Yer welcome.
Strange btw, what different people see as 'sense'. I'd have to peddle that idea for hours before certain others would even consider the terms involved anything but offensive. Get that, if you can..
hephzibah wrote:
Righto
I'm not going to jump through your hoops engulf in flames of ignorance. If you tell me that the blue jay did not evolve from a common anscestor, even though the theory of evolution supports it, you need to open your eyes and see the light.
hephzibah wrote:
Resemblance means nothing.
Really?
hephzibah wrote:
You know how they say everyone has a twin somewhere in this world? Well, I met mine, and yes we could pass for twins. Identical twins. However, she is mexican, I am french... I think... probably some indian in there too. So we resemble each other enough to pass as twins, yet we are not linked or related in any way shape or form.
You probably know by now that we humans belong to the same race thus the resemblance.
hephzibah wrote:
I didn't have to cheat to get good grades.
Tell me something why the inability understand evolution?
hephzibah wrote:
I did good in the things I liked. It's really not that hard a concept to understand Jason.
Really? I can REEEEALLY tell.
hephzibah wrote:
Yeah I guess it was pretty silly of me to think you'd admit to something you aren't willing to see.
If I'm not willing to see, it is because it hasn't been properly explained to me.
hephzibah wrote:
LOL Oh yeah... you might actually see it again someday too if you showed up more than once or twice a month!
Because the world I live in makes so much sense to me, I come here twice a month to read nonsense and crazy arguments .it keeps me sharp.
hephzibah wrote:
Not surprised. There are very few who "get me". :wink:
You need to improve your communication skills then.
I'm not going to jump through your hoops engulf in flames of ignorance. If you tell me that the blue jay did not evolve from a common anscestor, even though the theory of evolution supports it, you need to open your eyes and see the light.
In other words:
"Gee Miss heph I really can't answer that question because I don't have proof to show you. How dare you ask me to actually PROVE something in a debate forum!" :wink:
Huh...
Birds belong to the same species...
Thus the resemblance.
Imagine that...
Tell me something why the inability understand evolution?
Why... I'd be glad to Jason! Just as soon as you can tell my why you have such an inability to explain or even give evidence of evolution. :wink:
I did good in the things I liked. It's really not that hard a concept to understand Jason.
Really? I can REEEEALLY tell.
I can reeeeeally tell you can reeeealy tell.
You need to improve your communication skills then.
Perhaps we both do.
Since you would not understand what "proof" nor "evidence" is, I'll show you this comment is evidence of you inability to have understood the theory of evolution back in school. I don't need to assume that .you just proved it.
Lash, hep isn't interested in any other birds. She just wants to know why bluejays are blue. Possibly this is because no-one seems to have a specific study on bluejay evolution and published those results online.
The vast number of studies available on all the different aspects of any number of species are of no interest to hepzibah, because they don't further her church propagandist cause. Hep also supposes that if we don't go out and do her homework for her (or him) that her own theory (magic performed by superbeings) will automatically be accepted by default.
Nevertheless, I've done some homework for you Hep, and here is a study that appears to provide some possibilities. (Note the emphasis on research, rather than a simple jump-to-magical-conclusion preferred by creationists.)
Blue structural coloration of male eastern bluebirds Sialia sialis predicts incubation provisioning to females
Lynn Siefferman and Geoffrey E. Hill,
Plumage coloration has been suggested to serve as an honest signal of benefits that males provide to females. One benefit proposed for females that choose to mate with elaborately colored males is that such males might provide more food resources to the females. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the relationship between the rates at which males provisioned incubating females and the structural ultraviolet (UV)/blue coloration and melanin-based chestnut coloration of male eastern bluebirds Sialia sialis, a sexually dichromatic songbird in which coloration has been shown to be sexually selected in males. We found that males with brighter UV/blue coloration provisioned incubating females more often than did drabber males. Melanin coloration, however, was not correlated with provisioning rates. Moreover, provisioning rates were correlated with the length of time that females spent off the nest, indicating an important benefit of increased male provisioning. These data support the hypothesis that female bluebirds receive direct resource benefits by pairing with males with bright structural coloration.
Here's the link if you'd like to research it further.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0908-8857.2005.03659.x
You'll notice that scientists generally don't provide answers that sound like "here is the reason", they talk in terms of looking at possible reasons ans explanations that are always open to review. That is what science does...it's job is to discover possible reasons and causes, not to provide you with comfortable certainties, for that...you can stick with your church.
Now, about that strawman about gorillas suddenly evolving into humans, which we were discussing before the bluejay diversion...how did that work again?
I'm glad you are back because I wanted to apologize to you for basically mocking you at different times through-out this conversation. That wasn't very nice of me. You really didn't have to do any homework for me, but thanks. I do appreciate it.
Heph--
It is an easy question and requires no knowledge whatsoever. It only requires a willingness to tell the truth.
I'm not trying to trick you, but as you have already figured out--your answer will prove that you already know evolution is a fact of life.
Refusing to answer doesn't change it.
I won't assume any moral high ground as I've been in similar positions.
hep, you seem to think individuals evolve. This is wrong (or even if it isn't, it has nothing to do with evolution).
Imagine there are bears of all colours walking around.
Because of gentics, brown bears mating with brown bears gives generally brown cubs......occaisionally, the genes mess up the bit that causes the brown pigment (mutation) and some albino bears are born all white.
Then, slowly, an ice age decends. The environment becomes snow and ice for thousands of years over the whole top half of the continent, food becomes scarce.
The brown bears are now at a disadvantage in the north, because their prey can see them coming much more easily. The albino bears now have a survival advantage in the ice....and more often survive to reproduce. Albino bears mating with other albino bears give birth to more albino bears. In reality, both colours, and combinations of both will exist in the middle zones, but over time, the white bears will be able to move further and further north, while the brown bears will still be better adapted to the warmer regions.
This is a very rough, simplistic demonstration of how evolution works. Evolution isn't magic, it isn't special, it isn't complicated. It's just a simple, natural explanation of how the plants and animals we see today have come to be the way they are.
THE ONLY REASON this became in ANY WAY controversial was because, for the first time ever, it was possible to seriously consider that no magic was required at any point for the world to be as it is today, and this was an intollerable concept to many religious people who saw this as a challenge to the credilibity of their church.
I see religious people who oppose evolution on the same level as I would view someone who challenged the concept of electricity because it makes a mockery of Thor, who throws lightning bolts from the heavens. Even the Catholic Church (finally) accepts evolution as a fact with which it cannot argue. Surely, they have put in the effort to find out whether it's in conflict with a faith in god, and found that it doesn't?
Hep, thanks for the apology. I appreciate it, though it isn't neccessary. I give as good as I get, yeah?
Thanks Eorl. I can see I have a lot to learn. Yes, you give as good as you get.
hephzibah wrote:How can you be more specific than WHY? Why is why. Yes, she told me about the chemistry. What causes it. Not WHY.
Asking why a Bluejay is blue is like asking why a particular branch in a tree is here, and not there.
Jays come in a variety of colors, you just happen to be focused on the ones that are blue. All the Jays branched off from a common ancestor, but they diversified as the populations grew, and certain colors and forms did better than others, eventually dominating the local landscape.
If you were living in Europe you would be asking why Jays are gray.
Why is a white dog white?
Why is a black snake black?
Why is a red Ferrari red?
You may ask why they chose to paint it red, or why a black snake might survive/exist where a white one wouldn't, or why a breeder bred a white dog instead of a spotted one, but the question 'why' doesn't apply to the condition of something's existence.
hephzibah wrote:It's a matter of why blue instead of a different color. Why is a cardinal red instead of green? Why is any bird the color it is? What is the deciding factor outside of genetics. Genetics cause the color, right?, but are they responsible for "deciding" the color? What I mean is, ok certain genes decide certain things, but what is it that decides which bird has which genes?
When you look at the biological world, you are seeing the tips of branches without seeing the tree from which they grew.
Variation (random) within the genetics of a population cause the population to exhibit an ever growing range of differences in its individuals. For simplity sake, think of it like a spectrum of color spreading out slowly exhibiting every color all smoothly connected to each other.
But natural selection blocks certain portions of the growing spectrum as it grows, allowing only certain 'colors' through. Not only that, but the spectrum begins to fade away several generations back. So by the time you look at the result all you see are particular spots of color which are disconnected from the others.
In the case of biology as an analogy to colors, you would also need to realize that each color can start its own spectrum, which in turn becomes fragmented leaving even stranger bits of color.
