Evolution? How?

timberlandko wrote:

Ya know, rl, the more I think about it, the more I begin to understand at least the thinking behind your fish anology. Mebbe that explains a lot; discussing these matters with such as you sorta puts me in mind of attempting to discuss them with fish ... though the fish at least have an excuse.

So what is your excuse? What does it take for a reptile to become a fish? Smile

0 Replies

When there is so much diversity in prehistoric genetics then we can see fish of all kinds. Fish with fin like fingers, winged fish and crawling fish.

When cataclysm struck the only fish that survived were fish adapted to their particular environment. Deep sea fish survived because of their ability to hold their breath. Fish that lived in mud only survived if they had webbed type feet to walk on top of the mud as a duck.

Fish caught in rapid waters needed to be able to jump out of the waters to go against the flow of water and only they survived if they could flip their fins and "fly" ...

So the only thing that we need to understand is what causes diversity. Well considering that DNA is a code that is prone to errors within species this is a likely candidate. Bacteria made DNA diversity. Bacteria could more readily go into the DNA and alter it in a chaotic way in prehistoric times.

Bacteria has lost much of it's symbiotic affinity with DNA over the millions of years. This has been because bacteria has evolved too to survive. Also species resistant to bacteria, viruses and rapid DNA changes were sometimes more likely to survive too. So both male and female species mutate at the same time... They have mutated offspring and so on. So they both catch a virus or bacteria that alters their DNA and subsequent generations.

So it is the various types of survival perils that the ocean presents that form the various types of creatures land, air and ocean, out of vast diversity of species. These perils are the determining factor that out of vast diversity and continuous mutations that only the fittest survive.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

So you subscribe to the "lets not read anything at all" rule?

I can't figure out how you get that conclusion unless it's just another convenient bit of glue to hold your position upright and allow you to think you have slipped out of the room without anybody seeing you.

Further proof that scientists couldn't run a pie shop. Technical expertise is a tool of mankind and nothing more.

0 Replies

Why don't we see this diversity today? Well disable the immune systems and it will be evolution all over again...

0 Replies

Rez, you are babbling - and you are way, way, off track - apparently, you really haven't any idea what genes, allelles, the constituent chemicals thereof, and environment do, or how evolution works, or for that matter how science works.

Look out for the bright, shiny, darting, tasty-looking things - they've got hooks.

0 Replies

I am not really the scientist in this forum I am more the theist.

Yet, it seems I am the only one who can explain evolution in a coherent way. I find attitudes rule more often over the desire to be right.

This gets to the reason as to why I am a theist.

I have been in this forum for several years and even back to Abuzz for years also. I am now learning a certain perspective that I was unsure of before. It has to do with the immune systems of the people here.

I am not going to say you are all wolves but you are not lambs.

A lamb is tender and changes when they are wrong. Do I need to change? For instance, (dead horse) Tell me that rocks do not breath with atoms and if they do NOT "live" in reality... with the touch of the divine in them as with everything else, I will still consider that rocks may be actually alive.

But rocks are only the beginning. Rocks are the acid test to who and what you are. If rocks are living, you are living, if rocks are dead, you are dead.

We are made from rocks. Carbon is a rock, and we are carbon based life forms.

I did not come here to make friends I came here to compare my knowledge with the general consensus.

But I see the general consensus is a rock too. This rock is firmly footed in tradition which is mostly outdated and has progressed little in the last 100 years. Why? Power...

It is an ancient power struggle for truth.

Somewhere the truth was reversed and I stand in total contradiction to this consensus.

I have in effect in the last seven or eight years in these forums nailed my 95 thesis upon your church doors.

I take no offence from your distain because I am only concerned with God's "reply".

0 Replies

Quote:

I have in effect in the last seven or eight years in these forums nailed my 95 thesis upon your church doors.

You have? The super probly power washed em off since they were in Klingon.

0 Replies

Quote:

Further proof that scientists couldn't run a pie shop. Technical expertise is a tool of mankind and nothing more.

Why should I run a pie shop when we have menials like you to do that.Now gimme an apple raisin and keep your "wisdom" for the ovens

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What we have here is "real life" attempting to play a word game--to substitute an argument about nomenclature for an argument about the process.

Yes. I think I said about the same thing in my previous post to RL:

rosborne979 wrote:

Unlike real animals which have a very detailed definition (as defined by their DNA), words are very crude. The word "fish" covers a myriad of types of fish, and the word "dog" covers a huge range of breeds.

Unlike the DNA which is specific, the words we use to describe things are somewhat arbitrary.

Each time a fish reproduces, the offspring is slightly different than it's parent, even though it's still close enough to be called a fish. Over many generations the changes accumulate, especially with natural selection honing them to new environments. Eventually, when we look back in hind sight, we see that one of those generations of fish no longer resembles the ORIGINAL fish, even though it closely resembles its PARENT.

You are trying to apply the arbitrary generalization of words to the specific world of reality.

You can not box evolution out of the game simply by claiming that it doesn't fit an arbitrary structure which we humans use to categorize things (for convenience).

If you really want to be specific, then each individual is completely unique and deserves a unique name (this is exactly what DNA does). There is no thing which is uniquely "fish", or uniquely "dog".

I haven't seen RL post an answer to this yet.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I did not come here to make friends I came here to compare my knowledge with the general consensus.

But I see the general consensus is a rock too. ".

Never occurred to you it might not be that the parade is out of step with your march rythym, has it?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I am not really the scientist in this forum I am more the theist.

Yet, it seems I am the only one who can explain evolution in a coherent way.

Theist... Comedian... what's the difference, right Rex?

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Why should I run a pie shop when we have menials like you to do that.Now gimme an apple raisin and keep your "wisdom" for the ovens

Another evasion and not even glib. Do you really think folk can't recognise it as such. It seems your capacity to underestimate others cannot be overestimated and further proof that scientists couldn't run a pie shop. Toy soldiers are their playthings. Inanimate objects which will perform exactly what they will have them perform. Human behaviour is outside their ken.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Rez, you are babbling - and you are way, way, off track - apparently, you really haven't any idea what genes, allelles, the constituent chemicals thereof, and environment do, or how evolution works, or for that matter how science works.

Look out for the bright, shiny, darting, tasty-looking things - they've got hooks.

This is not only directed at you? But...

Why do most you "science" obsessionists have to prefaced everything you say to me with an insult?

Instead of telling me I am babbling why don't you SPELL IT OUT.

Unless you yourself don't know how to spell things out and can only tell someone they are babbling.

I could equally say you're babbling and provide no reason or proof to substantiate my claim... That is not only babbling but pure spam. I admit my ideas are in the metaphysical or spiritual realm (AGAIN, that is why I am in the RELIGION and SPIRITUALITY forum.) How about some decorum? So you slap me with your convenient "label".

You all toss up your Easter bunny tripe and then act as if you have dis-proven God. What audacity this diatribe.

Where is the methodical approach? Are you saying bacteria did not cause mutations? Take a simple line of my post and debate it or be silent with the babbling "put downs". That goes for everyone, I am not your punching bag. I am getting tired of everyone's crappy comments. Crappy comments are truly the "babbling" and the worst form of discourse.

Maybe you all go on your tear everything down mode and rip at each other, but I will not be torn down by flippant adolescent mockery.

God is my peace and you are not winning anything with the attitude.

So I will NOT tit for tat and hurl these insults back, I will just (unfortunately) point out that you have to resort to insults because you cannot formulate a coherent thesis that proves me wrong...

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
I am not really the scientist in this forum I am more the theist.

Yet, it seems I am the only one who can explain evolution in a coherent way.

Theist... Comedian... what's the difference, right Rex?

Just as there is a difference between a joker and a fool...

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I have in effect in the last seven or eight years in these forums nailed my 95 thesis upon your church doors.

You have? The super probly power washed em off since they were in Klingon.

Maybe it is just your trifocals.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

RexRed wrote:
I did not come here to make friends I came here to compare my knowledge with the general consensus.

But I see the general consensus is a rock too. ".

Never occurred to you it might not be that the parade is out of step with your march rythym, has it?

Well, I will let you walk on my feet 'till you can walk on your own but I will not let you walk on my face.

0 Replies

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.

Isaac Asimov

0 Replies

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.

Isaac Asimov

Your ignorance of science precedes you and attempting to obfuscate and manipulate evolution into fitting your crazy configuration of ID is like trying to get Windows to make pizza.

0 Replies

http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/835/3481056bj.jpg

0 Replies

Quote:

Another evasion and not even glib. Do you really think folk can't recognise it as such. It seems your capacity to underestimate others cannot be overestimated and further proof that scientists couldn't run a pie shop. Toy soldiers are their playthings. Inanimate objects which will perform exactly what they will have them perform. Human behaviour is outside their ken.

. Tell me the truth spendi, youd love to do what I do and get paid for it.
All you can do is run some bakery. Now if you could bake, that , at least has purpose and is an artform.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know