Yes. Avoidance. Typical. And to be expected.
You can't refute the argument so you divert and use that as an excuse to not participate.
I don't need help for my argument. I'm not the one ignoring facts out some perverse wish to remain uneducated.
Denial of evolution III
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
You can't refute the argument so you divert and use that as an excuse to not participate.
Determinism is a farting duck.
Directional selection occurs, but isn't actually explicitly necessary; drift probably contributes a very great deal to evolution and its existence does not preclude selective divergence, unless you think that effect necessarily implies single causation. As for the period of time, we are talking hundreds of millions of generations, or more in some cases. This is a fair deal of time in which to act.
sorry I'm late with this John, I assumed (quite understandably) that last post of yours was a joke.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e4284017v66738u7/
evolution can be deterministic to some extent.
The theory of evolution, if correct would predict that similar environments produce similar results in different types of animals - this prediction turns out to be correct.
it's something called convergent evolution.
Flying lizard (reptile)
Sugar glider (marsupial)
Flying squirrel (placental mammal)
Creation myths are somewhat more shakey about this - there is no logical reason for a creator to create animals that perform essentially the same ecological function from different clades of animals - whale sharks and baleen whales, bats and birds, etc
I am not a theist I am agnostic.
From this position I said:"The theory of evolution suffers from serious gaps."
I personally do not believe in randomness.Others believe there is.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404
There are many changes,I see no possibility that these phases browsing with minor changes, almost undetectable.
Appearance of wings,venomous system from snake,internal fertilization, sense organs, etc. .. etc. ..
These things get advantage but I can not find intermediate stages advantageous to them and and also genes must be dominant,with these changes.
However, if we assume that random serious genetic mutations appear, which benefit the animal,which is the probability that mutations are those advantages?
I think probability is like that when I get a software part I would mix and I expect the end to leave a program better.
Yes there is a very small probability.For that I have noted that a zero probability is one to infinity but here is not infinite.
Along with a favorable mutation would need to occur billion unfavorable mutations.We should see around us these unfavorable mutations.
But how about if mutations are not random but are in the genetic code as regressive genes?
If in certain circumstances they can become dominant genes?
For that I would make a very serious genetic analysis of caterpillar and butterfly.(Or some parasites, if I remember well even have three forms, in a life cycle.)
If the caterpillar and the butterfly has the same genetic code it means that you can have or not have wings with the same genetic code.If they have different genetic codes,it means there somewhere are most basic informations about genetic codes.
Maybe somewhere in the ribonucleic acid?
From this position I said:"The theory of evolution suffers from serious gaps."
I personally do not believe in randomness.Others believe there is.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404
There are many changes,I see no possibility that these phases browsing with minor changes, almost undetectable.
Appearance of wings,venomous system from snake,internal fertilization, sense organs, etc. .. etc. ..
These things get advantage but I can not find intermediate stages advantageous to them and and also genes must be dominant,with these changes.
However, if we assume that random serious genetic mutations appear, which benefit the animal,which is the probability that mutations are those advantages?
I think probability is like that when I get a software part I would mix and I expect the end to leave a program better.
Yes there is a very small probability.For that I have noted that a zero probability is one to infinity but here is not infinite.
Along with a favorable mutation would need to occur billion unfavorable mutations.We should see around us these unfavorable mutations.
But how about if mutations are not random but are in the genetic code as regressive genes?
If in certain circumstances they can become dominant genes?
For that I would make a very serious genetic analysis of caterpillar and butterfly.(Or some parasites, if I remember well even have three forms, in a life cycle.)
If the caterpillar and the butterfly has the same genetic code it means that you can have or not have wings with the same genetic code.If they have different genetic codes,it means there somewhere are most basic informations about genetic codes.
Maybe somewhere in the ribonucleic acid?
Last edited by a moderator:
emil said:
1Billion years, trillions of trillions of lives, billions of generations. Do you understand these large numbers. Evolution stands out like dogs balls with these huge, incomprehensible numbers..
Also, just in humanity I see an endless list of unfavorable mutations. Just watch some medical shows to see the freaky outcomes of genetic mutation. Just in my generation.. :bugeye:
That is due to two things. (1) many of the intermediate stages lived in different environments and the evolved system's earlier stage did have advantage to them in that environment. AND (2) you are not well informed about the cases where the earlier stages still exist and are useful.
For example, the eye that humans have, started out as just a patch of skin that was thermally sensitive (light will make heat too but initially it was IR/ heat mainly). - Told the cold blooded creature it should find shade. Then in some snakes, that skin patch deepen into a pit, which help pit vipers find warm-blooded creatures after dark in the desert as their IR radiation was much stronger than that from the sand. Both variation in skin's thermal sensitivity and pit vipers still exist. (I am not saying humans descended via snakes, but only illustrating the the earlier stages were useful and still are to some creatures.)
Then visible light detectors began to replace thermal detection cells in these pits. As light's wave length is shorter a pin hole camera evolved from the pit to form initially crude images in bright sunlight but as the pin hole decreased in size the images got better, if dimmer. No covering to the pin hole. That stage is still seen in the Chambered Nautilus. I.e. it has a pin hole opening to the front of its basically circular cavity eye and sea water does circulate in and out of that chamber as it changes depth in the ocean.
Other creatures soon covered the opening with transparent skin (Most human skin is quite transparent if there is no pigment in it.) to keep dirt etc. out. Then that skin thickened, into a lens, which allowed good images even if the opening size increased again to gather more light - To further this most nocturnal animals added a reflective layer behind the photo sensitive cells - that doubled the chance that a photon would stimulate a photo sensitive cell - For example flash light shining into cat's, owl's etc. eyes will reflect back to you. These night hunters do pay a price for greater sensitivity in that the reflection is not specular (mirror like) but diffuse, so slightly blurs the image. Humans, apes, monkey and other day hunters found that avoiding this loss of resolution was better for them (the sun gave lots of light) so behind their photo sensitive cells is a black film to prevent internal light scattering.
The distribution of photo sensitive cells also adjusted under evolutionary selection to be optimum (as did the shape of the opening, not all are round). For example the eagle needs very high resolution to see the tiny field mouse from 3000 feet up. Part of it high resolution area, the fovea, is circular like humans (but better resolution capacity). However, in the final fraction of a second before it grabs the mouse in a high speed dive, the mouse's image on the retina is rapidly moving in a quasi-linear path. So part of the retina of the eagle retina is Banana shaped, not round and the alignment of that banana is such that the mouse image sweeps along it. You can not follow a fast base ball seen from the side as the angular rate of change is too great to track, but the eagle can cope with even faster angular rate of change in image position.
Nature has invented the eye many times. For example the octopus has a better than human eye. Its retina is in front of the optical nerves and blood vessels not behind as is the humans. There is a tiny slow moving insect that has only one photo sensitive cell mounted on an internal to the eye ball "stick". There are mussels with fibers connected to that stick which can bend it in a regular pattern. I.e. it scans the image and assembles the "picture" Some lizards do something like this and need not have each eye collecting light from the same source at the same time. The location of the eye has also evolved to suit the owners needs: Carnivore have them close together forward looking with large overlap in the field of view (for good depth perception) Prey animals have the eyes on side of the head with little or no mutual over lap as 360 coverage is more important to notice a hunter approaching.
If you study the eye (I have only slightly) you will find more than a 1000 different version, each a separate branch split off/ evolved/ from at least a dozen independent evolutions of very primitive "eyes" I am sure that the same is true of the other sense organs. Every stage along the way to later designs was useful to its owner for thousands of years as the eye, co-evolved with the creature. In some cases, like the chambered Nautilus, the deep sea environment where it lives has not changed in more than a million years so it has not evolved and its eye serves it well still just as it did a million years ago.
BTW human eyes are evolving now. The green photo sensitive cells in part of the population use a slightly different molecule than those in the rest of the population. There is a slight difference in their photo sensitivity vs wave length curves. Presumably the new one, which is more different from the blue sensitive cells, will provide better color detection capacity and in thousands of years will be come the more common one. When everything else is equal, then even tiny advantage can be selected for. However, as red light passes thru smog better, perhaps the red detectors will increase relative to the blue and green ones. Evolution does respond to environmental changes. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in controlled experiments*
-------------
*One very impressive one was done in Brazil: Briefly some tiny fish that were prey to larger fish lived below a water fall and were transported above it. Twenty years later they were larger and became fertile more than a year later and laid many more eggs. Below the water fall it was necessary for them to lay a few eggs ASAP (in the their first year) as they soon would be eaten, but more eggs later worked better above the falls.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
Well, for starters, in humans 40% of our pregnancies likely end in miscarriage.
I don't think it is "absurd" if you include the discharge of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in uterus wall or the early stage cell aggregates that abort / discharge unnoticed.
Can you give a link, where did you get this absurd percentage?
I suspect most fertile, sexually-active women, with a fertile partner, get pregnant at least every other month but lose that tiny organism without ever knowing they were pregnant.
Can you give a link, where did you get this absurd percentage?
Billy T's post (#530) is exactly correct. Supporting links are easily found on this subject. From Recurrent Early Pregnancy Loss
Are you feeling embarrassed yet? You should.
Last edited:
There is proof that fish evolved legs and walked on land. Its called fossils. Its like saying Man never evolved from primitive apes. How do we know? We have 98% of the genetics of a chimp. Though a chimpanze is more like a relative then an ancestor.
I hope you know that we are made of atoms and chemicals and genesis is impossible. Evolution shuns the belief of genesis.
DNA is composed of nitrogen. We are carbon based and our bones are made of calcium surprise surprise. You may not find it relevant. But its enough to tell you that we are not different from non living things. We are just able to move.
Also evolution can take a couple generations. Its random. A baby is born with a tail the tail helps him/her survive it mates and it becomes a dominant gene. Look at race. I know this may start a controversy but its evolution. Inuits are short and bigger. They are capable to eat such large amounts of fat that it would stop another person's heart. All this is to survive in the extreme cold of the arctic.
Oops sorry if I insulted you ^^
I hope you know that we are made of atoms and chemicals and genesis is impossible. Evolution shuns the belief of genesis.
DNA is composed of nitrogen. We are carbon based and our bones are made of calcium surprise surprise. You may not find it relevant. But its enough to tell you that we are not different from non living things. We are just able to move.
Also evolution can take a couple generations. Its random. A baby is born with a tail the tail helps him/her survive it mates and it becomes a dominant gene. Look at race. I know this may start a controversy but its evolution. Inuits are short and bigger. They are capable to eat such large amounts of fat that it would stop another person's heart. All this is to survive in the extreme cold of the arctic.
Oops sorry if I insulted you ^^
Sometimes I wonder with whom I speak?Christians have become Darwinian?
Darwinism became the new religion in fashion and Time is God?
Any queries on Darwinism is considered blasphemy and any argument against "infidels" is welcome?
First I was moved to this thread without my will but I have not commented.Others were simply deleted and also have not commented.
But it is clear that any discussion of evolution is considered blasphemy and moved to deny evolution.
I raised two issues: one against "God Time" and random ,and the second problem larva and butterfly.
I advanced the idea of codification more important than DNA. Can be RNA?
What answer I got? Worth reading and given as a negative example for scientifically discussion.
If someone really wanted to discuss about gaps in Darwinism, at scientifically,
I am ready for a discussion but I will not answer to the "Darwinist Believers".
Emil, you will find that the (neo)Darwinians on the forum grasp the significance of natural history and genetics. You're free to discuss what you think are gaps, but be prepared for the eventuality that they are not actual gaps, or that there are reasons for them. In fact, the supposition that significant gaps exist ignores the facts of the difficulties in fossil formation, and the very short period of time in which we have (poorly) funded paleontology.
I just want to know.I have no prejudice or inhibition.
It is a serious problem on random.
To me, determinism or cause and effect is more important than Darwinism. Please, take a look here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404 It's a little long but worth reading.
In my opinion must looking for something other than random changes in the genetic code.
Also,how about the transformation of larva into a butterfly?They have the same DNA?
DNA is still mostly carbon, as a small aside.
Darwin stumbled upon something revolutionary for his time. If you didn't know, Darwinism is actually based on five themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. He covers probability and chance. Whether or not you believe in the chaos theory, it's important to understand that randomness is a pivotal factor in how nature propagates. Furthermore, Darwin believe in teleology. It's a complex association, but it surprisingly works. Science at its best. So there you are, Darwinism really is about cause and effect.
Butterflies have the same DNA as they did when they were caterpillars, yes. It's as if you're compared, at 60 years old, to your three year old self. I assure you that you won't look anything like yourself. Your DNA changes you over time. It's important to understand that.
Utter crap.
We have no evidence whatsoever of aliens, but we do have evidence of evolution. Evolution is a fact.
I see you're sticking with wilful ignorance. Way to go.
We actually do have more evidence of aliens than evolution. We haven't been around long enough to really prove evolution exists. That's just plain and simple. As for aliens, there are many inconsistencies in the past and too many unexplained phenomena that make no sense about our history. Aliens really seem like a viable avenue for answers. Plus, there are always the unexplained to lean back on.
- Status