|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 02/12/2002 : 06:56:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are many more answers I need to reply to. I would ask a general question to all of you here. Have you investigated other world religions such as Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness. I would really like to hear your opinions on those too. The other question I pose is this: Can you Prove to me that God doesn't exist, can you Prove that everything started from nothing or am I to have the same faith you say I have in my God. Let's turn the coin around.
Lars is correct, this is like my asking you to prove there isn't an invisible dragon in the late Carl Sagan's garage. You must consider what the atheist position represents. In this case, it represents the status quo, because atheism (at least in the weak sense) is the functional equivalent of the God-concept not existing at all. In other words, if there was no word "theism" and no behaviors that it now represents, there would be no word "atheism" yet the behaviors (or lack thereof) that atheism logically entails would still exist. This is why atheism (despite the word itself being a semantic negation) is logically the default position and a mere concept that is incompatible with atheism must be empirically supported.
quote:
Most of you guys are great I really enjoy debating, I believe we can do this without attacking each other.
Absolutely. Please note I can argue philosophy much more calmly than I can argue science. 
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 07:23:06 [Permalink]
|
Hello dinon74. I'm glad you've stuck around to reply at least once again! We get a lot of drive-by posters who post once and never return. I hope you stick around.
quote:
To be honest I didn't feel as though my questions were given adequate answers.
About Niagra Falls? The human eye? Where bats come from? Why a fossilized fish with another fish in its stomach is no big deal?
By not mentioning answers we did provide, we become suspicious that you have no intention of objectively weighing our arguments, as you have already decided that your "faith" is true, and you will only look for so-called evidence (I use that term very loosely  )that supports it, while disregarding (as you seem to have already) evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Many people directed me to other websites.
Well, don't expect us to do your research for you! If you are truly interested in "truth", follow the links we provide. There is much too much detailed info for these short posts!
quote:
Yet I was accused and criticized for getting my information supposedly from a website.
Try to look at it from our point of view. We've been over this again and again with other people. We recognize the "Creationist Playbook" arguments. If it looks like a duck... It is logical to assume you are using the same info. If not, please follow the links we provide, as they will demolish all of this nonsense about a young earth and a Flood, etc.
quote:
Are you familiar with the genetic repair system found in ALL living cells and in prokaryotes
Whoa, back up! What happened to your claim that DNA and protein can't possibly have come to exist without each other? This is a statement of authority, yet you claim you are not a genetic engineer. But real genetic engineers disagree with you. Why does this not seem to concern you one bit? Could it be that you have already decided who to believe, and have no interest in evidence to the contrary?
quote:
I would appreciate it if you could answer with a scientific argument as I have without referring me to a website or attacking my credibility.
Again, you are making an unambiguous claim. You provide no evidence for your claim. You better believe your credibility is relevant! Also, a subject as complicated as this couldn't possibly be adequately argued in this type of forum without outside reference. Again I am suspicious of your motives here (I don't think you are interested in learning, but I hope you prove me wrong.)
quote:
Really how did you "check out" the life of Saul what sources did you investigate to come to the conclusion he didn't exist.(Please site them)
Ah, I love it when someone asks Slater this kind of question! If he takes time to reply, I hope you are ready for an education! 
quote:
Did Cesar or Plato or any other ancient figure exist.(and if so how do know the accuracy and validity of those texts and what sources are you siting?)
You can't be at all knowledgable of science and ask this question seriously!
quote:
Saul is well documented in old Jewish writings
References please.
quote:
I know that you will not agree with the Historical validity of that yet that is another discussion.
Actually, it's not. An historical source must be corroborated. The Bible is not (with regards to most of its claims).
continued...
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 07:23:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Have you investigated other world religions such as Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness. I would really like to hear your opinions on those too.
Ok. They are equally as false as Christianity.
quote:
Can you Prove to me that God doesn't exist, can you Prove that everything started from nothing
Nope.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 09:03:30 [Permalink]
|
Hello Dinon74, welcome to the site.
I'll only comment on one aspect of your post, Niagara Falls. With an engineering background, crunch the numbers below and tell me what you come up with.
http://www.iaw.com/~falls/origins.html#h
quote:
At this time, the lake plain from Queenston to Niagara on the Lake was covered with the waters of Lake Iroquois (Lake Ontario). The height of the lake was within 11 meters (35 feet) of the average level of the Niagara Escarpment at Queenston, Ontario.
The height of the initial Niagara Falls was only 11 meters (35 feet) as it flowed over the Niagara Escarpment at Queenston to the waters of Lake Iroquois below. As the water flowed over the escarpment to the water below, the water began eating through the glacial material and the limestone rock of the Niagara Escarpment to begin the formation of the Niagara Gorge.
The site of the birth of Niagara Falls was discovered by a geologist named Doctor Roy Spencer and today this site is known as "Roy Terrace".
The flow rate of water back then was only twenty-five percent of the present flow rate. Scientists have calculated that the volume of water flowing over the Falls initially was 37,500 cubic feet per second.
As the Glacier continued receding further north, it opened silt barriers allowing waters to drain to the ocean resulting in the lowering of the water levels of Lake Iroquois (Lake Ontario).
How on earth do you get an erosion rate of 6 feet per year on an initial flow rate that is 1/4 today's rate over falls that are 35 feet high?
All things being equal; the flow rate, the erosion rate and the rock strata, the Niagara River should be ramrod straight. It's not. That would suggest different flow rates, different erosion rates and different rock strata.
When all is said and done, the best calculations by the greatest geologists, hydrologists and other engineers can ONLY determine when the Niagara River began. That's all. Period. Nothing further.
The correct answer is, of course, that the current majestic Niagara Falls weren't created until God invented tourists. That would be Adam and Eve as I recall. Had to go some place after getting kicked out of the Garden now, didn't they. That would also coincide with the invention of the first travel agent, the Serpent.
"Eat an apple and see the World"
Don't 'cha just love it when reality and fantasy dovetail so nicely?
(:raig |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 09:28:01 [Permalink]
|
"Can you prove to me that god doesn't exist?"
Of course not. Nor can you prove that He does. The existance of ANY diety can neither be falsified nor verified.
Now, if a fossil is found out of place, a Precambrian trilobite for example, the Theory of Evolution, as thought of today, goes down like a shot duck. Therefore, the Theory of Evolution can be falsified. All you've got to do is find that fossil. And believe me, it's been tried!
I was visiting a Creationist site some time back and found a story about a couple of guys who went to Alaska in search of unfossilized, dinosaur bones. It was a pretty good yarn, and they managed to come up with a maisaure (sp?) jaw. Natural bone.
Wow! I'd like to see that! Especally, I'd like to see it with Jack Horner, a world's authority on the species, beside me. Funny, I've not heard of this find anywhere else. You'd think that they'd be shouting it from the roof tops!
There's a few things wrong with this. First, Dinosaurs were "Pre (alledged) Flood". In some 4000 years, bone that is not well buried will vanish. Indeed, it will not take anything like that long. Rodents gnaw bone to aquire calcium, which is why finding old bones and antlers in the woods is not common.
I think I saw this gem on the ICR site.
So, are we being intentionaly lied to in support of Creationism?
This sort of thing makes me think so. It is grasping at non-existant straws.
luck,
f
"They will take away my Darwin Fish only when they pry it from my cold, dead bumper!" |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 10:07:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To be honest I didn't feel as though my questions were given adequate answers. Many people directed me to other websites. Yet I was accused and criticized for getting my information supposedly from a website.
Well, at least they acknowledged those other Web sites.
You can't have the Theory of Evolution without having the fact of Evolution. That's how it works in science.
quote:
Did Cesar or Plato or any other ancient figure exist.
That comparison really doesn't work because 1) not many people today are claiming that Caesar and Plato wrote what's in the Bible, and 2) scholars in Classics will admit that the works of Plato and Caesar had been tampered with while fundamentalists won't admit that there had been some tampering with the Bible.
quote:
Can you Prove to me that God doesn't exist,
It's not our job to prove that God doesn't exist. It's your job to prove that he does. Besides, as others have pointed out in this thread, it's impossible to prove the negative of an existential claim.
quote:
can you Prove that everything started from nothing or am I to have the same faith you say I have in my God.
Equivocation. Even if the scientists were claiming that everything started from nothing, the "faith" that you have in God is not the same thing as the trust that one has in a scientific theory.
quote:
Let's turn the coin around.
Translation: let's shift the burden of proof.
quote:
Most of you guys are great I really enjoy debating, I believe we can do this without attacking each other.
You are not your arguments and ideas. Arguments and ideas don't have feelings. A person may disagree with you, and he or she may refute your arguments and ideas, but that doesn't mean he or she is attacking you.
Ian Andreas Miller. My site.
Edited by - antie on 02/12/2002 15:59:13 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 12:18:08 [Permalink]
|
Yet I was accused and criticized for getting my information supposedly from a website.
If you will look at the older files in the Creationism/evolution thread you will see that you are hardly the first to cut and paste the same series of questions. If you ask prepackaged questions then you are ill prepared to demand that we give you more than prepackaged answers.
… could answer this question instead of avoiding the subject by dismissing my qualifications. Nice try, but you have shown with your rambling questions which are supposed to relate to evolution but are about geology and social studies and quack archeology that you do not actually know what evolution is. I'm not avoiding any subjects at all. You haven't settled on one.
Are you familiar with the genetic repair system found in ALL living cells and in prokaryotes(that don't have a nucleus, of course I'm sure you knew that) This system continuously monitors the DNA molecule for mispaired bases and damage and it's a major roadblock in allowing genetic mutations to establish themselves in DNA. However it is these very mutations that the macroevolutionary process depends. If your evolutionary theory were true then natural selection would clearly have selected against these repair mechanisms. I would appreciate it if you could answer with a scientific argument as I have without referring me to a website or attacking my credibility. Does this qualify as a scientific claim and are you laughing now?
Yes I'm laughing now. This is the third time we have had this same question in the same words in the past year at SFN. Is there a Creationist manual that says Skeptics will quake in their boots at the mere mention of a prokaryote?
If you had bothered to pick up a biology 101 text book you would know that there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution. Evolution is merely changes over time.
If you concede that there is "micro" evolution then you must be arguing for a "young Earth" so that there hasn't been time for evolutionary changes to "add up." Is this correct? What, other than a magic book from the dark ages (the NT) do you base this on?
Really how did you "check out" the life of Saul what sources did you investigate to come to the conclusion he didn't exist.(Please site them)
What sources that prove that someone didn't exist? Are you asking what was written during his lifetime that didn't mention that he was in existence? That would be EVERYTHING. There are no copies of "his" writings that don't date from three hundred years after his supposed time. There are no Roman records of his doings or imprisonment. Yet we have those of his contemporaries. There are no Greek records nor are their Jewish. Nothing, not one scrap of paper. Not a sign that he lived at all. We only have the NT which isn't historical and dates from the fourth century not the first.
Did Cesar or Plato or any other ancient figure exist.(and if so how do know the accuracy and validity of those texts and what sources are you siting?)
Am I supposed to that this seriously? Christians use this same argument constantly, it's really insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Jesus and all the Apostles went unnoticed. No one ever made any mention that they were alive. We have the Roman records of four other Jewish Messiahs dating from 15BCE to approx. 20 CE, but not Jesus.
The sun went out for three hours at his crucifixion, the dead rose from their graves and walked the streets, the veil of the temple was "rent" AND NOBODY NOTICED.
"Dear Aunt Flavia, I'm fine and I hope this note finds you well. A funny thing happened this afternoon. Remember old man Sparticus who died last fall? Well I met him downtown at the frankincense shop. He looked like hell."
And yet the exact same story of Jesus was already well know at the time. Only he was called Mithra.
Saul is well documented in old Jewish writings as well as Scripture. Which old Jewish writings would those be?
Can you prove they are not valid giving evidence as you ask me to? So I would ask since we are seeking evidence, what was the name of the play and from what time period. I believe those both occurred after Saul was already around. But I will wait for the research you did.
Euripides, 5th Century BCE, The Bacchae.
So I didn't tell you the author, the name of the play or when it was produced and yet you "believe those both occurred after Saul was already around". This means that you have already looked up my past references at SFN and are busting my chops. Or you decided on a rebuttle before you even heard my answer.
Can you Prove to me that God doesn't exist,
Sure. God is supposed to be everywhere. Look around you, you're somewhere, peek under your computer table. See any Gods hiding back there with the dust bunnies? No? Well then the God isn't every where so it's not a God.
A pretty flip answer I'll admit, but the question is nonsensical.
Prove that something ISN'T. Can you do that? Give it a try. Prove that there is no Easter Bunny. You'll find that every argument you can present must (for the sole reason that what you are talking about is non-existent) be circumstantial. No one's ever seen it. No one's ever heard it. You can't produce a specimen. There are older myths that it is based on. All circumstantial evidence. None of it really "proves" the non-existence of the Easter Bunny. And yet it is a fact that I state without fear of contradiction that there is no Easter Bunny.
Yahweh/Jesus is in the same boat. Exactly the same circumstantial evidence that is presented to disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny applies to them.
can you Prove that everything started from nothing or am I to have the same faith you say I have in my God.
Did we say everything started from nothing? I don't recall any of us mentioning that.
Are you saying that for something to exist it must have been created? Because you're talking about a God here that didn't require a creation. He doesn't have a Mommy and Daddy God. You can't set up a rule and then contradict it in the next breath.
We can just as easily say that "everything" always was and always will be. If the Creator didn't need a creator then the Universe didn't need a creator. If the Universe did then so did the Creator. You can't have it both ways.
Let's turn the coin around. Yeah, right. Let's keep that old coin spinning.
Pele the volcano Goddess of Hawaii, do you believe in her with your whole heart and soul? Does she reach out and change your life? Does she give you a reason, a purpose, for living? Do you have faith?
No?!! What do you mean ,no?
Prove that Pele doesn't exist.
See, you can't prove that Pele doesn't exist. But that's okay, you don't have to. I'm the one who is making a claim that she is real so it's up to me to prove it. You are an Atheist because you don't see any reason to believe in the one true Goddess. But the burden of proof isn't yours, and it's a good thing too, because there have been thousands of Gods in the history of mankind that you don't see any reason to believe in.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 02/12/2002 12:28:51 |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 12:21:08 [Permalink]
|
Hi again Dinon!
quote:
While I do not claim to be a genetic engineer I no doubt assume you are neither. Yet I do study, that is the marvel of science. So to get back to DNA maybe you could answer this question instead of avoiding the subject by dismissing my qualifications.
Are you familiar with the genetic repair system found in ALL living cells and in prokaryotes(that don't have a nucleus, of course I'm sure you knew that) This system continuously monitors the DNA molecule for mispaired bases and damage and it's a major roadblock in allowing genetic mutations to establish themselves in DNA. However it is these very mutations that the macroevolutionary process depends. If your evolutionary theory were true then natural selection would clearly have selected against these repair mechanisms.
Well that is an interesting Catch-22, isn't it? Let me try to explain:
You see, no system is perfect. So not all mutations can be found and weeded out. Most mutations, even benificial ones, are, but enough aren't for evolution to work.
quote:
I would ask a general question to all of you here. Have you investigated other world religions such as Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness.
I've read almost all of the Bible, (skipping those annoying geneologys!), quite a bit of the Q'ran, and my s/o is a ex-Witness, so I know know a fair bit about them.
quote:
Can you Prove to me that God doesn't exist,
Nope,
I can't disprove the existance of the Invisible Purple Unicorn either.
But I can prove that belief in God is irrational....
Can you prove the existance of God? Methinks not.
quote:
can you Prove that everything started from nothing or am I to have the same faith you say I have in my God. Let's turn the coin around.
Straw man. I do not think 'everything came from nothing', but to explain this requires an advanced knowledge of cosmology.
And yes, we can prove that the big bang occured - to a reasonable degree.
Xev -Ad astra!- Bellringer |
|
|
|
Archistrategos
New Member
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 14:03:18 [Permalink]
|
Hello there dino 74,It seems that this little kitty have some sharp claws! And he came back for more! Well you prepare your self because this people are not gonna let ya down.
Ok now, about what you said (I didn't feel as though my questions were given adequate answers) I think this people have been given ya the kind of answers for those kind of questions, and for the other sentence (Many people directed me to other web sites) there is no other way of teaching you what we know.The only thing that we can do is to offer our own answers and give you reference to places were you can find longer answers, if you are not in the predisposition of reading then I wonder what exactly are you doing here? I think you didn't even gave a little look at all the sites that were given here, I belive that your search for truth is nothing more than a nice inquisition raid!
And for that (You don't really know what are you talking about, do you?) sentence, you stroked a nerve there, you arrogant! Most of this people studied so hard to know what they are talking about,some were religious believers,preyed and worshiped the holy one but could be like that no mere. I my self would have done anything to protect my belief, but you see, that was my problem.
I was so blind, I could'nt see the facts even if those facts could hit me in the face! I tough my self to live a new life, one without the fallacy and hypocrisy of religion. Don't ever treat this people like if they were a cult following the rules an old fairy tale book! Truth, answers, you are not ready fore that!
Whit all my affection Archist. 
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 15:08:24 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to probably cover ground that has already been covered with my response.
The reason we [collectively speaking] offer links to other websites is that often times these arguments have been made elsewhere. Additionally, these websites are only one of many resources we've used in our own search for information and often times offer information that we may or may not have at our disposal. Offering outside sources also prevents the common fallacy of argument from authority. In that, the argument for young-earth creationism has only one source, the bible. This is an authoritative document with no other support than itself. Which is also a fallacy called circular reasoning. However, when a range of diverse sources converge on a concept, it is more likely that concept is closer to reality than one stating 'it is so because I say so'.
As to your claim of inadequate answers; do you require the information be spoon fed to you? For many of us, this is a common perception among those who will follow what anyone in a position of authority will state. Researching an issue goes beyond being given the information, rather to drawing conclusions based on the information in a logical manner. Determining the validity of the information based on peer review and multiple reproduction to show that to a reasonable certainty every time I drop a pen it will fall down and not up. In this we've come to the conclusion that gravity works, however, we live with the concept that just once that pen might fall 'up'. It seems this uncertainty is something with which many can not reconcile their existance. In essense, science only involves 'reasonable certainty' regarding a theory and not authoritative dictates.
I wouldn't be so certain as to jump to the conclusion of an individuals education, whether formal or no.
As to the existence of historical figures, more than one source, read: multiple sources, confirming the existence of an individual is generally an acceptable condition. However, again there is a reasonable certainty regarding their existence without the ability to go back and confirm their existence. All that is asked for here, is the same type of evidence for the existence of this individual as for any other historical personage.
I'm sure that many of us have 'checked-out' other religious claims, in addition to xianity. John Smith received the doctrine of the Mormon religion from 'finding gold discs' from god. This is rarely mentioned. The Jehova's Witnesses are a 'dooms-day' cult that has for some reason survived the multiple days of the end of the world which were predicted. Islam, is another outgrowth from the Judaic religion. Judaism is in essense one of the mono-thiestic religions that flourished in the Middle East in millenia past. However, even Judaism seems in part to have borrowed from other religions/civilizations through out that region.
As to proving the non-existence of god. You are the one claiming the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent god (as seems the claim of the bible). You've ascribed charateristics to this god and have declared his existence, it is therefore up to you to prove that this god, of which you apparently know something, exists. My claim, I see no proof of the existence of something beyond the natural, therefore I find the worship of a supernatural being irrelevent to my life. In no instance do I claim there is 'no god'.
Additionally, to proof of non-existence, I would be required to be everywhere at every moment to prove non-existence. This is not a possibility, which always leaves open the possiblity of the existence of a supernatural being, however, as you claim to 'know' your god you must prove that your god exists as you define your god.
So, your, let's turn the coin around, is without merit.
And finally, to the sharing of ideas, that requires, from both sides, a willingness to investigate the others claims from information that is not biased by their perspective on the issue. IOW, I examine your arugument and supporting documentation, you examine my argument and supporting documentions. However, I spent about two years in the camp of apologetics, I'm sorry I can't justify the 'inerrancy' of the bible. Therefore, I can not justify the belief that everything written therein is absolute truth. If you are trully open to the idea that your faith, your bible, your jesus, your god, may not be everything they are claimed and rely on evidence and not faith, then you must shed the belief in those when there is no other option. I think you will find, that the large majority of us have accepted the 'facts' as they are currently understood and shed faith.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 16:27:58 [Permalink]
|
One thing you will find, Dinon, when you debate with Skeptics is that it is almost impossible to call our bluffs.
The Skeptic philosophy prevents us from bluffing for the reason that it is actually more profitable for us to lose a debate than it is to win. We really do believe that the truth will set you free. If we are arguing a point and we are wrong we want to know about it. That way we can correct our thinking and bring it more in line with reality.
There is a thread of "de-conversion stories" here. Almost everyone who wrote on it showed that they had an open mind, even about their deepest religious convictions. When they honestly studied their beliefs and found that they were flawed, they changed.
It's not important for us to win. What's important is knowing what's real and what isn't.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 19:05:09 [Permalink]
|
Slater:
quote:
There is a thread of "de-conversion stories" here. Almost everyone who wrote on it showed that they had an open mind, even about their deepest religious convictions.
Really? Where? I'd like to read it.
Dinon, one additional point:
We cite a website (incidentally, did you look into the one I posted? Did the URL work?) because it gives extra information that we don't have time to post. This is a difference between cutting-and-pasting from www.drdino.com and linking to Talk Origens.
Xev -Ad astra!- Bellringer |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 19:33:16 [Permalink]
|
In the Religion forum, under the topic "The Day I Lost My Faith".
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 22:05:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Or where did we get bats from. The logical course would be from mice or rats, yet as they began to evolve and the forelimbs began to grow longer and develop webbing they would fall to the law of natural selection.
OK. Let us start with a tree dwelling rat like creature (according to a National Geographic article I read some years ago, some rats may live their entire life in the top of a palm tree). Now imagine that some of our tree dwelling rats develop longer forelimbs. Will this be a competitive disadvantage? For a ground dwelling rat it would be since it would produce an awkward slow gait. But for our tree dwelling rat it could be an advantage. The long forelimbed rat could obtain choice fuits or other tidbits out of reach of shorter limbed cousins. He could also cross over to a limb farther from the one he was on. Check out an orangutang sometime. Their forelimbs are much longer than their hind limbs. This is because they spend most of their lives hanging around in trees. Those long forelimbs are very useful from grabbing limbs and vines. The question of wether a genetic mutation is advantageous depends a great deal on the environment you inhabit.
Of course our proto-bat will from time to time find himself facing gaps in the canopy that he can't reach across. The old shorter forelimbed critter would just climb down, scamper over to the other tree and climb up. But our long forelimbed proto-bat has a problem with scampering along the ground, so he needs to find another way across. The most obvious solution is to jump across and use those long forelimbs to snag a limb on the next tree.
Now suppose one of these proto-bats is born with a mutation that results in a fold of skin under it's arms. Once again, for a ground dwelling rat this would be a bother. But for our proto-bat, this is a boon since it provides a convenient gliding surface that would extend the range the creature could leap between trees. At this point the path from this leaping gliding long forelimbed proto-bat to a true flying bat isn't all that hard.
The above description of bat evolution is purely speculation on my part. I have not studied the fossil record concerning bat evolution so I can not say with certainty that this is how bats evolved. But the path outlined meets the basic requirement of evolution: each incremental step along the path must confer an advantage to the species within the context of it's environment and life style. Natural selection will do the rest.
Edited by - espritch on 02/12/2002 22:19:54
Edited by - espritch on 02/13/2002 15:16:13 |
|
|
|
dinon74
New Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2002 : 00:34:40 [Permalink]
|
Hey guys, just got back from a late night of work so I'll have to make this one short. Nothing earth shattering tonight as many of you would already expect.haha Just wanted to set some things straight.
To Archistrategos, the comment about not knowing what you are talking about was not from me I copied and pasted what slater had said from the previous page about myself. I have not figured out how you guys place copies of previous quotes in bold or boxed, I would appreicate some help on that. So I didn't make that comment. I am very respectful of your ideas, I obviously don't think you have received as much from others before me. I understand. I am interested in finding the truth, forgive me if I don't just roll over and die at the first rebuttle, I have an inquisitive mind. I have checked out those websites many of you posted, I haven't read everything on there to be honest a lot of information but I'm still working on it. And for that matter I have never been to this drdino's website and the writing I did in the original statment was not from a website but from my own questions from studying. Give me a little credit. I can understand your frustration of having to go over information again, but that is why I chose to engage in dialogue with people and not just read websites alone. It is through communication that ideas are shared and I just personally enjoy this. Would you not teach a new student or answer questions simply because you have done it before?
I am doing some investigating on the replies many of you had. Just give me a little time, I'm not going anywhere. I guess the only question tonight would be this. What are your opinions on cause and effect? Does everything have a cause? If not why? (I'm sure you've answered this a million times before if you don't want to respond that's ok I'm sure someone out of the group will.) Thanks guys. Talk to you tomorrow hopefully. And someone please help me with the bold thing I tried highlighting and clicking the bold button, that didn't work.
Take care...Dino
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
