Evolution? How?

no one has observed the center of the earth, so students should be taught that it might be hollow.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

As you pointed out, the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was "observable"

This is patently a lie, i did not at any time state that "the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was 'observable' " . . . as i obviously am in a conversation with a demonstrable liar, the rest of your post is meaningless, and merits no reply . . .

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Betchya he ain't never seen no gravity, neither - just effects some folks attribute to that myth they overdignify by insisting its explained by a scientific theory. And then there's this whole atmosphere thing ... c'mon, now, who's ever seen AIR?!?!

I have to digress with you here, Big Bird, gravity ain't just a good idea . . . it's the law . . .

(You know i can't resist low humor . . .)

0 Replies

Einie-

Have you noticed the illiberal,intolerant,bad mannered tone of some of the other posters on here.There seems to be a lack of capability in conducting a civilised discussion.If they lived in close proximity to each other I think they would be breaking each other's windows.
Possibly they feel it is important whether there is a God or not.Were I God I might find such a view a mite arrogant.And if there is no God what difference does it make whether there's a God or not.What is important is running vast societies any way you can.I happen to think that some element of supernatural authority is of help.Not necessarily a great deal but some.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
As you pointed out, the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was "observable"

This is patently a lie, i did not at any time state that "the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was 'observable' " . . . as i obviously am in a conversation with a demonstrable liar, the rest of your post is meaningless, and merits no reply . . .

Was it not you who wrote :

Setanta wrote:

you refuse to accept that in the case of the cichlids, we have an observable change from one species to another

You obviously did use the word "observable" in this context, as I quoted correctly.

However, it actually was not observed and is not now observable, isn't that correct?

0 Replies

What was "Observed" was the resultant species from the rift lakes of Africa.These species were evolved from parent stock that was isolated by the rifting and isolation from the Nile and Kagera rivers (Im now including the watershed area)
LAke Victoria has had 300 species and 3 genera of cichlids (all endemic cept 3. THat means they arent found anywhere else)
Lake TAnganyika >140 ALL endemic
Lake Malawi >400 all but 4 endemic
Lake Turkana only 3 remain because of the inytroduction of the Nile perch (a big cannibal) Perches introduced in 1980's

All the above lakes were geologically isolated from the Nile drainage and each lake underwent unique geological histories ( Victoria had almost complete drying with smaller lakes that were isolated for thousands of years in the Pleistocene). Same thing with Malawi.

The non endemic stocks are similar to Nile cichlids. However,We have almost 800 species and a number of genera that appear in these rift lakes that are no where else in the world. The argument among many scientists now is, that from the geologic evidence, the adaptive radiation could have occured within less than 20000 years, and would be a demonstration of "Punctated equilibrium" of an adaptive model. I dont have a dog in that fight , just a single interest in biological clocks
If not adaptive radiation How did we drop all these species in there? How does your "microevolution handle genera aswell as species?" will you quietly raise your bar until we have to "observe" phyla differentiating ?
These fish can be seen to have major morphological differences but relatively minor variations in their DNA as a function of the isolation time or the "bottlenecking" during severe drying of various lakes. So, just like mice monkey and men, the higher order can contain the DNA of the lower, but the lower never contains the unique DNA sequences of the higher(or the more differentiated)

If, when you say we havent "observed" you mean by observe, that someone was required to be there watching the fish evolve, well no of course not, in many cases the human kind wasnt finished evolving yet, but some of the other acceptable definitions of observe are to
1take notice
or
2record scientifically

So in that sense, the speciation was observed.

0 Replies

fm, seems to me that cancer etiology has much in common with evolution: the accumulation of multiple mutations over an extended interval of time eventually producing cells that bear scant resemblance to the ancestral cell. i even found a decent online article along these lines:

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/cancer/cancer_evolution.html

i'm not proposing this as observable evolution, but i'm curious as to whether it's a counterexample to ID claims of irreducible complexity.

0 Replies

yitwail,

I think you'll find there's a higher power controlling the mutations in the cells.

The same higher power that made you get the cancer I guess.

The same higher power who answered our prayers and saved Aunt Bessie I guess....

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

cool article yitwail. I saved and cc it. Ive been told that the progression of cancer is the "programmed deth" of a functional group (apoptosis) taken to a high velocity.
Im gonna have to read it slowly. I hate when they put these damn things in 08 type.

0 Replies

well, it's written for a general audience, so you wouldn't learn that much from it probably, but it's well written & accurate as far as i can tell.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
As you pointed out, the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was "observable"

This is patently a lie, i did not at any time state that "the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was 'observable' " . . . as i obviously am in a conversation with a demonstrable liar, the rest of your post is meaningless, and merits no reply . . .

Was it not you who wrote :

Setanta wrote:
you refuse to accept that in the case of the cichlids, we have an observable change from one species to another

You obviously did use the word "observable" in this context, as I quoted correctly.

However, it actually was not observed and is not now observable, isn't that correct?

Here, i'll go slowly. You wrote: "the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was 'observable.' I didn't write any such tripe. I wrote that we have an observable change from one species to another. For you to have characterized that as stating i was contending for the "evolution of cichlids into cichlids" is a feeble and stupid attempt on your part to make me spew your "a fish is still a fish" crapola.

I did not write "evolution of cichlids into cichlids"--try to get that through your thick skull.

0 Replies

Einie wrote-

Quote:

Which lead me to:
* People do not have any propensity to establish systems of ethics in accordance with their perception of justice, and act in acordance with them, if they would have them act in a manner which differ from their perception of their self interests.

Is this a fair representation of your possition? Please add anything I may have missed.

If you do in deed make that last contention I wouldn't mind seeing it supported.

I think I would say that-yes.I wouldn't phrase it like that though.Ethics and a system of justice seem to me to mean the same thing.I might say that people have no propensity to act against their selfish interests and that an evolutionary mindset has no way of changing that.Only a system of ethics can do it or fear.It is impossible to imagine a writer within a religiously organised community saying,as Orwell said,"The future is a boot stamping on your face for ever and ever".

To support the idea is easy.Babies have no propensity to entertain any notions not conducive to their selfish interests.Neither have gangsters of the worst types.In the one case there is no capacity to know ethics and in the other there is a rejection of any although most gangsters seem to have a thing about Mums.And they have little fear.It is very interesting though that gangsters fascinate the general public as if some atavistic attraction exists to the fearless amoral person.
So really we are talking about socialisation which is as variable as height.We are speaking of tendencies.There are no tendencies in evolution not caused by physical force.Ethical systems are taken up at different levels according to other factors such as rhetorical effectiveness or nervous dispositions and even fear.

If one had a figure like IQ for ethical take up in various settings I think most people would agree that a lower figure now exists in line with the decrease in religious teaching being effective in those societies such as ours.It is common knowledge that we are more selfish these days and also that religious teaching is less effective.

Quote:

The way I see it monotheistic society is giving way to secular society, and things are getting better every day.

I think that is an assertion.We are still a monotheistic society in the foundations.And "getting better" is not a view held by everybody.

Quote:

Personally I belong to the school that would allow people of both sexes the fredom to do anything except infringe upon the rights of others, which would include both property rights and the right not to be molested.

Some people say that property is theft and if one doesn't infringe the rights of others where does discipline come from.Imagine a military training establishment which didn't infringe the rights of others or even an industrial work place.Imagine,if you dare,the ladies organising a fertility strike.What would you do about that?You needn't answer because I know what would be done never mind what I would do.

Yes-your ethical imperatives do shine through and I see in your final remarks-

Quote:

Don't mind me though, I'm just letting my ethical imperatives shine through.

a selfish interest shining through in close symbiosis with your ethical imperatives.

I take it you are doing okay as of now and agree with me that a system of ethical imperatives is a good thing and that exclusive evolutionary thought has no contribution to make to inculcating any.

Generally I think that dissatisfied people are the ones pushing evolutionary exclusivity.Which might be a red rag.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
As you pointed out, the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was "observable"

This is patently a lie, i did not at any time state that "the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was 'observable' " . . . as i obviously am in a conversation with a demonstrable liar, the rest of your post is meaningless, and merits no reply . . .

Was it not you who wrote :

Setanta wrote:
you refuse to accept that in the case of the cichlids, we have an observable change from one species to another

You obviously did use the word "observable" in this context, as I quoted correctly.

However, it actually was not observed and is not now observable, isn't that correct?

Here, i'll go slowly. You wrote: "the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was 'observable.' I didn't write any such tripe. I wrote that we have an observable change from one species to another. For you to have characterized that as stating i was contending for the "evolution of cichlids into cichlids" is a feeble and stupid attempt on your part to make me spew your "a fish is still a fish" crapola.

I did not write "evolution of cichlids into cichlids"--try to get that through your thick skull.

Hi Setanta,

The word I put in quotes from you was "observable" which is the word you used. I must say it's hilarious to see you try to run from what you wrote. You clearly were referring to the supposed evolution from cichlids into cichlids which makes it even funnier. Now THAT'S entertainment. Laughing

0 Replies

Typical "real life" idiocy. I stated that the evolution from one species to another was observable. You attempted to claim that i had stated that evolution from a cichlid to a cichlid was observable--which latter statement is as meaningless and idiotic as are the most of your contributions. My statement was about one species of cichlid evolving into a different species of cichlid, and your continued dull attempts to convert that into your now legenday stupidity--a fish is still a fish--doesn't change that. It is, of course, unsurprising that you are willing to deploy any lie or form of deception in your desparate attempts to support your silly and groundless position. That, however, is not entertainment, because it became boring and predictable hundreds of pages ago.

0 Replies

Here, let's put in terms so simplistic that even a dedicated delusional christian could understand it: I wrote that A evolving into B was observable. Employing one of your favorite tecniques--the use of the lie--you attempted to claim that i'd written that the evolution of A into A was observable. You lied, and you knew it. It's a part of your technique.

0 Replies

How could any 1 in their right mind believe the theory of evolution...God created animals and God created human beings...so 2 say humans were once animals is laughable. Darwin was nothing short of a lunatic..

0 Replies

I'm glad to see that you are willing to state your lunacy outright as a statement from authority, rather attempting the ludicrous mental gymnastics displayed by christians such as "real life" who attempt to make their specious claims plausible. How nice to have an Islamic delusional among the army of christian soldiers devoted to killing Darwin, a man long dead, but certainly not forgotten . . .

0 Replies

Hmmm. What does being a dedicated delusional Christian have to do with evolution and arguments for it. Is there scientific proof that real life is those things? Did he evolve from rational to delusional in a fully observable state?

Laughing

0 Replies

I rather suspect that his mother pooted him out as an amoral and agnostic infant, and that the indoctrination into the state of delusion occurred subsequent to that allegedly happy event . . .

0 Replies

Opinion does not make it so.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know