NOT_SO_INTELLIGENT DESIGN, A Tally

real life wrote:

Even if we accept your list of vestigial structures, we are no closer to proving, or providing support for evolution.

At best, vestigial structures only offer proof that organisms can lose[/u] genetic information and thus lose function.

If organisms can lose genetic information then speciation can occur. That's already evolution buddy!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Even if we accept your list of vestigial structures, we are no closer to proving, or providing support for evolution.

At best, vestigial structures only offer proof that organisms can lose[/u] genetic information and thus lose function.

They do not and cannot prove that organisms can gain[/u] additional genetic information that would build a previously non-existent organ or biological system.

You're just refusing to put the pieces together. You treat every piece of information as though it were isolated and unrelated to anything else. Here you are complaining that vestigial organs demonstrate only loss of infomation (even though that also leads to evolution), while ignoring the clear implication of the vestigial organ itself (as well as the biological history).

It's no wonder you don't recognize evolution, you're allergic to implicit evidence, interacting systems and deduction.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

real life wrote:
Even if we accept your list of vestigial structures, we are no closer to proving, or providing support for evolution.

At best, vestigial structures only offer proof that organisms can lose[/u] genetic information and thus lose function.

If organisms can lose genetic information then speciation can occur. That's already evolution buddy!

'Species' is an arbitrary term.

We can draw a dividing line anywhere and say 'oh look, this blonde has an offspring that is a brunette. A new 'species' has begun'

But just because we call it something different , doesn't really mean that 'evolution' has occurred to cause the difference.

If I am 5'0" and slim, and my son is 6'10" and tips the scale at 300, has he 'evolved'? Not really. The genetic information was ALREADY there.

We understand less than 5% of the function of the genome, but we want to kid ourselves that we know when 'evolution' has occurred because a new 'species' has arrived. C'mon.

There are many bear 'species' , and most of them can interbreed with one another. Why are they different 'species'? Because we have chosen to call them such.

Domesticated dogs are all one 'species', but there is a huge variety of body sizes, head shapes, body shapes, range of relative intelligence, and many other differences. Why are they all one 'species'? We have chosen to call them that.

Evolutionists like to point to 'speciation' and claim it as evidence, but it's basically a circular argument since 'species' is an arbitrary term.

0 Replies

Not only that rl but there really should be no need at this stage for you to have to explain it.

The collecting, labelling and catalogue building mania is a specific feature of the Faustian culture sometimes caricatured with a drawing of a mad country parson in the fields with a butterfly net. Butterflies not being like dogs. They don't interbreed like dogs and cats can.

It has its uses. It represents our need to know and control writ large and we have our luxurious lifestyles as a result.

Even just 50 years ago amateur collections of bird's eggs and pinned in glass cases butterflies had social cachet. Not now. Now it has the opposite of cachet. Hence collections of fossils and the expertise of such needing to promote itself and cash in. A form of begging at bottom.

The real question is has it served its purpose as a cultural imperitive. Is the mania a cultural fossil? An atavistic status symbol desperately being clung onto by the rigid mind.

0 Replies

The genetics among closely related (non interbreeding ) species like Darwins finches, have just enough genetic diversity to allow us to distibguish them as different species. Afterall, it doesnt take much genetic diversity to accomplish great changes, sometimes just a gene or two.
Also, biogeography can only give you Creationists major headaches, (that is of course, unless you can present some good argument bolstered with evidence).

Usually, in the wild, species dont interbreed, however there are statistical outlyers that merely make the point. If 99.999% of polar bears dont interbreed with grizzlies (even though they arose from common stock) but 0.0001 do in the wild, does that mean that speciation or evolution is invalid? Try again. Species are defined as groups of organisms that are reproductively isolated from other similar groups, it doesnt guarantee that some interbreeding may not occur.

Darwin developed the theory of natural selection without any benefit of genetics. He assumed that there was a "life force" that connected members of a clade through successive generations, and genetics has shown this to be the case beyond Darwins wildest imagination.

Relying upon fossil evidemnce, genetics, biogeography, cladistics and actual seeing evolution work in the field, is all underpinned by every other science that has relevant congruence to nat selection.( stratigraphy, geochronology, magnetics, electrophoresis,EDAX, physical chemistry, ecology, etc) Try to name one science that can generate a massive data base in support of Creationist dogma.

Ill wait.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

The real question is has it served its purpose as a cultural imperitive. Is the mania a cultural fossil? An atavistic status symbol desperately being clung onto by the rigid mind.

.
Try not to rely on fossil fuels since they are a product of the "collectors urge writ large" The associated sciences have gone waay beyond the country parson naturalist and have gotten into extreme quantitation. Of course I dont know why its worth repeating these bits to you especially , with your head in its present repository its probably too dark up your butt to see and hear anything anyway. Cheers shlurpy.

0 Replies

Once again you have failed to read my post properly which is the real head up arse situation.

I said-

Quote:

It has its uses. It represents our need to know and control writ large and we have our luxurious lifestyles as a result.

You must have had your head up your arse for that.

I am fully aware of the extreme value of the Faustian drive to know and control. I'm not sure I have ever met anybody who appreciates it more than I do. That wasn't the point.

This was the point-

Quote:

The real question is has it served its purpose as a cultural imperitive. Is the mania a cultural fossil? An atavistic status symbol desperately being clung onto by the rigid mind.

You obviously either can't or won't offer your views on that.

0 Replies

I skipped a few pages, so not sure if it was mentioned, but don't we have people now being born without an appendix or wisdom teeth?

Also, I once witnessed, along with my children, a buck showing his young son how to check for traffic before crossing a road. They were standing beside a large fur, would carefully step out and look both ways. A car was coming, so they stepped back. After the car passed, they stepped out to look again. Another car was coming so they stepped back. After about 4-5 times of doing this, it was safe and the father crossed the road with the baby on the side away from where the traffic had been coming.

Evolved or designed? Not sure, but it was fascinating to observe.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I skipped a few pages, so not sure if it was mentioned, but don't we have people now being born without an appendix or wisdom teeth?

Also, I once witnessed, along with my children, a buck showing his young son how to check for traffic before crossing a road. They were standing beside a large fur, would carefully step out and look both ways. A car was coming, so they stepped back. After the car passed, they stepped out to look again. Another car was coming so they stepped back. After about 4-5 times of doing this, it was safe and the father crossed the road with the baby on the side away from where the traffic had been coming.

Evolved or designed? Not sure, but it was fascinating to observe.

I'd go with "learned".

Like the birds that use traffic to smash open hard nuts.

0 Replies

Yeah, but that car had to be designed! Laughing

And, the deer that don't stop and look don't survive to pass on their "stupid stunt" genes.

0 Replies

I saw Richard Dawkins on the Steve Corell show last night. Correll plays a loud Limbaugh -like buffoon right-wing newscaster whose overly impressed with his own skills. Dawkins took it all as fun and , while Correll controlled the content, Dawkins mad a good account of his atheistic view of the world.

Its an amazing bit of courage to present ones beliefs such as atheism to a country that , although youd never know it, professes an 80+% of believers .

0 Replies

Nice Freudian slip fm.

0 Replies

I just receievd my new Nat Geographic Magazine for Nov. There were two good articles well written
1 about the Hox genes and their use as thoracic controllers for arms. wings etc.

2 The popular account of "Little Lucy" plus a reconstruction by a forensics artist, who, I believe , used a computer rather than clay. (not sure though)

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

2 The popular account of "Little Lucy" plus a reconstruction by a forensics artist, who, I believe , used a computer rather than clay. (not sure though)

The latest science eh? Artistic reconstructions. Like aliens are made.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

More likely it is the other way around. There needs to be selective pressure to maintain a metabolically expensive feature such as flight. On the mainland, any beetle with a mutation that affects its ability to fly is likely to be eaten. On an island with no predators and plenty of food within walking distance, beetles with mutated elytra can survive as well as there normal siblings, and they don't waste energy flying. Same principle applies to blind cave fish with non-functional eyes.

The concept of "metabolic expense" seems like a strong contributor to the process of evolution. How come we don't hear about it more often?

What causes metabolically expensive features such as eyes or wings to just fade away? Are they just selected away, or is there some predisposition of the genes to tend to revert to simpler designs?

0 Replies

Well, in cave critters, fer instance, there's no selective pressure against mutations that are deleterious to eyesight. A mutation that leads to retinal dysplasia ay be fatal to a surface dweller, but to an animal who lives its entire life in the dark, it really doesn't matter.

Small, isolated founder populations followed by generations of relative inbreeding might accelerate the process.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Well, in cave critters, fer instance, there's no selective pressure against mutations that are deleterious to eyesight. A mutation that leads to retinal dysplasia ay be fatal to a surface dweller, but to an animal who lives its entire life in the dark, it really doesn't matter.

Loss of pigmentation is even more interesting than eyes.

You can see how an eye might be a liability in the dark because it could get scratched and lead to infection and death.

Pigmentation however, can't be seen in the dark, whether it's there or not, so there must be a metabolic cost to having pigmentation. And the metabolic cost must be strongly exposed to selection (lots of animals lose pigmentation in caves).

Unless there is some genetic predisposition to the degradation of complex organs, then nothing should just 'fade' away. Everything must be selected against.

If metabolic efficiency is selected for so strongly that pigmentation changes, then selection in a general sense must strongly resist complexity (metabolic expense). If this effect is pervasive, then it must have a large scale effect on the diversity of life. Yet, I don't read much about it in evolutionary theory. I wonder why.

0 Replies

well, as far as pigmentation, remember much of it is selected FOR camouflage. WIth that not an issue one way or the other we should see a more equitable split of colored or non-colored. Since, in deep cave critters we dont, then there is another benefit, perhaps its thermo regulation .

AS far as eye vistiges, other senses become selected for, especially touch. If you ever have seen cave crickets, they have these immense feelers and antennae and guide hairs on their legs >They also get selected for having extremely long legs and bodies that are seemingly suspended. So Im gonna go with the package of sensing their environment.

Years ago, I helped on a cave excavation project and we ghad to live in the cave for a few days. There were cave crickets all over(Creepy little shits) They would cover the wals like a shag carpet with moving feelers. They would always be doing the "cricket wave" Even though these were down at the bottom of a very deep cave system in W Va, there were almost a typical Hardy Weinberg expansion of colored , partly colred, mottled and pure white crickets. NOW, was this a population in the process of just being selected for? or was this a standard expansion that wed see in cave crickets? I really didnt want to hang around and study them cause they creeped me out. I didnt get into geology to worry about bugs (unless they are a guide or index fossil)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

well, as far as pigmentation, remember much of it is selected FOR camouflage. WIth that not an issue one way or the other we should see a more equitable split of colored or non-colored. Since, in deep cave critters we dont, then there is another benefit, perhaps its thermo regulation .

AS far as eye vistiges, other senses become selected for, especially touch. If you ever have seen cave crickets, they have these immense feelers and antennae and guide hairs on their legs >They also get selected for having extremely long legs and bodies that are seemingly suspended. So Im gonna go with the package of sensing their environment.

Years ago, I helped on a cave excavation project and we ghad to live in the cave for a few days. There were cave crickets all over(Creepy little shits) They would cover the wals like a shag carpet with moving feelers. They would always be doing the "cricket wave" Even though these were down at the bottom of a very deep cave system in W Va, there were almost a typical Hardy Weinberg expansion of colored , partly colred, mottled and pure white crickets. NOW, was this a population in the process of just being selected for? or was this a standard expansion that wed see in cave crickets? I really didnt want to hang around and study them cause they creeped me out. I didnt get into geology to worry about bugs (unless they are a guide or index fossil)

So you don't think metabolic efficiency is a major contributor to what is being selected against?

Do you think metabolic efficiency is selected against at all?

0 Replies

It sounds as good as any but, Im not qualified to even speculate how Id go about and look for evidence on metabolic efficiency.

Id start with a look at the gross anatomy of some cave critter and make a list of what it displays compared with its above ground pappy. Usually there are packages of morphological fetures that ride together and perhaps metabolic efficiency is one.

I know, for example that cave dwelling salamanders have legs that keep their body off the ground. ( SInce salamanders will often come out from under rocks above ground to get a dose of suns warmth), they dont have to do that in a cave since its usually one boring temperature, which, after one gets acclimated, can be very muggy even at 58 degrees F. Maybe thermal regulation and metabolic efficiency ride together.

0 Replies

NOT_SO_INTELLIGENT DESIGN, A Tally

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know