Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Designer Tinkers with Mites
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  06:44:47  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It looks like the Designer has been busy, this time with little a tiny soil mite. These things used to engage in sexual reproduction. But for the last few hundreds of millions of years, they've been, er, doing it the asexual way. But NOW, it seems that sex is back on the menu.

Gotta love that Designer!!

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  11:12:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Interesting in that it shows that there are only a few physical constraints on evolution (don't ask me what they are; I don't know). If there is a need, it will be filled. Sometimes it will be filled even when there is no apparent need. And sometimes that filling is, well, kinda screwed up.

On the other hand, I imagine that Dembski and the Discovery? Institute may claim that the "Designer" just changed it's mind, that's all -- fool couldn't get it right the first time, huh Bill?

And on the gripping hand, Dobson & Perkins & Robertson & Bauer & all the rest of the usual suspects could and might well use it as proof that homosexuality is a choice, and as such, can be "cured."




"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!

Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  12:10:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Filthy wrote:

And on the gripping hand, Dobson & Perkins & Robertson & Bauer & all the rest of the usual suspects could and might well use it as proof that homosexuality is a choice, and as such, can be "cured."
Well, they can certainly point out that all of us heathens who reproduce asexually no longer have an evolutionary excuse to continue the disgusting practice,


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  12:24:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Interesting in that it shows that there are only a few physical constraints on evolution (don't ask me what they are; I don't know).


Those restrictions are of course physic-al, i.e. that bone "design" X cant hold load Y or exoskeleton A cant take pressure B.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  13:56:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

Interesting in that it shows that there are only a few physical constraints on evolution (don't ask me what they are; I don't know).


Those restrictions are of course physic-al, i.e. that bone "design" X cant hold load Y or exoskeleton A cant take pressure B.
And then, if the species survives, bone "X" becomes bone "X-2" and nicely takes up "Y's" slack. Exoskeleton "A" changes it's geometry, becoming becoming exoskeleton "A-2" and pressure "B" becomes "Piece-O'-Cake."

All it takes is a little time.....




"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!

Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  14:56:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy
On the other hand, I imagine that Dembski and the Discovery? Institute may claim that the "Designer" just changed it's mind, that's all -- fool couldn't get it right the first time, huh Bill?

I can imagine some in ID crowd going even furter and actually state that ID "theory" predicted this, because, after all, designers do these things sometimes.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  18:41:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
"Camisiidae females typically lay eggs that are exact copies of themselves. Although males are born every once in a while, they are always sterile."


"So when something as complex as the ability to produce sex gametes is lost, it's likely never to be developed again. Oddly, the Camisiidae mites seem to have retained that ability,..."


Does anyone see the contradiction?



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  19:14:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Does anyone see the contradiction?



What I see is a man who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "likely."


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  19:15:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

"Camisiidae females typically lay eggs that are exact copies of themselves. Although males are born every once in a while, they are always sterile."


"So when something as complex as the ability to produce sex gametes is lost, it's likely never to be developed again. Oddly, the Camisiidae mites seem to have retained that ability,..."


Does anyone see the contradiction?



Yes, someone must, and that someone is you, Jerome.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  19:15:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Does anyone see the contradiction?



What I see is a man who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "likely."




No, try again.

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  19:17:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

"Camisiidae females typically lay eggs that are exact copies of themselves. Although males are born every once in a while, they are always sterile."


"So when something as complex as the ability to produce sex gametes is lost, it's likely never to be developed again. Oddly, the Camisiidae mites seem to have retained that ability,..."


Does anyone see the contradiction?



Yes, someone must, and that someone is you, Jerome.





There really is one; it could just be a mistake of wording but its there.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  20:30:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome, you are already annoying enough. Do you really have to have us play this dumb ass guessing game? If you have a point, say it. I'm sorry if you weren't aware of this, but I (and I believe everyone else here) am not amused by this.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 06/26/2007 20:35:31
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  20:40:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ricky, the article states that the "sex gametes is lost", while also giving examples of males being born.

Both can not be true. Males have always been there. Just because we have only just observed sexual behavior certainly does not mean it has not happen. It would be rare to see it as males are rarely born.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  20:41:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

Jerome, you are already annoying enough. Do you really have to have us play this dumb ass guessing game? If you have a point, say it. I'm sorry if you weren't aware of this, but I (and I believe everyone else here) am not amused by this.



I noticed you guess was wrong, and you deleted it.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  21:15:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Just because we have only just observed sexual behavior certainly does not mean it has not happen. It would be rare to see it as males are rarely born.


I can't seem to find any research attempting to mate a female and a male. In fact, it seems like most research is built upon their asexuality being common knowledge. For example:

The existence of ancient parthenogenetic taxa questions the necessity of sexual reproduction for the evolution and diversification of lineages into discrete genetic and morphological entities (Barraclough et al., 2003).


You keep making this fatal mistake that I myself used to make: Science is not based as heavily in logic as math is. That is, just because it is possible that science can get a conclusion wrong does not mean science is not allowed to make that conclusion. Just because it's possible does not make a lick of difference. The evidence, through observations, seems to indicate that no one observed males and females mating. Some studies I found did include males.


I noticed you guess was wrong, and you deleted it.


This shows me you aren't here for a discussion. You are here to play a game of "I'm right and you're wrong." and I'm frankly getting sick of your sophomoric behavior. I'm not even sure why I'm still replying to your posts.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 06/26/2007 21:16:27
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2007 :  22:42:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome said:
Ricky, the article states that the "sex gametes is lost", while also giving examples of males being born.

Both can not be true.


You would really not harm yourself if you bothered to look up the definition of terms before you make yourself look like a complete idiot, Jerome.

gamete:
a mature germ cell (as a sperm or egg) possessing a haploid chromosome set and capable of initiating formation of a new individual by fusion with another gamete


And to correct your misquote of the article:
So when something as complex as the ability to produce sex gametes is lost, it's likely never to be developed again. Oddly, the Camisiidae mites seem to have retained that ability, despite surviving millions of years without using it.


A gamete is produced by meiosis. You apparently do not know the difference between a gamete and a sex chromosome.

Surely you are aware that in some species there is no male sex chromosome? (in grasshoppers, for example, XX is female, XO is male. O indicating no chromosome)

The absence of gamete production does not mean the same thing as the absence of sex chromosomes. So much for your contradiction.

This is an interesting case of atavism, nothing more.

(edit: spelling)

Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Edited by - Dude on 06/26/2007 22:44:12
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.09 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000