Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Hmmm, and I'm not sure if we've broached this angle before (haven't read the whole thread) but arthropoda are still evolving at the most rapid rates, and (lucky for us humans) still haven't mastered rational thinking, though they have managed to invade our tear ducts, the pores on our face, as well as other unlikely areas, while also becoming not just a part of the food chain, but the start of the major ones, while providing more oxygen to the atmosphere than the feted Amazon rainforest.

My favourite topic at the moment is the amazing and adaptable and evolving arthropods. My personal theory is that they are like waystation food for galactic explorers. Just like sailors of old would drop goats and pigs on remote islands, on the odd chance that people were marooned there, the actively evolving arthropod can fit into any environment, and provide sustenance aplenty to the "shipwrecked" explorer.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I understand that youre kind of "Stuck" with your "no evidence" wailing

     FM, what you are talking about - you don't have any evidences about any 'evolution'. What is the evolutionary history record of our own intelligence for example (and not only of the brain), not to say that you don't have even any plausible explanations of the facts ... which you have never proved to be 'evidences about evolution'.
      ... and speaking about Arthropoda here, you cannot even explain how the beautiful colours of the butterflies are formed ... and why. How has the butterfly 'guessed' (through random mutations ... and natural selection and the survival of the fittest 'theory') to make mind-blowing clour patterns through nanotechnology (actually the whole biology is something beyond the nanotechnology that you may never start understanding) ... and why is that. The snake is colorful to warn you not to touch it, but why is the butterfly colourful? ... and who has naturally selected the patterns without intelligence as you claim. Using the intelligence of the other parts of the biosphere to make whatever is not 'without intelligence'.
     Are you curious to get knowing something - randomness cannot produce symmetry (on both of the wings). Actually the patterns on the two winds are slightly asymetrical, but we don't have the analytics to distinguish that. Anyway.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Address the arthropods, Herald. They are still evolving. The attempt to create genetically modified organisms from our food crops is forcing even more rapid evolution upon the arthropoda.

Quote:

Arthropod Evolution
A classical controversy that still rages among invertebrate zoologists, including the entomologists, relates to the evolutionary pathway (or pathways) of adaptive radiation that arthropods followed as they gradually diverged from primitive ancestors. The traditional, and certainly more conservative approach, assumes that arthropods arose only once from protoannelid ancestors. This monophyletic argument is based on the observation that many features, such as the exoskeleton, open circulatory system, hemocoel, etc., are shared by nearly all taxa within the group and appear to be homologous (i.e. have the same evolutionary origin). A contrary view is taken by other biologists who argue that arthropod-like organisms must have evolved more than once (perhaps as many as four times) in geological history. Support for this polyphyletic approach is found in embryological development and in comparative studies of the mouthparts and other appendages. Proponents of the polyphyletic hypothesis claim that many similarities between taxa have arisen coincidentally, through the process of evolutionary convergence.

Artlicle here

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Address the arthropods, Herald. They are still evolving. The attempt to create genetically modified organisms from our food crops is forcing even more rapid evolution upon the arthropoda

The atempts to make GMO through hybridisation of DNA sequences without knowing what is going on has never been an idea of first brightness. For further details see the notorious retro virus and some recent pandemic virus strains 'evolution'.
The butterflies may evolve as a result of being poisoned with GMO performances, but you will never prove that as a result of consuming nectar from GMO maise with terminated germs it will become Dino some day. Actually it would be no wonder.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

The atempts to make GMO through hybridisation of DNA sequences without knowing what is going on has never been an idea of first brightness. For further details see the notorious retro virus and some recent pandemic virus strains 'evolution'.
The butterflies may evolve as a result of being poisoned with GMO performances, but you will never prove that as a result of consuming nectar from GMO maise with terminated germs it will become Dino some day. Actually it would be no wonder.

Ah, so what you're looking for, is a fish becoming bird? Or a grub becoming a dinosaur?

You're aware that the Sirenia familiy (Manatees, Dugong) are closely related to the Elephants and Mammoths? DNA does not lie.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Quote:

You're aware that the Sirenia familiy (Manatees, Dugong) are closely related to the Elephants and Mammoths? DNA does not lie.

explain please!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

explain please!

You've had this explanation already, from farmerman.

Perhaps you'd like to share what you've learned with Herald?

1 Reply

@Builder,

so you are not willing?

explain why DNA doens't lie!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Ah, so you're a proponent of the "naturalnews" asshattery?

Have fun. Cya.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Quote:

Ah, so you're a proponent of the "naturalnews" asshattery?

Have fun. Cya.

LOL

you give up quick!

1-0!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

you don't get to keep score you moron. Builder has run you around nicely. You've shown that you are without any substance and that you seem to be suffering some sort of psychosis that manifests itself in your superiority complex which seems to be based upon some trauma you suffered in your school days.

Your comments and responses are content -free and , even when you do post something (that is easily debunked), you only choose **** from Creationist sites.

If it quacks like a duck... and hangs around with other ducks.....

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Builder has run you around nicely.

      FM, I am also interested - why don't you explain to us, instruction-by-instruction and impact-by-impact how the DNA sequence of one species tranforms at random into DNA sequence of another species ... with sufficient number of individuals to lay down the foundation of a brand new species.
     FM, you and your esquire are not explaining anything. If you are thinking that peppering at random at homs is an explanation - think again: both of you. Why don't you try to explain the nano-bio-technology implemented in the design of the wing patterns of a butterfly - who is doing the 'natural selection' and how ... does that happen without any interference of any intelligence.
      FM, you have to write down all the equations (without any exception) and to prove whether they are deterministic ... or as result of stochastics, in which case you will have to find out the normal distribution of the DNA sequence variations among the contemporary species concerned.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Just wondering; do you know the history of homo sapiens?

Give this link a try; you might learn something important - about yourself and your family and friends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FM, you have to write down all the equations (without any exception) and to prove whether they are deterministic ... or as result of stochastics, in which case you will have to find out the normal distribution of the DNA sequence variations among the contemporary species concerned.

f
No, you don't have to write down all the equations. To do so would assume that every possible sequence is even possible (chemistry says it isn't) or will result in a viable creature. That would be like arguing we have to include numbers that can't be winners when calculating the odds of winning the lottery. It is statistically impossible.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FM, you and your esquire are not explaining anything. If you are thinking that peppering at random at homs is an explanation - think again: both of you. Why don't you try to explain the nano-bio-technology implemented in the design of the wing patterns of a butterfly - who is doing the 'natural selection' and how ... does that happen without any interference of any intelligence.
FM, you have to write down all the equations (without any exception) and to prove whether they are deterministic ... or as result of stochastics, in which case you will have to find out the normal distribution of the DNA sequence variations among the contemporary species concerned

If you can get someone to say this in English (or German, Im ok In German). Whatever youre trying to get across is laying there like a big
turd.
Why should we be developing field equations ? Is there something about equations that gives you a hard-on? Do you even understand what were talking about?

I sorta doubt it.

As I said many times. mutations may be random (although they do operate as an infinite Taylor Series), but NATURAL SELECTION is not random, its directionally derivative, responsive to environment, adaptive, and it builds upon existing phenotypic structures .Think of all the "try" systems we can develop

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Why should we be developing field equations ?

Because you have to prove at first your mind-blowing claims that biology is just another branch of chemistry. Where have you proved that statement so far?

farmerman wrote:

Do you even understand what were talking about?

     O.K., I may tell you what I have understood so far. Let's take the favorite explanation of R.Feynman with the analogy of the Chess Game.
     You have a game: a set of rules (the laws of physics, or biology, or whatever); agents (the figures of the chess game corresponding to the structures in biology and to particles in physics) and you have an end-spiel: queen and king black vs queen and king white - this corresponds to your fossil findings. The question is: how can you restore the rules of the whole game and the sets of all figures on the chessboard on the grounds of the end-spiel information ... only? How can you verify that the players are two, and not four, for example? How can you derive and from where all the information about the castle and the pawns (and the rules applied to them), the number of the pawns used and the arrangement of the figures in the beginning of the game (if there has been beginning at all, for the end-spiel might have been a picture of a top design artist, for example).
     The fact that you have a set of rules now does not necessarily mean that you have had that very same set of rules in the same applicable form in the past, not to say to apply these rules in reverse towards past (unknown) events. When St. Hawkins says that information might have been lost in the Universe this does not tell anything to you, doesn't it? Do you want the subtitles of this: you cannot claim any evolution processes unless you prove that biology is just another type of chemistry, only chemistry and nothing else ... and it can be derived from chemical and physical phenomena only, and that the fossil findings that you present as evidences are produced as a result of evolutionary processes ... and are not simply history record or any processes that might have happened with the biosphere in the past.

2 Replies

@Herald,

You need some time off. Try fishing, its relaxing and frustrating at the same time.

0 Replies

fm sounds frustrated lol this one . fb, is projecting all the time.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Because you have to prove at first your mind-blowing claims that biology is just another branch of chemistry.

when did anyone say this. There is a branch of chemistry called Biochemistry, but Im sure you
knew that, didn't you?

Heres the "great ring" of interrelationship among the several dsiciplines of "molecular biology"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Picture worth a thousand words, but some people can't read pictures. Mr. Green

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know