessed pseudo-intellectual
fraud
eadon-com:
Also the amount of visual processing causes
a huge percentage of the brain to be devoted
to the task of sight, a serious overhead for
an organism
Parsifal:
ooooooooooooooo!!!!!!! He's really turning me
on now!!!!!!!!!!!!!
catdoc:
So instead of saying "We should have more eyes",
you have to ask, "Why don't* we have more eyes".
It produces interesting answers, instead of
secure feelings.
SnafuFoobar:
Yes an eye in the back of your head would be
useful ....
eadon-com:
If you think about it, herbivores have 360 degree
vision. They have eyes on the sides of their
heads. This means that extra eyes are not necessary
pmk:
eyes can move around due to selection, but additional
eyes would not apparently be reachable by a
small mutation
Batman:
And a more appropriate place for the testicles
would be better. They are way to prone to injury,
they should be inside the skull.
SnafuFoobar:
chimps are herbivores, they have front eyes,
and yet we are meant to have them there because
we are predators!?
eadon-com:
In fruit flies it is quite easy to make more
organs pmk. One or two mutations in one or two
genes do that sort of thing
pmk:
including eyes? I've seen extra legs and antennae,
but not eyes
eadon-com:
Couldn't say for sure about eyes specifically
pmk
JGR:
There are so many Behe reutations on the net
about the eye that they are almost impossible
to miss....that's one good thing about creationists...they
are forcing the harder questions and the Darwinists
are responding by research.....it's penning
up the theory and making it stronger than ever
imo
pmk:
I've also seen a picture of a frog with eyes
in its mouth
Parsifal:
yes guys... but if it all starts off with a
blob of skin in the head becoming, by luck,
photo sensitive, and thereby conferring an edge
on the thing that gets it...then a similar,
perhaps lesser edge, ought to be conferred by
such a start elsewhere... and there should therefore
be some such fossils showing such developments
even if they don't make it all the way to eyes
or ears
pmk:
[sniping at Parsifal] brits hate evolution...
it did so little for them
eadon-com:
I'm a brit :)
pmk:
my sympathies, eadon
eadon-com:
I have taught Parsifal all he knows about evolution.
Nothing
JGR:
Ears , you must read Gould "the panda's thumb".....an
article it has is most convincing on ears and
hearing.....
SnafuFoobar:
He's clearly returned the favour with chess
eadon-com:
true SnafuFoobar :)
Parsifal:
yes, I saw that pic too pmk... in Climbing Mount
Improbable...it was a Canadian toad, I believe,
that had the yes in its mouth. Amazing macro
mutation, almost Goldschmidt-like, a la "Hopeful
Monster"
JGR:
I think with fruit fly's they have found that
eyes can grow in some pretty weird places...
Parsifal:
read that too, JGR, like I said...read all Gould
catdoc:
Making parts is not a Mister-Potatohead kind
of proposition. The nutritional substrates have
to be available. Then you need a strategy, for
how you're going to make use of what is available.
Herbivores aren't just kind of stupid because
they don't need brains. Whereas carnivores get
pre-processed substrate.
 Please add your comment to this page | | | | | | From: |
heyo | Subject: | 2001-10-03 10:21:36 |
| | | | | | From: |
jam | Subject: | 2006-10-02 07:54:31 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 3891
| | | |
