|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
 Posted - 07/12/2003 : 14:34:35
|
Hi
Did you know that Darwin had problems with evolution? For instance, why don't we see any animals inbetween the stages of evolution now? And how come most animals that have a mutation that makes them somewhat different than there predecesors are sterile? How would an eye develop if there were no inbetween stages that would be usefull? Does modern science have any answers?
|
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2003 : 15:37:45 [Permalink]
|
Hello Hippy.
Did you know that Darwin had problems with evolution?
Did you know that Darwin lived in the middle of the nineteenth century? And that the few concerns that he may have had have been long since addressed leaving evolution universally accepted in the scientific community?
For instance, why don't we see any animals inbetween the stages of evolution now?
These stages are right in front of your face…in fact they are part of your face. Can you tell a persons race just by looking at them?
Can you see a difference between a six foot tall blond Swede and a three foot tall black pygmy? More than that, can you tell the difference between a 5'10" Englishman and a 5'10" Italian just by looking at them. Yet they are still all the same species aren't they? These little changes that enable you to know if someone is Chinese or Ethiopian are the minute in-between stages of evolution which you say do not exist.
And how come most animals that have a mutation that makes them somewhat different than there predecesors are sterile?
The animals who are sterile do not pass their mutations on. Have you never even read Darwin? He discovered "natural selection" not "evolution." They knew about evolution since the 1700's. Don't you know what natural selection is? It's selective breeding controled by the environment.
How would an eye develop if there were no inbetween stages that would be usefull? Does modern science have any answers?
Yes, modern science has the answers and they are readily to you. In fact you must have gone out of your way not to know these things because they are from high school biology. Are you from one of those Christian places that bans the teaching of basic science?
One of the most primitive forms of the eye is owned by clams. Look at the lip of a clam and you'll see little purple dots around the meaty edge. These are light sensitive cells, they can feel if light is hitting them or not. Clams have gotten along just fine with these eye spots for countless millions of years. Anything better that colored spots is just gravy, each step more useful than the last one.
Did you know that in Genesis god creates man by blowing on a pile of magic dust? Did you know that the heavens and earth described in Genesis bear no resemblance to the actual sky and planet? Did you know that the entire story is a primitive superstition of nomadic goat herders?
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2003 : 16:24:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hi
Hello, hippy4christ...
Welcome here.
Though your first post here was in the end of April, and you've been quiet since then, I hope you will stay here and write more.
We had a christian guy here called Creation88, that stirred some debate, but unlike you, he came on hard with a cocky attitude. He didn't have much stamina though. You seem to be a bit more open minded than him, so I'm eagerly awaiting an exchange of ideas.
regards,
Mabuse |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2003 : 22:26:07 [Permalink]
|
As one of the folks here pointed out just recently, Darwin only had these 'problems' for a few chapters in his book - he answered his own questions pretty well for his day. But people like hippy4christ don't read past chapter 6, while they expect others to have read the entire Bible before daring to comment on it. Just another example of the hypocrisy inherent in fundamentalism.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2003 : 04:35:31 [Permalink]
|
If I might pick one minute nit, and I will, so live with it  ; it is scallops that have the light-sensitive organs lining the flesh at the outer edge of the shell. And they work quite well, as anyone who has ever caught them while snorkling can attest. The cells can also dectect movement, at close range.
Scallops do not burrow into the mud as do clams. Indeed, they have no 'foot' to do so. Rather, they have a huge aductor (sp?) muscle that allows them to sort of swim by opening and closing the shell. It's pretty amazing to watch.
A clam, spending it's life in the mud (there are sissle animals in the reefs, species such as tradacna, and I hope I've spelled that right, that are not really clams in spite of the common name), has had little use for vision, thus, didn't evolve it (someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a mollusk expert). The scallop, however, has a fearsome, natural predator: the sea star. It is also preyed upon by whelks. It's vision serves it quite well, thank you. If it did not, the scallop would lose it, as have the various species of blind, cave fish. But, like those cave fish, they would still retain vestiges of their 'eyes'.
While these organs give us a living example of one way vision evolved, I think I'd call it different, rather than primitive. Vision has evolved in many ways, starting with the light-sensitive cells. An interesting comparison might be that of the eyes of scallops, octopi and squids, the chambered nautalus, and ourselves. All wildly different systems serving the same purpose.
There. The nit's been well-picked, and good and bloody! 
Hi Hippy! Welcome back!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2003 : 06:25:39 [Permalink]
|
One fallacy we hear a number of creationists make is how the human eye is so called "perfect".
Ridiculous, since I've been in need of glasses since I was 7 years old. Google the term Infant Vision Problems for a myriad of troubles our "perfect" eyes can have (oh, we may hear some zipperheaded creationists say it's that nasty devil that's caused the vision problems). Here's a few more eye problems...http://www.stlukeseye.com/Conditions/IndexA-B.asp#a
And "perfect" compared to what? If most birds of prey had our lousy vision (relative), they'd probably all starve to death. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2003 : 12:24:26 [Permalink]
|
| Didn't you know that science is a religion, evolution is the doctrine, and Darwin is the prophet.....hehehe |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2003 : 07:58:02 [Permalink]
|
I won't spend too much effort in reply to this, since this is most likely a hit and run post, but here goes.
quote:
Did you know that Darwin had problems with evolution? For instance, why don't we see any animals inbetween the stages of evolution now?
I would love to know what a "stage" of evolution! LOL. But actually it was the very fact that species did not appear to be immutable and that were living transitionals living right next to each other and others that appeared to be quite transitional even between higher taxa that led to Darwin and others proposing evolution. Any survery of any taxa with more than one species in it will show such living examples of evolution.
quote:
And how come most animals that have a mutation that makes them somewhat different than there predecesors are sterile?
Darwin didn't know a damn thing about mutations or genes so I really doubt Darwin had any problems whatsoever with this objection. By the way every human sperm or egg has on average around 1.5 mutations in its genetic code. I really doubt these are causing any kind of mass infertility.
quote:
How would an eye develop if there were no inbetween stages that would be usefull?
Darwin described these inbetween stages quite well and yes they would be quite useful. A basic understanding of eye anatomy would greatly help your understanding as well. For instance the basic light activated cell that sends a message to the brain when light hits it is simply a modified nerve cell. In fact the modifcation can be as simple as a single mutation to a protein that releases Ca2+ when stimulated to make it photo sensitive.
quote:
Does modern science have any answers?
Yes there are libraries full of them.
Since it is quite apparent hippy4Christ has never read Darwin nor any other serious text on evolution, but yet he can come here and tell us what Darwin thought I think he should change his name to lying4Christ. His actions are far from those of a "hippy".
filthy,
quote:
If I might pick one minute nit, and I will, so live with it ; it is scallops that have the light-sensitive organs lining the flesh at the outer edge of the shell.
Actually there are a whole host of critters in the ocean with only light sensitive cells or "eye spots" as they are often called. It is the fact that these eye spot cells are basically the same cells that form the retina in our own eye that begins to lead us down the evolutionary pathway of the eye. In fact some fossil organisms have eye spots such as trilobites with a row of eye spots down along the sides of their shell.
There are also again critters in the sea that have evolved a basic cup shape with a concentration of these eye spots at the back and even others that have added a very primitive lens covering this cup. It is not surprising that these creatures live in the sea, since by the time creatures moved on to land eyes were fairly well developed to at least the level of those of a frog or lizard. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2003 : 08:03:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As one of the folks here pointed out just recently, Darwin only had these 'problems' for a few chapters in his book - he answered his own questions pretty well for his day. But people like hippy4christ don't read past chapter 6, while they expect others to have read the entire Bible before daring to comment on it. Just another example of the hypocrisy inherent in fundamentalism.
Actually only the "perfect eye line" of hippy4Christ's post was listed as a problem in Darwin's book. He never knew of mutations. And he built his case of evolution largely by offering living examples of evolution. So actually hippy4Christ's first "supposed problem by Darwin" was actually a large portion of the basis of his theory and he elaborated quite well on this point with numerous examples of evolution in action or species in various "stages" of evolution. (Although stages is a terrible word to use for this, since it implies that organsism evolve through some sort of process and then stop, when in actuality they are continuously evolving). And of course as you pointed out Darwin later described the answer to his own objection over the evolution of an eye. |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 10:01:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
For instance, why don't we see any animals inbetween the stages of evolution now?
Such as statement presumes you know the future evolution of a species. That is not possible.
However, consider some possibilities. Are mudskippers another round of fish making the transition to land? Are hippos (with their underwater communication skills and partially webbed toes) making the transition from land to water? Are flightless birds (penguin, ostrich, etc.) making the transition from bird to future-non-bird?
As for past transitions, there are many examples. Which line do you want to discuss?
quote:
And how come most animals that have a mutation that makes them somewhat different than there predecesors are sterile?
Most mutations do not cause sterility.
quote:
How would an eye develop if there were no inbetween stages that would be usefull?
There are inbetween stages. Suggested reading: Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins.
quote:
Does modern science have any answers?
Yes, science has explanations that are supported by facts. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 15:33:33 [Permalink]
|
You know what? You guys are mostly right about my motivations. I have barely read Darwin, and have no idea about half of the stuff he was talking about. What I really wanted to do was get the ball rolling. Now if we can a more polite discussion: I do believe that change over time occurs, hence I believe in a limited view of evolution. What I do not believe in is mutation. A fish growing lungs and becoming a land animal, for instance. If such a change were to occur, it would have to happen to the entire group located in that area. If a species of fish were in such danger that it could no longer live in the sea and would have to go to land, isn't it more likely that it would either be wiped out by it's threat or would move it's location before growing lungs? That, in your thinking, would take millions of years. I admit that I am ignorant of the higher thinking of science, so let's deal with problems that anyone could grasp.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 15:55:03 [Permalink]
|
If a species of fish were in such danger that it could no longer live in the sea and would have to go to land, isn't it more likely that it would either be wiped out by it's threat or would move it's location before growing lungs?
Okay, are you a kid? I'm just asking, not to be insulting but because this is something you should have covered in high school.
You have heard of "survival of the fittest"? That doesn't mean the strongest it means the best suited to an environment.
Fish have an organ called an air bladder. It gets air from the blood of the fish. It enables them to stay at a given depth. Just the slightest change and it can give air back to the blood of the fish…in other words a primitive lung. This is neither good or bad for an ordinary fishy. But if the water dries up the fish with the normal air bladder dies and the one with the slight mutation lives. Dead fish can't have babies. Live fish can, and so can pass on this slight change in their body shape. It's called Natural Selection.
I admit that I am ignorant of the higher thinking of science, so let's deal with problems that anyone could grasp.
This isn't higher thinking I'm afraid. It's about as basic as you can get
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
| Edited by - Slater on 07/17/2003 15:56:23 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2003 : 03:59:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
You know what? You guys are mostly right about my motivations. I have barely read Darwin, and have no idea about half of the stuff he was talking about. What I really wanted to do was get the ball rolling. Now if we can a more polite discussion: I do believe that change over time occurs, hence I believe in a limited view of evolution. What I do not believe in is mutation. A fish growing lungs and becoming a land animal, for instance. If such a change were to occur, it would have to happen to the entire group located in that area. If a species of fish were in such danger that it could no longer live in the sea and would have to go to land, isn't it more likely that it would either be wiped out by it's threat or would move it's location before growing lungs? That, in your thinking, would take millions of years. I admit that I am ignorant of the higher thinking of science, so let's deal with problems that anyone could grasp.
Hippy
Okey dokey, here's an excellent article of a 'fish' coming ashore. It had both gills and a lung.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/origins/comingonto.html
You might also want to run a Google on lungfish evolution.
This sort of water/alr set up is not at all uncommon today. The so-called 'walking catfish', from Asia, uses pretty much the same trick as it migrates from one body of water to another. It has become a nuisance in FL.
Many fish rely on air and will suffer if they can't get to it. The beautiful Beta splendens, so popular among aquarists, is an example. The electric eel and other, related Amazonian knife fishes as well. This is a valuable trait for a fish that might live in stagnate, low-oxygen conditions.
Do you remember the snake-head panic of a year or so ago? Yup. Another air/water breather from Asia, introduced here.
So, might these one day evolve into terrestrial creatures? Probably not, but never underestimate Evolution. If an ecological niche becomes open it will soon be filled, possibly by an outlandish (to us)creature.
Edited to add: It should be remembered that extinction plays a role in evolution as well as mutation and natural selection.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 07/18/2003 04:07:42 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2003 : 07:59:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You know what? You guys are mostly right about my motivations. I have barely read Darwin, and have no idea about half of the stuff he was talking about. What I really wanted to do was get the ball rolling.
So in other words you lied to us to start a conversation? Is that the normal way a conversation is to be started? You come here and stated matter of fact:
quote:
Did you know that Darwin had problems with evolution?
And now you are telling this was just a big fib to "...get the ball rolling." Why should I consider any of your additional conversation or questions genuine at this point?
quote:
Now if we can a more polite discussion:
Being honest from the start would have kept the discussion civil to begin with.
quote:
What I do not believe in is mutation.
Well I can't help what you believe in or not, but if you want to understand the basics behind mutation I highly recommend a basic book on genetics. It will cover all the basic types of genetic mutations, mutation rates, and effects of mutations.
quote:
A fish growing lungs and becoming a land animal, for instance. If such a change were to occur, it would have to happen to the entire group located in that area.
This is a very bad image of how evolution works, but you are right evolution does happen to the entire group located in that area, this group in evolutionary terms is called a population. Populations evolve, not individuals.
Also fish didn't grow lungs or legs and become land animals, they modified existing structures (swim bladders and fins) into structures that could function on land as Slater and Filthy described.
If you want a good summary of this major transition in evolution I highly recommend the book:
At the Water's Edge : Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life (Zimmer, C.)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684834901/cm_aya_asin.title/104-5732322-0228734?v=glance&s=books
You can get one real cheap at Amazon (used) or check it out at a library.
Not only that but you will get a great overview of the evolution of whales from land mammals.
quote:
I admit that I am ignorant of the higher thinking of science, so let's deal with problems that anyone could grasp.
If you are not familiar with the mechanisms of evolution, the same ones that cause those changes over time you believe in, then you are not really going to grasp any detailed answers to the questions you ask. Also if you are going to ask detailed questions about the evolution a particular set of organisms then it also requires as you can see by Filthy and Slater's reply a fairly high knowledge of the bio-diversity of those organisms in question, including the living and the fossils. For instance if you don't know the details about the air bladder that Slater mentioned below, the idea of a fish with just gills evolving a set of lungs does sound quite ludicrous.
If you want to understand such complex issues in detail then you will have to study. I have plenty of good places to start if you want them.
Finally please, please, please be honest. Integrity is a very important trait to me and if you start off with a lie then I am apt to dismiss the rest of your discussion. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2003 : 14:52:49 [Permalink]
|
jmcginn: I admit I was being arrogant and rude to start off with. However, I acted out of ignorance and lack of time; I was not intentionally lying.
I admit, I acted hastily, and should have studied my subject better. I'll close this thread and open a new one when I have read up on biology. However, I will pose a few questions in other threads that you may or may not have heard. I know that I reflect poorly on the group I am attempting to defend, I hope that my forthcoming and open mind will also keep you (all) from dismissing me out of hand.
Later,
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
