|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2003 : 13:53:09 [Permalink]
|
hippy4christ,
quote:
I don't understand how a species can gain or lose parts of its anatomy.
Normally and maybe always organisms never form a new part from nothing, they are always a modification of an existing part. For example: swim bladder to lungs, fins to feet, etc.
Loosing parts is quite interesting as well since most organisms never seem to completely loose the part in question. For instance snakes and whales have vestigial legs and sometimes mutations cause the snakes leg to appear even more so.quote:
I understand that an 'air bladder' system already in a fish can be used as lungs, but why would the species lose its gills?
Because during development when you are strapped for food and energy it is more beneficial to not produce something you don't need as opposed to producing something extraneous. Also note that in this case however the gills didn't disappear but instead were adapted into something more useful, large vein and artery systems feeding the brain. For example in a human embryo gill arches briefly appear then instead of developing until external gills they develop into various body parts:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/newfijiradicalmoguls/embryo/ARCHINT.HTM
http://www.coheadquarters.com/PennLibr/MyPhysiology/Mod21/quickdev2.htm
http://www.coheadquarters.com/PennLibr/MyPhysiology/Mod21/figdev2.07A.htm
http://www.coheadquarters.com/PennLibr/MyPhysiology/Mod21/figdev2.07B.htm
http://www.coheadquarters.com/PennLibr/MyPhysiology/Mod21/tabledev2.04.htmquote:
It would have to be a genetic mutation that caused the loss of gills, and it would have to be an improvement.
It probably would have to be a series of mutations, each one offering benefit over the other. Note in small populations genetic drift can fix a neutral allele that arose by mutation so it doesn't always have to be beneficial, but mostly in these cases it probably was, (although this is one of those debated issues today drift vs. selection).quote:
But this mutation would have to be species-wide, or else it would soon be outbred, if it managed to breed at all.
No mutation has to be species wide. If the mutation provides a benefit then the offspring with the mutation outbreed their siblings and the mutation spreads throughout the population. In short order the mutation becomes population wide unless there are other factors such as heterogeneous superiority. In small populations this can happen by chance alone for a neutral allele.quote:
And mutations are rare as it is, and they usually cause sterility.
Every sperm or egg you produce has on average 1.5 mutations in it (that means every human baby has on average 3 mutations). They are not that rare, and they rarely cause sterility. Obviously if the mutation caused sterility it would quickly be removed from the gene pool. :>quote:
And wouldn't mutations be recessive traits?
No. It could be recessive, dominant, codominant, etc.quote:
can understand changes in size and shape, but total loss of an organ?
Development happens along pathways or "programs" if a mutation stops a program (e.g. eyes in a cavefish) and that feature is of no benefit to the organism then it can be removed and beneficial since it will not have to spend the resources in development growing that feature.
From earlier:quote:
Anyway, back to the original topic, with a bit of modification. What is the leading theory on how life began in the first place?
As others have noted there are several hypothesis ranging from thermal vents, shallow ocean pools, on various substrates such as clay, or even in space. All of these hypothesis have evidence in favor of them and there is no clear leader. Again I have to point to the book I referenced you at the beginning. The first 6 chapters cover the details of the leading hypothesis, what evidence they have in their favor, and what short-comings they still have.
All of these however do deal with normal organic chemical reactions leading to the spontaneous formation of more complex molecules.
Strangely enough by your definition of life, "In my view, life is anything that grows and reproduces, and seeks out nutrients in order to do so." such creatures have been created in the lab by Fox et al. These proteinoids reproduce, grow, and metabolize nutrients in their surrounding environment thus matching your definition of life. In fact some of them have evolved (chemically evolved) cell compartmentation and even cellular communication mechanisms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1891592&dopt=Abstract
In Berra's opinion, metabolism, reproduction, responsiveness to stimuli, and cellularity constitute or describe aliveness. These properties characterize proteinoid microspheres.
In fact leading abiogenesis research now is interested in:
1. Natural synthesis of certain chemicals that have yet to be synthesized in suitable quantities.
2. Improvement of the whole synthesis process and achieving of achirality, clay substrates seem very promising for this.
3. Transition from creatures like Fox's proteinoids to those that use an encoding system of genetics.
#3 is the big one now. |
 |
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2003 : 14:11:19 [Permalink]
|
 |
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2003 : 22:24:47 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, folks, this is going back a couple pages...
Creation88 wrote:quote:
You are responding to that from a non-christian perspective. From my perspective sin entered the world and that why there are things like wrists that are bothering me.
What would motivate me to answer the question from a Christian perspective? Because you're a Christian? As I've told you before, the fact that you lie makes you a poor Christian, so that reason is no reason at all. Jesus preached tolerance and understanding, and you've demonstrated little of either. You don't even attempt to be tolerant or understanding, and instead spew lies across the Internet with abandon.
Anyway, you mention "cop-outs" in a later post, and yes, in scientific or skeptical circles, saying "Goddidit" is a cop-out. Once you say such a thing, any attempt at a scientific explanation for a phenomenon is lost. "Goddidit" is no better, from a bright's point-of-view, than "invisible pink unicorns did it." There is no difference whatsoever, and the only man-made difference you could point to is that someone wrote a book about God 2,000 years ago, and nobody, as far as I can tell, has written a book about invisible pink unicorns.
So, you can have your wrists aching for no good reason as evidence that you were born after the Fall from Grace. I prefer to think that inexplicable pain is evidence of our hit-or-miss evolution, and that there is no invisible pink unicorn who is still punishing us for things our 6,000-year-old ancestors did. If that's not the height of petty vindictiveness, I don't know what is.
I know you asked me before not to call your God 'petty', but you haven't provided any good reason why I shouldn't (other than sparing your feelings, a decency you appear loathe to comit yourself). He (or She or It, take your pick) acts like a schoolyard bully, and you defend that as if it's a Good Thing. Suffice it to say, you shouldn't be upset, anyway, since if you're right, God Himself will Judge me and send me to Hell. Calling God 'petty' or 'mean' isn't any skin off your nose, unless you think you are God.
quote:
And now your doing exactly what I said you would, your avoiding the real question I asked. You say if I ask with an open mind you will give me answers. I asked the "getting better" question. You said:
"Scientists say thats a load of crap. And evolution doesn't mean getting better at all."
Sooooo...... thanks for those answers.
I didn't see you ask any questions with an open mind. Instead, you asked questions which were completely full of close-minded evangelistic nonsense. I'm paraphrasing, but you asked how evolution could take place even though things shrivel and die, instead of getting better. That's not an "open minded" place to start, but instead chock full of "Christian perspective" and un-scientific nonsense. If you want me to believe that the Bible and its teachings are scientific, you'll have to show me. I won't take your word for it, as I've already seen much to the contrary.quote:
It's a good thing you explained why its "a load of crap", or it could look like you were dodging a question.
What question was I dodging? Why do we die? Well, not a single creature, either from a natural or a creationist point-of-view has ever figured out on its own how to avoid death. And as far as I know, only one creature, the Wandering Jew, is beyond dying from a Christian perspective. So, since death is a moot point, and no matter what you believe, things die, what was the question again?quote:
And if you don't think evolution has gotten better as it has gone, you need to look again. To take the same example I used in my last post. Would you really rather be a Neanderthal, than yourself? Or would it not matter to you if you were to turn into a neanderthal because we havn't gotten any better.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged," is an approximation of the advice given to you by your LORD and God, is it not? As has already been explained to you (and for which you appear to have no reply), we are only "better" than neanderthals because we lived, and they didn't. Why it happend that way is unknown. To think that you must be "better" than a neanderthal in any quantifiable way is sheer arrogance, of the sort only possibly with either religion or drugs, take your pick.quote:
maybe think about an answer before you try to give one next time.
Maybe think about your question before trying to ask one next time.
Walt wrote:quote:
Dave Rocks!
Well, thank you very much. This is sig-worthy, in a copy-cat sorta way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2003 : 13:02:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No mutation has to be species wide. If the mutation provides a benefit then the offspring with the mutation outbreed their siblings and the mutation spreads throughout the population. In short order the mutation becomes population wide unless there are other factors such as heterogeneous superiority. In small populations this can happen by chance alone for a neutral allele.
Probably worth emphasizing that many mutations probably get a foothold in isolated groups of the overall population. A mutation within the main population area would likely be diluted out, but may quickly spread in a small subgroup. If it's a beneficial mutation (or if changing environmental conditions make it beneficial), then that subgroup may suddenly begin to out-compete the larger population. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2003 : 15:04:33 [Permalink]
|
Hmm. Looks like I'm getting into this a little late. Well, better that than never.
First, a brief word on the infamous dino/homo tracks. These have been long debunked. Currently, they are no more than a curiosity perhaps supporting wishful dreaming. Here's a link:
quote:
For many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock). This Web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm
Homo sapiens neandertalis:
quote:
In 1856 workers quarrying for limestone in the Neander Valley near Duesseldorf, Germany came across a skull and bones. In the succeeding years many other specimens were found, not only in the Neander Valley, but in countries such as France, England, Italy, Iraq and as far south as Israel.
Controversy surrounded the interpretation of these fossils. German Anatomist Rudolf Virchow examined the first discovery and concluded that it was a Homo sapien with rickets, caused by a Vitamin D deficiency. He also theorized that his flattened head was due to powerful blows. As more finds were made, also with the appearance of rickets, this was considered too coincidental and they were now considered sub-human.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emnh.htm
There has been a great deal of argument and misconception concerning neandertal, even today when the species is well understood. Think of our lineage, not as a straight line, nor even a tree. Look at it as a bush, a rather scraggly one, with many branches. We are not decended from these creatures, rather they are our cousins.
quote:
For tens of thousands of years, the Neanderthals roamed as hunters and gatherers over the plains, forests, and mountains of northern and western Eurasia. Then during the middle of the last Ice Age, over a period of about 10 millennia, from roughly 40,000 to 30,000 years ago, a new type of human began to proliferate in the Neanderthals' domain. Researchers refer to these new people as "early modern humans" because their skeletons were generally less robust than those of the Neanderthals and other early humans, approaching the more lightly built anatomy of people living today. Still, their bodies were more primitive than those of present-day Eurasians.
http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/
The Devonian Bunny. Boy, oh boy, wouldn't I like to find it! I would like to find it or any other mammal, be it rabbit, roebuck, or raunchy, ol' houn'dawg in Devonian strata. Guess what; that fossil would shoot the ToE straight into the crappe |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Truth
New Member
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2003 : 22:33:08 [Permalink]
|
"To say that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest." (Charles Darwin)
I sat and read most of this thread and I really am perplexed by the explanations given for certain occurrences in our universe. How can you follow a scientific belief that was contrived by Charles Darwin (a racist who suffered from panic disorder) and Thomas Huxley(also a racist). The fact these men were flawed does not rule out their hypothesis, because, everyone is flawed. The question is this: If these men were flawed enough to allow their personal social beliefs to influence their work, why is it so hard to believe that their work is wrong. The theory of evolution has no REAL proof and therefore cannot be considered a theory. Am I to believe that "we don't how the primordial soup, aminos and energy got here but we sure know how it changed into what exists today!"? Convenient.
I hate to think that the reason that some of you believe this hypothesis stems from bad experiences with church or some other event where you feel God let you down somehow, because that is very unfortunate. I won't point anyone out but it is obvious by some of the responses in this thread alone. I only wonder about this because of the astronomically small chance that the hypothesis of evolution explains how beings formed on this planet. I don't see how anyone could believe it.
The bible says that God created man in His image. (This is for the people that claim to be Christians AND believe in evolution). If God created the earth over billions of years, why did He say it happened in 7 days? If He started with amoeba then explain Adam and Eve.
Since the discovery of DNA, scientists have proved that the information of every organism is already encoded in their parent. This should refute evolution. The information of an organism is confined to that genetic structure. It can be moved around and shuffled but remain the same information. That means nothing is added because the information has limits. My father can have blue eyes but if he carries the gene for brown eyes then I could have brown. If neither he nor my mother carry the gene for green eyes, then I could never have green eyes.
I have yet to have anyone truly answer this question for me. What became a necessity for the neandrethals to evolve? What happened on this planet that caused them to evolve into what we are today? Were they not getting by? Did they realize that somewhere down the line they would need a car or a kitchen? Evolution is not supposed to be about getting better so a being doesn't evolve out of thinking it would be better to ride across the desert instead of walk. So, why did they evolve? It would have to have been something that threatened their existence, right? Something that pushed their growth in another direction?
My only intention by intervening in this thread is to introduce the truth. I don't need to "stick up" for God or defend Him. I need only to follow His lead. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 00:36:02 [Permalink]
|
Yikes!
You are really far of.
As you obviously know very little about biological evolution don't you think it is rather preposterous think your opinion mean anything to members of this board?
quote:
Originally posted by Truth
"To say that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest." (Charles Darwin)
So you didnt finish the quote. What was that about false testimony?
Well, well a lying christian. Its not like you are the first.
quote:
I only wonder about this because of the astronomically small chance that the hypothesis of evolution explains how beings formed on this planet. I don't see how anyone could believe it.
Luckily we are not limited by your lacking abilities.
quote:
Since the discovery of DNA, scientists have proved that the information of every organism is already encoded in their parent. This should refute evolution. The information of an organism is confined to that genetic structure. It can be moved around and shuffled but remain the same information. That means nothing is added because the information has limits.
Says who? You?
quote:
My father can have blue eyes but if he carries the gene for brown eyes then I could have brown.
If your father have blue eyes he cant carry genes for brown eyes.
The other way around is possible.
quote:
I have yet to have anyone truly answer this question for me. What became a necessity for the neandrethals to evolve? What happened on this planet that caused them to evolve into what we are today?
Neanderthals did not evolve in to modern humans.
quote:
My only intention by intervening in this thread is to introduce the truth.
The truth so far is that your are ignorant of biological evolution and information theory.
Dont worry there are plenty of people here that can help you.
But you need to drop the ignorance, listen and think. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 03:31:18 [Permalink]
|
Truth??? Now, that's a stretch.
Truth...You assume truth by the words spoken to you, or written long ago by other men as flawed as you seem to feel we all are. You accuse others of taking the words of a flawed individual as truth, when in fact that is exactly what you have done. To compound matters, you ask us to accept your words, the words of a flawed being, as truth without the slightest hint of physical evidence.
Truth...You admit that we are all flawed. Then, how, as a flawed individual, can you claim truth above others?
Truth is...that we do have flaws. These flaws allow us to grow, and to evolve. But, how can anyone claim an intrinsic knowledge of the truth of things past?
The answer is found by gathering and weighing the evidence. Unfortunately, you present no evidence for your claim of truth. Instead, you make wild, and indefensible claims about something you obviously know little about, or claims that are simply irrelevent to the matter at hand.
Truth...Please, if we are so flawed, how can we be the result of creation by a perfect being, unless those flaws were designed in? But, if that were the case, wouldn't we, then, be perfect in our design?
Truth? Wouldn't flaws logically point to a seemingly random, naturalistic process, rather than the preternatural creation of a perfect being?
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 08:34:39 [Permalink]
|
Truth, a few questions:
If God created the universe, what mechanism did he use? In other words, how did He create something from nothing? Or, if the elements were already there, did he arrange them into dirt, rocks, animals, water, and humans by "magic"?
Further, since you believe that God created the universe, then who created God? Or, has He simply always existed?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 08:41:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Truth
My only intention by intervening in this thread is to introduce the truth. I don't need to "stick up" for God or defend Him. I need only to follow His lead.
This is a drive-by shooting.
Obviously not worth wasting our energy other than to say he's WRONG! |
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. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 10:07:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Truth
My only intention by intervening in this thread is to introduce the truth. I don't need to "stick up" for God or defend Him. I need only to follow His lead.
This is a drive-by shooting.
Obviously not worth wasting our energy other than to say he's WRONG!
Yeah, maybe. I have cast my bait upon the waters.
 |
"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!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 11:51:08 [Permalink]
|
What gets me is that if new evidence actually did refute evolution, not the mechanisms of evolution like natural selection or other particulars like phylogenics, which are the sort of things scientists do debate, but evolution itself, and this evidence was so compelling that the whole theory had to be discarded, why on earth do these creationists think that the competing theory would not be just as naturalistic?
They assume a winner by default without offering evidence to support their assertions. They offer no science of their own. Just attacks on particulars of science that bother them. The supernatural is not a competing theory. It's not science. It never will be science.
If evolution ever falls it will be because a better natural explanation that describes the diversity of life has passed all the tests to make it a theory of merit. I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.
After 150 years of constant challenge, so far, the creationist model is, shall we say, lacking?
On another note:
quote:
Truth:
How can you follow a scientific belief that was contrived by Charles Darwin (a racist who suffered from panic disorder) and Thomas Huxley(also a racist). The fact these men were flawed does not rule out their hypothesis, because, everyone is flawed. The question is this: If these men were flawed enough to allow their personal social beliefs to influence their work, why is it so hard to believe that their work is wrong.
The fact that Darwin and Huxley were racist has exactly nothing to do with the mechanism of natural selection that Darwin hypothesized. The science is extremely well supported. Their racist views, in fact, are simply a sign of the times they lived in. Fact is, it was/is the continued study of evolution that has brought even the notion of different races into question.
And now, here are some quotes by the person regarded as the founder of the Christian Protestant movement. These views make Darwin and Huxely seem like civil rights activists by comparison.
quote:
Martin Luther:
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings...are to be taken from them."
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews."
"What shall we do with...the Jews? I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...their homes also should be razed and destroyed."
Shall I now ask the same question that you asked? If Martin Luther was flawed enough to allow his personal social beliefs influence his work, why is it so hard to believe that his work is wrong? Oops. There goes Protestantism.
Some other gems from Martin Luther, on science and reason:
quote:
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word...."
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
"Snakes and monkeys are subjected to the demon more than other animals. Satan lives in them and possesses them. He uses them to deceive men and to injure them."
http://www.2think.org/hii/mlquotes.shtml
http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
I wonder how Luther would have felt about Creation Science since by using the word science they are attempting an appeal to logic and reason, however tortured that logic may be.
Sigh...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 14:41:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I hate to think that the reason that some of you believe this hypothesis stems from bad experiences with church or some other event where you feel God let you down somehow, because that is very unfortunate. I won't point anyone out but it is obvious by some of the responses in this thread alone. I only wonder about this because of the astronomically small chance that the hypothesis of evolution explains how beings formed on this planet. I don't see how anyone could believe it.
If I had a dime for everytime I've heard this. I didn't have a bad experience in church or feel I've been hurt by the church. I just have never really had it in me to believe, no matter how hard I tried. Logic and reason have explained better what I've always wondered and thought than religious dogma ever could. That and the concept as expressed has little to nothing to do with evolution or with religion. There are some scientists that hold evolution as the best possible explanation for speciation while holding some religious belief set simultaneously. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 16:23:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Truth
"To say that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest." (Charles Darwin)
Incidentally, here's the rest of that paragraph:
...seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest...
quote:
...possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 16:52:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Truth
"To say that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest." (Charles Darwin)
It is curious that you believe that Darwin is contradicting himself in this quote. He does express some bewiderment about the complexity of the eye, and the trouble he have making it fit into the theories he has developed. But we must remember, Biological Evloution was in it's infancy at the time. Just like Johannes Kepler found correlations between planetary movements, orbits and "celestial mechanics" ( as I wrote in the other thread ) he
saw that his equations were right, but no one, not even himself could explain why, the underlying process, or the physical reality governing those processes. It wasn't until much later that Newton and Einstein could explain why the equations worked.
It is the same thing with Charles Darwin. He is the father of Biological Evolution, but he din't have a clue about the underlying physical reality: DNA.
quote:
Am I to believe that "we don't how the primordial soup, aminos and energy got here but we sure know how it changed into what exists today!"? Convenient.
No, not that convenient. And you are wrong. We do know fairly well where the "primordial soup" as you like to call it, aminos and energy came from. Abiogenesis (from aminos to the first bacteria including the first self-replicating macro-molecule) is one of the grey areas where there are still much discovery to be made before we can say that we know fairly well how it happened.
quote:
I don't see how anyone could believe it.
I can see what makes a person believe in God. That realization makes me sad.
quote:
The bible says that God created man in His image. (This is for the people that claim to be Christians AND believe in evolution). If God created the earth over billions of years, why did He say it happened in 7 days? If He started with amoeba then explain Adam and Eve.
Because you can't explain amoeba, bacteria and DNA to a person with the knowledge and education of a man that lived more than 2000 years ago. He has no grasp of geological time scales, since he don't even know what geology means. But if you tell him "God created rocks of different sizes, and different colours, and different textures. And lo He said unto Man: 'use these rocks to bash the skulls of your enemy's children' " then the pre-historic man would believe it, because the explanation is as simple and the man it is explained to.
In this passage above (just for clarification) I have stated that:
1) the audience of the early Bible had no concept of geological time scales, because they had no knowledge of anything to use as references.
2) the audience of the early Bible had no concept of biology other than sheep of different sex is needed to make more sheep, and people of different sex is needed to make more people. And that people and sheep (or bull) don't mix. With the possible exception of the myth of the Minotaur (which is not biblical, but historically comes from roughly the same time).
quote:
What happened on this planet that caused them (neanderthals) to evolve into what we are today? Were they not getting by?
Obviously not... Cro-Mangnon, Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved in parallel to Neanderthals for a hundred thousand years, but Neanderthals disappeared just a few tenths of thousands of years ago.
The Ice Age could be one possible explanation, since it created very big changes in the environment. It is those kind of changes that weed out the less fit for it's environment, or less adaptable.
quote:
So, why did they evolve? It would have to have been something that threatened their existence, right? Something that pushed their growth in another direction?
YES!
Now you're starting to get it. Something dramatic happened in the environment (like, perhaps the Ice Age I proposed above), both Neanderthal and Cro-Mangnon started to freeze and only Cro-Mangnon were smart enough to make better clothes, or build rafts to sail to a new shore. Or whatever. We don't have enough information yet to determine what actually made the Neanderthals extinct.
Some scientists theorize that a disease brought by cro-mangnon jumped speices, and fatally infected the Neanderthals who didn't had the chance to developed immunity to it. Like the black plague during the middle ages, or the spanish flue, or europeans first visits to America but worse. The small islands of population left were not large enough to survive on it's own and perished.
quote:
My only intention by intervening in this thread is to introduce the truth. I don't need to "stick up" for God or defend Him. I need only to follow His lead.
That's arrogant.
Then you won't defend Him if I said: His Mother was a hamster, and His father smelled of elderberries!
Since the bible is fiction anyway. |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
