what are the worthless spurs on pythons used for then?
There are numerous "worthless" or vestigial parts on all sorts of creatures. A brief internet search reveals that some species of python use the spurs to stimulate ovulation in the female.
what are the worthless spurs on pythons used for then?
Take a stock of your own genome. It has a set of spot mutations which exist only in certain cells and no where else. There could be an argument made that the mutations aren't random as much as deterministic in a very complex manner, but random quantum effects have been shown to effect protein folding, so I'd say that there exists a certain amount of TRUE randomness in genetic mutations, as well as very complex deterministic ones.Can you prove that a specific evolutionary event, such as an introduction of a specific mutation, in the past was random?
Are you suggesting that the ability to communicate is a human-only trait? Communication, via symbolic verbal language, symbolic non-verbal language, or non-symbolic emotional displays are very common across the animal kingdom.If this video is accurate, please explain how the bees could have possibly evolved this ability. The ability to transmit the information through ambiguous dance by one bee, and the ability to interpret the intended message by another bee would have had to evolve simultaneously. What are the chances of that happening?
You have mis-applied the theory of evolution beyond its boundries. Evolution deals with abiogensis to the same degree that astrophsyics describes why I perfer the color green.RenaissanceMan said:The only thing said by biologists to have "evolved" without intelligent design and forethought is of course some imaginary and unnamed single cell thing which is said to have "evolved" ultimately into homo sapiens.
The report I heard was on NPR http://www.npr.org/2010/12/31/132523398/What-Happens-When-Leaf-Cutters-Cant-Cut-It[riverwind posted about ant job assignment based on jaw sharpness]
also amazing, you dont have a refernce for it do you? I would love to have the paper,
Macro evolution has never been observed.
This is incorrect. I have a theory which says that I exist. I have another theory that you exist. I mainly base this on the premise that I exist, and the evidence that nothing other than humans like me write forum posts, and I have no memory of posting that for you.No Theory Based on another Theory can be considered properly supported.
Logic is also inherently incomplete. One cannot prove the correctness of logic with logic, therefor everything we do must rely on the perponderence of evidence, and not an appeal to proof. Absolute proof is a phantom when modeling the natural world.logic is not composed of insolence, pride, ego or hubris.
Firstoff, there is evidence that the earth is round; tons of it. that doesn't mean it was proven to be round. Speciation has likewise been observed and recorded, and thus evolution is as "proven" as a round earth - there's tons and tons of evidence for it.The Earth has been proven to be a sphere and not flat. Flat Earth Theory has been proven wrong.
Evolution and a strict interpretation of the bible are incompatible. Many Christian sects don't view the message as inerrant; as such, Genesis can be alegory, and not in violation of the observed fact of evolution.I did say Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive.
Being able to imaginge an anternative route for the creation of an organ isn't a falsifiablility test. To falsify evolution, you need to show that an organ could *not* have come about by evolution, thus showing the theory to be false. Have you read the Origin of Species? Darwin points out a number of obvious ways to falsify the theory right in the book; why not grab one and falsify the theory?evolution doesn't pass the falsification test....to be falsifiable some life should be conceivable through a process other than the evolutionary process, like, an imaginary living being or a part of it should be hypothetically able to exist by means other than evolution
Why should a scientist be nuetral to a position backed by evidence when presented with a concept without backing evidence? There are an infinite number of possible stories about how the variety of life on this planet came about; are scientists supposed to place all of this stories on the same playing field of likelihood? Even the ones involving the green potato overlord and his minions of tele-bots?scientists neutrality when it comes to evolution.
Exactly.The Theory of evolution gathers all of the observable facts and explains the mechanism by which it takes place.
so it is in fact both a theory AND a fact
It has been observed, in both the lab and in the wild. this is why the term 'Macro-evolution' is rarely used these days - there's nothing structurally different between macro- and micro-evolution; speciation just requires enough accumulated mutations such that interbreed stops.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
This is incorrect. I have a theory which says that I exist. I have another theory that you exist. I mainly base this on the premise that I exist, and the evidence that nothing other than humans like me write forum posts, and I have no memory of posting that for you.
Evolution and a strict interpretation of the bible are incompatible. Many Christian sects don't view the message as inerrant; as such, Genesis can be alegory, and not in violation of the observed fact of evolution.
The evolution of the moving goalposts. "Macroevolution" means evolution at the species level or above. We have directly seen speciation occur. To form a new genus, or even higher up the tree? Of course we haven't seen such an event, directly. How could we? This is a process that takes place over thousands to millions of years.I know I never said speciation.
I said macro evolution has never been observed. We have never directly observed the reconfiguration of one animal into a completely different creature.
Nearly have:... To form a new genus, or even higher up the tree? Of course we haven't seen such an event, directly. How could we? ...
This is just a new species, not a "completely different creature" (Saquist's words). Saquist saidNearly have: … We can know with certainity that the evolution of a new species of mammals (called preá) in only 8000 years has occurred at least once.
I know I never said speciation.
I said macro evolution has never been observed. We have never directly observed the reconfiguration of one animal into a completely different creature.
This is just a new species, not a "completely different creature" (Saquist's words). Saquist said
Speciation events have been discussed in this thread. Saquist has moved the macroevolution goalposts so as to exclude speciation events, including the preá.
Not at all. Speciation is a consideration of both macro evolution and micro evolution.
Speciation does not represent the complete spectrum of macro evolution.
The informal fallacy you've invoked would have the symbolic goalpost in the neutral zone. One foot in one territory and one foot in the other. The 50 yard line isn't the goalline area so speciation can not be a line of demarcation for the touchdown. Now some kickers can make a 57 yarder but to make that specific argument in the face of a general truth would be a fallacy of it's own even if every situation isn't represented by the by the generality.
Two questions for Saquist:
If not from evolution, where did the “completely different” creatures (like man & monkey vs. a catfish) come from?
Do you reject the idea that man and monkey had a common ancestor a long time ago?
(I assume that you think man and monkey, despite nearly identical DNA, are “completely different” creatures, but if that assumption is wrong, tell me.)
I'm trying to understand your idea of “completely different creatures" with specific examples, but if you can define that concept it would help.
You seem to have clearly agree that what we call evolution can produce creatures with many difference,* but not “completely different creatures."
* So different that they cannot inter breed.
Take a stock of your own genome. It has a set of spot mutations which exist only in certain cells and no where else. There could be an argument made that the mutations aren't random as much as deterministic in a very complex manner, but random quantum effects have been shown to effect protein folding, so I'd say that there exists a certain amount of TRUE randomness in genetic mutations, as well as very complex deterministic ones.
Not even an attempt to answer either of the specific questions!Yes, animals can clearly adapt.
However I'm careful not to jump to conclusions on apparent similarities. There is still so much we don't know. Belief is one thing, that's benefit of choice. An absolute is a high standard that shouldn't be relegated by the most accepted.
Originally Posted by Billy T
Two questions for Saquist:
If not from evolution, where did the “completely different” creatures (like man & monkey vs. a catfish) come from?
Do you reject the idea that man and monkey had a common ancestor a long time ago?Not even an attempt to answer either of the specific questions! Should I conclude you have no alternative to evolution (question 1) but just don't want to admit that?
AND
(2) That your have no well defined idea what you mean by “completely different creatures." That phrase is just a "duck and weave" phrase you throw out to confuse and avoid answering other questions with?
SEE, WHEN YOU DON'T ANSWER DIRECT, SPECIFIC, QUESTIONS THAT RAISES MORE AND REDUCES YOUR CREDITABLITY.
Do you reject the idea that man and monkey had a common ancestor a long time ago?
Not a problem at all if evolution is the ONLY alternative. So I'm still asking if you have ANY alternative to evolution as the cause of there being now men, monkeys and catfish?Which is the main problem evolution has...organisms evolving outside of they're own species.
Yes, No, & I don't know, but admit their DNA being nearly identical is support for the "yes" answer.
nor a clear answer to either question. Try again.No confusion.
I don't remember the exact percentage of common DNA, but does it really matter if it is 97% or 98% instead of 99% ?Nearly identical?
Agreed nearly identical DNA does not prove a common ancestor, but if there is no other reason given or even suggested, one is forced to conclude that a common ancestor is highly likely.Is proof of commonalities but not a common ancestor. Also you really should take into account DNA is factual and known but you cannot disregarding what is unknown. Not in a supernatural sense but in a biological sense.
Perhaps not, if that is the rules of the game, but one could very strongly conclude that I was aiming for the target. If there is some other than "evolved from common ancestor" theory then it must also explain why it produces a "near miss" from identical DNA.Well your answer wouldn't score you a point in a dart game or throwing horseshoes because you came 98% close.