NationStates Jolt Archive

What in the world are you talking about? We can observe and measure all those things, using various methods. Invent a time machine, and then tell me about the origin of life.
Actually, most of our information comes from results of tests and experiments. We see the results of experiments and theorize what is happening. If the tests continue to show those results, we call our theory good. If something goes wrong, we change the theory. There is no microscope in the world that can "see" an electron. No one on earth has ever "observed" an electron. We can only infer its existence through simple tests.
I didn't think I had to clarify this. It is simple science.

Ah, my mistake. In that case, let's quit teaching abiogenesis until we have invented a time machine.
Has not your entire argument just collapsed then.

What in the world are you talking about? We can observe and measure all those things, using various methods. Invent a time machine, and then tell me about the origin of life.
Really? Then show me the the sun being formed. We can look into the universe and perhaps observe other stars forming. We can't observe early hominids evolving into humans, but we can observe modern life forms evolving into new ones, like bacteria mutating to take advantage of a different host or a different food source.

The principle is the same.

Y'all, Y'all, come on. You're missing my point. We can see the stars with our eyes, therefore they exist, right? We can see the sun, therefore it exists. We cannot see the wind, but is that an illusion? No, it's not. We prove things by VARIOUS methods. The extrapolations in Physics are done by mathematical calculations, which can be proven. You guys know I'm right, and you're just mincing words because you're mad that you can't disprove me.

We cannot see the wind, but is that an illusion? No, it's not.

what.......
no really. what.....

you can feel the wind...

and yes you can see the wind you could cool it down a liquid, or use one of the gold needeld microscopes to see the atoms.

No im completely lost there. what the hell.

Y'all, Y'all, come on. You're missing my point. We can see the stars with our eyes, therefore they exist, right? We can see the sun, therefore it exists. We cannot see the wind, but is that an illusion? No, it's not. We prove things by VARIOUS methods. The extrapolations in Physics are done by mathematical calculations, which can be proven. You guys know I'm right, and you're just mincing words because you're mad that you can't disprove me.


Since when has seeing something been proof of existence? What about the thousands of sightings of UFOs?

what.......
no really. what.....

you can see the wind you could cool it down a liquid, or use one of the gold needeld microscopes to see the atoms.

No im completely lost there. what the hell.
Well for one thing the liquid is not wind anymore, so that's why you're confused.

Y'all, Y'all, come on. You're missing my point. We can see the stars with our eyes, therefore they exist, right? We can see the sun, therefore it exists. We cannot see the wind, but is that an illusion? No, it's not. We prove things by VARIOUS methods. The extrapolations in Physics are done by mathematical calculations, which can be proven. You guys know I'm right, and you're just mincing words because you're mad that you can't disprove me.
We can observe genetic change. We can see in the fossil record that some species came before others. Those facts and others support evolution. They disprove the idea that all creatures were created at the same time in the same form as they exist today. Nobody's mincing words. We just know evolution has taken place. We only argue about the exact mechanism.

Since when has seeing something been proof of existence? What about the thousands of sightings of UFOs?
It's proof to the people who saw it. Have you disproved the existence of UFO's? Has anyone? All I'm saying about this whole thing is that we don't have the ability to go back in time and see the origin of life or even the "design" of human beings, so we can't present any theory on it (regardless of the name thereof) as fact.

Y'all, Y'all, come on. You're missing my point. We can see the stars with our eyes, therefore they exist, right? We can see the sun, therefore it exists. We cannot see the wind, but is that an illusion? No, it's not. We prove things by VARIOUS methods. The extrapolations in Physics are done by mathematical calculations, which can be proven. You guys know I'm right, and you're just mincing words because you're mad that you can't disprove me.
I agree that by seeing something you can assume it to be in existence. I agree that by testing a theory you can assume the presence of things not visibly observable.

My point is, while you can't "test" evolution in the most specific sense of the word, you can observe generations of a species. You can observe changes and make theories. You make more observations, and if they stand up to the current theory, you call it good. But you can't go back in time and "watch" evolution.

I agree that evolution does not explain the beginning of life. We cannot go back in time and "watch" life being created. There have been experiments to "create" life. But no one has been able to create life from non-living material. Evolution first assumes life. Evolution claims that humans did not just show up on this earth. Evolution explains (getting back on topic) why human bodies have an appendix.

Well for one thing the liquid is not wind anymore, so that's why you're confused.

No just your point made no sense, you cant see wind becuase its just a movement of various gas particles, its not a object.

ahh heck
what....?

'Ello again, old chaps.

By the bye, I claim no fatigue to these neverending God vs. Secularism threads. Continue posting them, and I will continue to engage in debate, wot wot! I consider it practice, old chaps!

Now, away from the Olde Enlish-ishe dialect(e), I need, need need need need needneedneedneedneed to know what we're talking about here. It can't still be the original topic, can it? The thread's already 13/14 pages long!

its just a movement of various gas particles
That's right, and I've never seen a gas particle, and I'm not really certain that's really what makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up on a cold autumn day, but I have faith that it's true, because a smart scientist told me so. He can infer that it's there, just like with faith we can infer that God exists and is telling us the truth when the Bible says that He created everything. It's just using a different tool to come to that conclusion.

It's proof to the people who saw it. Have you disproved the existence of UFO's? Has anyone? All I'm saying about this whole thing is that we don't have the ability to go back in time and see the origin of life or even the "design" of human beings, so we can't present any theory on it (regardless of the name thereof) as fact.
We can say that evolution occurs is a fact. We've got too much evidence to say otherwise. We've established earlier in this thread that the idea that humans evolved from earlier life is a scientific theory, and that ID is an argument based on religious faith. This means that Evolution can be taught in science classes, but ID must not. It belongs in comparative religion classes at best.

This means that Evolution can be taught in science classes, but ID must not. It belongs in comparative religion classes at best.

Evolution in the fact that it HAPPENS NOW can be taught. Evolution in the fact that it is how we came about cannot be. It is neither fact nor even a theory. If you don't believe me, then take basic science and you'll find that it doesn't conform to the three principals of forming a theory.

I agree that by seeing something you can assume it to be in existence. I agree that by testing a theory you can assume the presence of things not visibly observable.

My point is, while you can't "test" evolution in the most specific sense of the word, you can observe generations of a species. You can observe changes and make theories. You make more observations, and if they stand up to the current theory, you call it good. But you can't go back in time and "watch" evolution.

I agree that evolution does not explain the beginning of life. We cannot go back in time and "watch" life being created. There have been experiments to "create" life. But no one has been able to create life from non-living material. Evolution first assumes life. Evolution claims that humans did not just show up on this earth. Evolution explains (getting back on topic) why human bodies have an appendix.


Ah yes, how do you know that the observations of your so called 'changes,' are changes? If I'm right, the whole theory of evolution was originally hinged off the fact that species in the Canary Islands were different than those in England! How do you know that they were not created that way.

Not that that roadblock matters much, I do support the idea of minor genetic changes within creatures. That's what makes dog breeding possible. The fact that dog breeding only takes a couple of generations, however, it a major blow to the Atheist Evolutionists, because it suggests that those adaptive changes can occur much faster than they had originally hoped, meaning that we could have dropped our tails and lost our fur (somehow, because it makes us more adapted to our resident places???) in a few thousand or so years. However, since that is clearly not the case, as Eskimos have no more hair than normal people do, I effectively see evolution as wrong, on that one level alone.

However, just because evolution is wrong, that doesn't mean that you should believe in God. You should worship God because He's true, no other reason. Not "don't follow it because it's true, but because of reason A, B, and C," but you should believe in God because He is the only real alternative (if you can call anything else an "alternative").
You say you need proof? That is a perfect example of lack of faith. You have barely any proof of your ideas of the creation of the universe, for example, then what you've made up! While you have just as much proof as we do of what happens to your mind after you die. You might say it dissapears, well I say, because it's true, that it A) Goes to Hell, or B) Goes to Heaven.

Evolution in the fact that it HAPPENS NOW can be taught. Evolution in the fact that it is how we came about cannot be. It is neither fact nor even a theory. If you don't believe me, then take basic science and you'll find that it doesn't conform to the three principals of forming a theory.
Dude, I was a chemistry major. Tell me why the idea that current life evolved isn't a theory. Ok, actually it's several theories each describing how evolution might have occured.

I think the main reason why I can't accept creationism is just my inability to believe that there is a sentient higher being. But I've already been warned about going into that. So I won't.


Is it because you can't accept or you just don't want to accept it? All of the proof is right in front of you.

We can say that evolution occurs is a fact. We've got too much evidence to say otherwise. We've established earlier in this thread that the idea that humans evolved from earlier life is a scientific theory, and that ID is an argument based on religious faith. This means that Evolution can be taught in science classes, but ID must not. It belongs in comparative religion classes at best.

Now, I may have said that my following argument is not a very good one in the past, but that was a dirty, filthy lie. Especially after recent readings:
You have scientific proof that evolution, mayhap even the Big Bang, is true. However, since those to theories are nought but science, what makes the proof valid if it only exists on its own grounds?
You say that relgious evidence is invalid in an argument on behalf of religion. However, how is any less valid than science is? Faith is just as much evidence that faith exists as science is that science exists. It is COMPLETELY unreasonable that you expect us to prove our own ideals with the ideals of the side we oppose, while you are completely incapable of doing the same.

Is it because you can't accept or you just don't want to accept it? All of the proof is right in front of you.
Please provide some of this proof. I've been looking for some time and haven't found any.

We can say that evolution occurs is a fact. We've got too much evidence to say otherwise. We've established earlier in this thread that the idea that humans evolved from earlier life is a scientific theory, and that ID is an argument based on religious faith. This means that Evolution can be taught in science classes, but ID must not. It belongs in comparative religion classes at best.
I think I agree with the basics of this. Finally some common ground.

On that note (a good one), I must away. Thanks for the discussion everyone.

That's right, and I've never seen a gas particle, and I'm not really certain that's really what makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up on a cold autumn day, but I have faith that it's true, because a smart scientist told me so. He can infer that it's there, just like with faith we can infer that God exists and is telling us the truth when the Bible says that He created everything. It's just using a different tool to come to that conclusion.
yes but you CAN, see a gas particle, the most modern micro scopes (not sure it thats the right word) can see individual atoms by utilising magnetic feilds.

Well for one thing the liquid is not wind anymore, so that's why you're confused.
What do you mean "it isn't wind"? Are you stating that a phase change results in the change of the component matter?

Now, I may have said that my following argument is not a very good one in the past, but that was a dirty, filthy lie. Especially after recent readings:
You have scientific proof that evolution, mayhap even the Big Bang, is true. However, since those to theories are nought but science, what makes the proof valid if it only exists on its own grounds?
You say that relgious evidence is invalid in an argument on behalf of religion. However, how is any less valid than science is? Faith is just as much evidence that faith exists as science is that science exists. It is COMPLETELY unreasonable that you expect us to prove our own ideals with the ideals of the side we oppose, while you are completely incapable of doing the same.
A religious argument is invalid in a science classroom, just as a scientific argument is invalid in a church. If we were discussing whether Jesus' death saves people from sin I would be out of line by bringing up a scientific argument about what happens to brain function near the moment of death. In a discussion of evolution it's bad form to base your argument on religious faith.

yes but you CAN, see a gas particle, the most modern micro scopes (not sure it thats the right word) can see individual atoms by utilising magnetic feilds.

ur grammer + sllepnig sux, but I won't go into that right now.

As a side note, our most advanced microscopes can only see the general structure of DNA molecules, they cannot even begin to look at the shape of an atom. But, through their behavior under many tests, we can understand what they consitute, and their overall shape and look.

What do you mean "it isn't wind"? Are you stating that a phase change results in the change of the component matter?
See, you're mincing words again. That's like a certain president claiming no sexual relations because he defines sexual relations differently. Come on now. A liquid is not wind, you wouldn't dispute that, right? Please don't make yourself look foolish.

And with that, I really must be going. Thank you to all, and to all a good night.

What do you mean "it isn't wind"? Are you stating that a phase change results in the change of the component matter?
It's semantics. He's being as literal as the gravedigger in Hamlet. Wind is the motion of a gaseous fluid. In a liquid I guess it's a current, like an ocean current.

A religious argument is invalid in a science classroom, just as a scientific argument is invalid in a church. If we were discussing whether Jesus' death saves people from sin I would be out of line by bringing up a scientific argument about what happens to brain function near the moment of death. In a discussion of evolution it's bad form to base your argument on religious faith.

This is not a discussion on evolution. It started, in fact, as a discussion about CREATION. So, provide proof for me, out of the Bible, that the Bible is wrong.

This is not a discussion on evolution. It started, in fact, as a discussion about CREATION. So, provide proof for me, out of the Bible, that the Bible is wrong.Actually it was a request for people who beleive in ID to reconcile the fact that there are obvious design flaws in humans with their theory that humans were designed.

The bible is wrong on several subjects though. Here's a list of errors and contradictions in the bible. www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Here's one nice error. www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/2/2city92.html

The fact that dog breeding only takes a couple of generations, however, it a major blow to the Atheist Evolutionists, because it suggests that those adaptive changes can occur much faster than they had originally hoped, meaning that we could have dropped our tails and lost our fur (somehow, because it makes us more adapted to our resident places???) in a few thousand or so years. However, since that is clearly not the case, as Eskimos have no more hair than normal people do, I effectively see evolution as wrong, on that one level alone.
The fact that dog breeding takes only a couple of generations proves nothing. Dog breeding is not natural selection. It is guided selection. These are not things that can be compared.

Good Lord, this is still going on? :D

See, you're mincing words again. That's like a certain president claiming no sexual relations because he defines sexual relations differently. Come on now. A liquid is not wind, you wouldn't dispute that, right? Please don't make yourself look foolish.

And with that, I really must be going. Thank you to all, and to all a good night.

Liquid air is still air. Honestly, take some basic chemistry.

The bible is wrong on several subjects though. Here's a list of errors and contradictions in the bible. www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html



Sorry to but in, Ive seen a website that answers all those contradictions by jim meritt. Ill try to find the link.

EDIT: Here is the link:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html

ur grammer + sllepnig sux, but I won't go into that right now.

As a side note, our most advanced microscopes can only see the general structure of DNA molecules, they cannot even begin to look at the shape of an atom. But, through their behavior under many tests, we can understand what they consitute, and their overall shape and look.
hahah i made a post about people insulting gammar when they ran out of valid arguements guess i was right.

oh and your wrong
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BFU/is_8_90/ai_n8589272

We can only 'see' the area just outside the outer electron shell, due to the electrons repulsing each other and all that jazz. but we can 'see' atoms.

Attualy i read there was another method in new scientist a few months back im currently looking through the articles, i know it worked on gold needles and magnetic feilds.

Sorry to but in, Ive seen a website that answers all those contradictions by jim meritt. Ill try to find the link.

EDIT: Here is the link:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html
Actually it's incomplete. Plus I only need one contradiction. Here it is. In genesis two different accounts of creation are given. They are different accounts. Things are created in different order. Since we're discussing evolution/creation, that's the most appropriate.

wait... what is flawed about the human bodys design?

How would the perfect human body be if there was one?

If there was a God then what would be gods motives in creating a human body? Would God want this human body to live forever? If So why and if not then why not? Can we know these things?

To even try to use what we perceive as flaws in the human body or frailties as proof that there wasn't a higher intelligence is seriously flawed in its own right if we cannot even guess what movites this supposed higher intelligence ever had, if any other than being bored. And if there is a higher intelligence, why would it be automatically assumed that it is perfect in every way? What is perfection anyway?

Even if the first simple organisms were complete accidents, whatever evolved from those organisms came from intelligence didn't it? These organisms wanted to know the environment better so they could find food better and reproduce themselves to perpetuate their existence didn't they? From that they developed "new and improved" senses and parts. Maybe they weren't so much new and improved rather than attempts to try an idea out to see how it worked out.

And were these changes in evolution conscious to the organism? Did it say to itself that it would ike to change color in certain environments and it happened or was there planning going on behind the scenes in its subconscious? Who can even begin to say. We are so limited in our knowledge.

I think it is pretty hilarious to think that the intricacies of how our systems work together were all accidents, as some have suggested. These took planning and blueprints. It's seems obvious to me that our current state came from some sort of intelligence, whether it be an outside source or an organisms conscious understanding of its environment and how it wanted to manipulate it as well as a self awareness of how it worked

Did birds accidentally get wings? How did they understand what was needed to lift themselves off the ground? Maybe it took many generations of trial and error with stubs as wings that didnt do anything but wiggle around. One day some bird with a new mutation jumped off a cliff and said, okay here we go again and finally it flew and said to itself "ah hah! Just what I was hoping for" and from then on all its kids could fly.

How do plants and animals/insects form traits that are mutually beneficial without some sort of intelligent interaction?

Are we even close to have the answers to answer these questions beyond speculation that cannot be fully proved or disproved?

*snip*

If you have the time read the past 20 pages, most of your points have been raises and debunked at least twice.

If you have the time read the past 20 pages, most of your points have been raises and debunked at least twice.


yeah I got time for that...and suuuuuuuuuuure they have


you actually debunked my points that we do not know. nice.

yeah I got time for that...and suuuuuuuuuuure they have


you actually debunked my points that we do not know. nice.

Well the points you presented in your lil peice.

Allrounded into its so complex so evolution coulnt have done it.

Its just its getting tireing having to debunk there same point (the above) over and over again, not to mention you seem to show your point is mainly upheld by a fundlemental misunderstanding of evolution.

Well the points you presented in your lil peice.

Allrounded into its so complex so evolution coulnt have done it.

Its just its getting tireing having to debunk there same point (the above) over and over again, not to mention you seem to show your point is mainly upheld by a fundlemental misunderstanding of evolution.

Did I say that?

Hmm you musn't have read what I wrote. I never said evolution couldnt have handled it. I even said that it could be intelligent design if you think about it as the organisms intelligence designing the next mutation or whatever you want to call it.

What do you know about evolution that goes against anything I ahve said. Can all you do it assume what I wrote to be wrong without providing any constructive criticism?

Do you really think you know all there is to know about evolution?

sure we know that things evolve, and that we have proof of different stages of diff organisms evolution. Did I dispute that? I Agree with that wholly. But does that fact negate anything I have said? Open yoru mind and don't subscribe to what you were told or what you ahve read. Just because someone makes a good case for something or convinces you of somethign doesnt mean it's the truth of all truths.

Think man, THINK!

Organisms do not "select" their mutations. They get random ones, and if they work, they get a benefit. If they don't, they die. Natural selection causes the organisms with "good" mutations to prosper and the ones with "bad" mutations or normal ones which are not as good as the "good" mutation die.

To even try to use what we perceive as flaws in the human body or frailties as proof that there wasn't a higher intelligence is seriously flawed in its own right if we cannot even guess what movites this supposed higher intelligence ever had, if any other than being bored. And if there is a higher intelligence, why would it be automatically assumed that it is perfect in every way? What is perfection anyway?

The question is, why are there useless parts of the body? There is no reason to have a useless part. Only evolution can explain useless parts. Unless you assume that "god" is not perfect. Or that he is so perfect no one can understand it.


I think it is pretty hilarious to think that the intricacies of how our systems work together were all accidents, as some have suggested. These took planning and blueprints. It's seems obvious to me that our current state came from some sort of intelligence, whether it be an outside source or an organisms conscious understanding of its environment and how it wanted to manipulate it as well as a self awareness of how it worked
If you think it's that funny, then you don't understand what people are suggesting. It's not like we all woke up one day and *poof* all the little "intricacies" worked together. Things evolved over time. A long time ago (millions of years) the "system" was different.

Did birds accidentally get wings? How did they understand what was needed to lift themselves off the ground? Maybe it took many generations of trial and error with stubs as wings that didnt do anything but wiggle around. One day some bird with a new mutation jumped off a cliff and said, okay here we go again and finally it flew and said to itself "ah hah! Just what I was hoping for" and from then on all its kids could fly.
No. You don't understand. You don't just "grow wings." Or fins. Or learn to speak. Things take a LONG time. You don't just sprout wings. It starts as something small, yet advantageous. Then it develops until it becomes a wing. AFTER A LONG TIME.

How do plants and animals/insects form traits that are mutually beneficial without some sort of intelligent interaction?
One animal adapts to depend on another. End of story. Please learn the theory behind evolution before attacking.

That's exactly it. Many Evolutionists present evolution as fact, and rule out other explanations, which is wrong.

No, it really isn't. Evolution is a fact to as great a degree as anything can be considered a fact.

Organisms do not "select" their mutations. They get random ones, and if they work, they get a benefit. If they don't, they die. Natural selection causes the organisms with "good" mutations to prosper and the ones with "bad" mutations or normal ones which are not as good as the "good" mutation die.

is that a fact or a theory?

I'd like to see where it is written that this is a fact.

is that a fact or a theory?

I'd like to see where it is written that this is a fact.


It's not a fact, but it's the only theory with any proof whatsoever.

is that a fact or a theory?

I'd like to see where it is written that this is a fact.
Fact, read any biology textbook...

Did I say that?


I think it is pretty hilarious to think that the intricacies of how our systems work together were all accidents, as some have suggested. These took planning and blueprints.

Looks like you did to me.


Did I say that?
Hmm you musn't have read what I wrote. I never said evolution couldnt have handled it. I even said that it could be intelligent design if you think about it as the organisms intelligence designing the next mutation or whatever you want to call it.

yes but it woulnt not be evolution if there was a 'interligent' factor to it, the entire point is not that is random, its more of a progression of lucky mistakes, in individual bases, and so codons, and the final tertiary structor of the protien, that gives a slight avantage. You seem to have the idea of massive huge changes, yes those do occur they are called frame shift mutations, the 99% result in a defective birth in mammals, and in anything else the egg woulnt hatch or a cell produced via mitosis would die instanlty.

The mutations that are evenitably sucessfull are the point mutiations and the subsitution mutations that change only one base at a time, which may change the structor of the protien slighlty as it will chance the amino acid.


What do you know about evolution that goes against anything I ahve said. Can all you do it assume what I wrote to be wrong without providing any constructive criticism?

Do you really think you know all there is to know about evolution?

Did i say i was an expert in natural science,

Not by a long shot, im just a penniless A level biology student, and amature philosopher who has a grudge against irationality.

There are a lot of people who have posted on this forum, who know a LOT more about it than me, they would probally better to talk to.

But anyway.

I admint i have so far given a lack of constructive comments to you, please be understanding its 00.33 Am gmt where i am, my mind is not very sharp and i need a bit of shut eye, if your here tomorow at gmt time id be happy to have a proper debate with you.

is that a fact or a theory?

I'd like to see where it is written that this is a fact.
By what mechanism may an organism select it's own mutations? If so why can't humans choose to give birth to winged angels? No, they can't choose their mutations, but a population of a given organism can select existing mutations and select against other ones. It's called sexual selection. It's why male birds are colorfull.

is that a fact or a theory?

I'd like to see where it is written that this is a fact.
By what mechanism may an organism select it's own mutations? If so why can't humans choose to give birth to winged angels? No, they can't choose their mutations, but a population of a given organism can select existing mutations and select against other ones. It's called sexual selection. It's why male birds are colorfull.

The question is, why are there useless parts of the body? There is no reason to have a useless part. Only evolution can explain useless parts. Unless you assume that "god" is not perfect. Or that he is so perfect no one can understand it.


If you think it's that funny, then you don't understand what people are suggesting. It's not like we all woke up one day and *poof* all the little "intricacies" worked together. Things evolved over time. A long time ago (millions of years) the "system" was different.


No. You don't understand. You don't just "grow wings." Or fins. Or learn to speak. Things take a LONG time. You don't just sprout wings. It starts as something small, yet advantageous. Then it develops until it becomes a wing. AFTER A LONG TIME.


One animal adapts to depend on another. End of story. Please learn the theory behind evolution before attacking.


WHy does evolution HAVE to be mutually exclusive from what I am suggesting that our body came from some sort of intelligence. If there are parts of our body that are useless perhaps that is because time has not weeded these things otu of our system. Especially because Humans are so intelligent and oru way of life is changing so fast. I am just not presumign to know anythign to be absolute fact. IS that what you are doing?

Did I suggest anywhere that our bodies did not develope over time? That wings were not stubs at first or something else? Did wings become wings because they were needed and the organism knew it? Or did they just happen to be arms at first for pickign things up and some extra flabby skin helped an organism soar so as it helped them they kept it as their biological blueprint? Your explanation makes no clear case for the point that it is a random mutation. I am merely saying that I don't think it is random.

And no it is not true that one thing only depends on another... somethings form a symbiotic relationship where they help each other out and are needed for each others survival. I dont pretend to know exactly why. You seem to be. Just because you read a book that says somethign happened this way and here are the reasons why, doesnt make it true. Or does it? Do you believe everything you read that is plausible as being completely true? Or do you hold it as possible but not the end all be all of explanations?

Actually it's incomplete. Plus I only need one contradiction. Here it is. In genesis two different accounts of creation are given. They are different accounts. Things are created in different order. Since we're discussing evolution/creation, that's the most appropriate.

The Genesis creation myth contradiction comes from the cobbling together of separate stories. in the first, what many claim to be older myth, man, like the other two-sexed animals, is created in a pair. what then happens is a bible snip of the story of lilith, adam's first wife. lilith didn't like adam, esp. his insistence on the missionary position, so, according to legend, she flew off into the red sea to become a child-devouring demon. then adam started desiring on animals, so god made him eve to be more sexually subservient.

There's also a great version of the myth that says humans were originally joined together sexually, the "beast with two backs." The story gods that god (perhaps the creator, perhaps a lesser god) was jealous of our sexual bliss and ripped us apart.

One of my favorite interpretations of the bible's creation myth is that Adam and Eve were not meant to represent the first humans, per se, but the first of god's people. But this, again, is an interpretation, and interpretation is out if you are a strict literalist. That was my main problem with the website, it really didn't seem to take on the problems generated by taking the bible literally.

Is there some way of combining gay marriage with evolution with abortion iwith gun control in one big topic?

Man, that thread would be the fight to end all fights.

Holy Hell would that be the best argument EVER!

WHy does evolution HAVE to be mutually exclusive from what I am suggesting that our body came from some sort of intelligence. If there are parts of our body that are useless perhaps that is because time has not weeded these things otu of our system. Especially because Humans are so intelligent and oru way of life is changing so fast. I am just not presumign to know anythign to be absolute fact. IS that what you are doing?
If I correctly interpret your argument, you are saying that the process of adaptation does happen by a guiding hand? Things adapt and change due to an external force?

To clarify, I don't pretend to be a scientist. I don't believe every thing I hear or read in a book. I tend to question things that are written without proof. I have read a number of books on evolution and genetic theory. I have read biology books for class and listened to intelligent discussion. From these sources I devise my own beliefs and views. I read one study on human development with only one source and a few poor translations. The author did not bother adding a source or additional facts. Instead leaving it up to the reader to trust the story based on "faith". I tend not to agree with that book.

Looks like you did to me.




yes but it woulnt not be evolution if there was a 'interligent' factor to it, the entire point is not that is random, its more of a progression of lucky mistakes, in individual bases, and so codons, and the final tertiary structor of the protien, that gives a slight avantage. You seem to have the idea of massive huge changes, yes those do occur they are called frame shift mutations, the 99% result in a defective birth in mammals, and in anything else the egg woulnt hatch or a cell produced via mitosis would die instanlty.

The mutations that are evenitably sucessfull are the point mutiations and the subsitution mutations that change only one base at a time, which may change the structor of the protien slighlty as it will chance the amino acid.



Did i say i was an expert in natural science,

Not by a long shot, im just a penniless A level biology student, and amature philosopher who has a grudge against irationality.

There are a lot of people who have posted on this forum, who know a LOT more about it than me, they would probally better to talk to.

But anyway.

I admint i have so far given a lack of constructive comments to you, please be understanding its 00.33 Am gmt where i am, my mind is not very sharp and i need a bit of shut eye, if your here tomorow at gmt time id be happy to have a proper debate with you.

thanks for a more detailed post, but you are talking in a foreign tongue it looks like. I have no dea how what you said relates to what I said. lol

You sound like a natural science expert to me :P

I dont think that because something evolves because of an organisms want to have some sort of mutation happen to it, htat it ceases to become evolution. Just not the evolution that you read about. It's still evolving no?

By what mechanism may an organism select it's own mutations? If so why can't humans choose to give birth to winged angels? No, they can't choose their mutations, but a population of a given organism can select existing mutations and select against other ones. It's called sexual selection. It's why male birds are colorfull.


By the mechanism of though maybe? Organisms do have intelligence and they do have thought I imagine since they can make decisions. Who knows, I am only positing this is a theory. I can't see how our advanced state could come about from random mutations. I haven't seen any arguments that say anythign other than "it seems mroe reasonable that way" or your "organisms got the upper hand with their mutation because another organism liked them because of it so they decided to produce more of each other". There is no proof that genes are not somehow affected by thought. Have you ever heard of The Biology of Belief? They seems to be proving that our genetics are in fact affected by our thoughts. I don't subscribe to this book or any other but it seems reasonable to me by what I have read.

If I correctly interpret your argument, you are saying that the process of adaptation does happen by a guiding hand? Things adapt and change due to an external force?

To clarify, I don't pretend to be a scientist. I don't believe every thing I hear or read in a book. I tend to question things that are written without proof. I have read a number of books on evolution and genetic theory. I have read biology books for class and listened to intelligent discussion. From these sources I devise my own beliefs and views. I read one study on human development with only one source and a few poor translations. The author did not bother adding a source or additional facts. Instead leaving it up to the reader to trust the story based on "faith". I tend not to agree with that book.

No I never said that it had to be an external intelligence that guided evolution. I said it's one theory to think about, but an organisms own thought can perhaps also be considered. Why is it so hard to believe that an organisms thought can affect the genes and future evolution of that organism. It seems more plausible to me that an organisms wants and needs are what determines what mutations might come next because what is the point in trying something new unless it is going to be useful to that organism? Ialso said that perhaps the change occurs below the subconscious and doesnt have to necessarily be a conscous thought driving the changes.

I don't agree or disagree with any of your theories as I can not truely know, but it is better to keep an open mind and not rule anything out if there is not absolute beyond doubt fact about something. Belief != fact. WHat you chose to belief is still based on faith.

WHat you chose to belief is still based on faith.


We just discussed this in class today, some of my classmates maintained this, but I think it is not fair to compare belief in religion to belief in scientific theories, if that is what you are doing.

As usual, the magic ignorance wand waving. Oh, and why do Christians always TYPE like THIS in which THEY choose to capitalize important WORDS?
*gives new pacificus the look*

i type like i speak

and im an atheist.

How do plants and animals/insects form traits that are mutually beneficial without some sort of intelligent interaction?
What does symbiosis have to do with intelligence?

A lot of people in this discussion have talked about bacteria helping animals to digest grass. Actually, much of our digestive system depends on benign bacteria helping us. I can't recall where, but scientists found that the first complex cells consist of one-celled beings that have swallowed other one-celled beings and continue to work together. Today, symbiosis is becoming more widely recognized as a factor that helped speed up evolution. But cooperation still isn't intelligent design.

Of course, none of this tells anyone how the first one-celled being came to be. But I think it's simply a matter of time before we find out, and it's going to be gory and boringly mundane, just like all other scientific findings that have debunked religious superstition in that particular area. Religion is hanging on to very thin threads as it is already. Soon all that will be left is arguing what caused the universe to come into existence, because that's outside of a scale we can test, observe or extrapolate.

Addressing the general topic, I'd say the only reason why anyone would claim that the things that exist are part of some plan, is that they're too scared of the idea that maybe in fact it isn't so. It is possible to prove that religion is a part of human need. Everything else is pure speculation. Not to say it shouldn't be discussed in school - I wouldn't trust church to give people an unbiased idea of what free will consists of - but it belongs into philosophy and ethics classes, not science.

By the mechanism of though maybe? Organisms do have intelligence and they do have thought I imagine since they can make decisions. Who knows, I am only positing this is a theory. I can't see how our advanced state could come about from random mutations. I haven't seen any arguments that say anythign other than "it seems mroe reasonable that way" or your "organisms got the upper hand with their mutation because another organism liked them because of it so they decided to produce more of each other". There is no proof that genes are not somehow affected by thought. Have you ever heard of The Biology of Belief? They seems to be proving that our genetics are in fact affected by our thoughts. I don't subscribe to this book or any other but it seems reasonable to me by what I have read.

i dont think ive ever ran across any information/evidence supporting that an organism can _will_ its genetic material to change. I believe some of the supporters of Lamarckian evolution (the more common evolutionary theory before Darwin's natural selection theory)-basically that traits aquired by the individual during it's lifetime were then passed on to future generations. cant remember where, but someone proposed that ancestral-giraffes 'willed' their necks longer to eat those tasty leaves up out of reach.
granted, Lamarckian evolution never held up to testing, so it was pretty much dismissed.

anyways, if you have any more info on the biology of belief, or even just a summary, id at least like to hear what it is

thanks for a more detailed post, but you are talking in a foreign tongue it looks like. I have no dea how what you said relates to what I said. lol

You sound like a natural science expert to me :P

I dont think that because something evolves because of an organisms want to have some sort of mutation happen to it, htat it ceases to become evolution. Just not the evolution that you read about. It's still evolving no?

Sorry, i was teh tired.

Experent no, amature prehaps.

What are your saying that a organism has some sort of concious input to its evolution, i belive that idea was actually a forerunner to evoltuion.
e.g girffages had long necks becuase they wanted to eat from high trees.
(flawed but prehaps on the right track)

No an organism has no effect on its evolution, as it all occurs during DNA replication (more spefiicaly in the sexual organs producing gammetes(sex cells)) which is basically an internal process to the cell, it cant be influenced from the outside as far as i know, (i have a kinda of 2nd thier understanding of it, meaing i understand the process in actuall biological terms just im not expert so i dont know if chemicals can even enter the nucleous bar Rna or enzymes and only by chaning the Dna could you get a mutation.)
I know of no hormones that can enter or effect the DNA, and enzymes the only thing i know of that can effect the DNA, can't enter cells, to my knowledge.

For those of you interested in reading about the Biology of Belief (how our consciousness affects our genes). I shall include some snippets from the articles to give you a little taste. Again I am merely putting this point of view across for consideration, not as an absolute truth. Some of you I feel have a hard time separating fact from theory and assume theories that show ssigns of having truth to thaem as being the final absolute truth, and others of you seem to think that because I don't discount the idea of an external conscious intelligence that I am somehow religious :rolleyes: All I want is for you people to stop thinking that it's all figured out and to quit putting people down when they have an alternate viewpoint :


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The New Biology (http://www.brucelipton.com/newbiology.php)

Recent advances in cellular science are heralding an important evolutionary turning point. For almost fifty years we have held the illusion that our health and fate were preprogrammed in our genes, a concept referred to as genetic determinacy. Though mass consciousness is currently imbued with the belief that the character of one’s life is genetically predetermined, a radically new understanding is unfolding at the leading edge of science.

Cellular biologists now recognize that the environment (external universe and internal-physiology), and more importantly, our perception of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. The lecture will broadly review the molecular mechanisms by which environmental awareness interfaces genetic regulation and guides organismal evolution.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Insight into Cellular "Consciousness" (http://www.brucelipton.com/cellular.php)

The notion that the nucleus and its genes are the "brain" of the cell is an untenable and illogical hypothesis. If the brain is removed from an animal, disruption of physiologic integration would immediately lead to the organism's death. If the nucleus truly represented the brain of the cell, then removal of the nucleus would result in the cessation of cell functions and immediate cell death. However, experimentally enucleated cells may survive for two or more months with out genes, and yet are capable of effecting complex responses to environmental and cytoplasmic stimuli (Lipton, et al., Differentiation 1991, 46:117-133). Logic reveals that the nucleus can not be the brain of the cell!

Studies on cloned human cells led me to the awareness that the cell’s plasmalemma, commonly referred to as the cell membrane, represents the cell’s "brain.">Cell membranes, the first biological organelle to appear in evolution, are the only organelle common to every living organism. Cell membranes compartmentalize the cytoplasm, separating it from the vagaries of the external environment.>In its barrier capacity, the membrane enables the cell to maintain tight "control" over the cytoplasmic environment, a necessity in carrying out biological reactions. Cell membranes are so thin that they can only be observed using the electron microscope.>Consequently, the existence>and universal expression of the membrane structure>was only clearly established around 1950.>


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Human Genome Project: A Cosmic Joke... (http://www.brucelipton.com/genome.php)

In 1893, the chairman of physics at Harvard University warned students that there was no more need for additional PhD's in the field of physics. He boasted that science had established the fact that the universe was a matter machine, comprised of physical, indivisible atoms that fully obeyed the laws of Newtonian Mechanics. Since all the descriptive laws of physics were "known," the future of physics would be relegated to making finer and finer measurements.

Two years later, the Newtonian concept of a matter-only universe was toppled by the discovery of subatomic particles, X-rays and radioactivity. Within ten years, physicists had to discard their fundamental belief in a material universe for it was recognized that the universe was actually made of energy whose mechanics obeyed the laws of Quantum Physics. That little piece of Universe Humor profoundly altered the course of civilization, taking us from steam engines to rocket ships, from telegraphs to computers.

Well…the cosmic prankster has struck again!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nature, Nurture and Human Development (http://www.brucelipton.com/nature.php)

The role of nature-nurture must be reconsidered in light of the Human Genome Project's surprising results. Conventional biology emphasizes that human expression is controlled by genes, and is under the influence of nature. Since 95% of the population possess "fit" genes, dysfunctions in this population are attributable to environmental influences (nurture). Nurture experiences, initiated in utero, provide for "learned perceptions." Along with genetic instincts, these perceptions constitute the life-shaping subconscious mind. The conscious mind, which functions around age six, operates independently of the subconscious. Conscious mind can observe and criticize behavioral tapes, yet can not "force" a change in subconscious.


One of the perennial controversies that tends to evoke rancor among biomedical scientists concerns the role of nature versus nurture in the unfoldment of life [Lipton, 1998a]. Those polarized on the side of nature invoke the concept of genetic determinism as the mechanism responsible for "controlling" the expression of an organism's physical and behavioral traits. Genetic determinism refers to an internal control mechanism resembling a genetically-coded "computer" program. At conception, it is believed that the differential activation of selected maternal and paternal genes collectively "download" an individual's physiologic and behavioral character, in other words, their biological destiny.

In contrast, those endorsing "control" by nurture argue that the environment is instrumental in "controlling" biological expression. Rather than attributing biological fate to gene control, nurturists contend that environmental experiences provide an essential role in shaping the character of an individual's life. The polarity between these philosophies simply reflects the fact that those endorsing nature believe in an internal control mechanism (genes) while those supporting nurture mechanisms ascribe to an external control (environment).

The resolution of the nature and nurture controversy is profoundly important in regard to defining the role of parenting in human development. If those endorsing nature as the source of "control" are correct, the fundamental character and attributes of a child are genetically predetermined at conception. Genes, presumed to be self-actualizing, would control organismal structure and function. Since development would be programmed and executed by the internalized genes, the basic role of the parent would be to provide nutrition and protection for their growing fetus or child.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution by BITs and Pieces: An Introduction to Fractal Evolution (http://www.brucelipton.com/fractal.php)


The membrane boundary enveloping each biological cell comprises the structural basis of a biological processor system (see article: Cellular Consciousness). As a processor, the cell’s membrane receptors scan the environment for signals. Obviously the environment is awash in signals. If all the signals were audible, the environment would sound like blaring noise. However, the specificity of reception that is characteristic for each receptor IMP, enables it to distinguish its complementary signal out of all the jumbled ambient noise. The cell’s ability to selectively filter useful information out of "chaotic" noise resembles the function of Fourier transformations [mathematical filtering processes which find signals within what appears to be noise] on complex inputs to perceive specific frequencies as informational signals. While the environment is in a sense "chaotic," with hundreds and thousands of simultaneously-expressed "signals," the cell can selectively read only those signals that are relevant to its existence.

Based upon the functional and structural features of the cell membrane, each single cell (e.g., amoeba) represents a self-powered microcomputer system. As in digital computers, the power or information handling capacity of the "cellular" computer is determined by the number of its BITs it can manage. In computers, the BITs are gate/channel complexes, in the membrane processor, the BITs are represented by receptor/effector complexes. The IMP molecules comprising the cell’s BITs have defined physical parameters and therefore can be "measured."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Biomagnetism and Energy-Medicine (http://www.brucelipton.com/biomagnetism.php)

It is well established that the function and metabolism of the human body is an electrochemical system. Modern medicine is preoccupied with studying, analyzing and treating mainly the chemical side of the equation. For the most part, the electrical half of human systems has been completely ignored. Physicians use several of the body's electrical systems for diagnosis (e.g., EKG, EEG, EMG and MEGs), though even fewer uses of the electromagnetics are found for therapeutics (e.g., cardiac pacemakers, defibrillators, TENs devices, bone healing instruments).

Physiology reveals that most of the body's natural chemicals are released by an electrical signal or an electrochemical reaction. Can these same chemicals be released by applying an external electrical signal? Can different EM parameters stimulate different chemical systems?

Simply stated, can externally applied bioelectromagnetic fields influence cell and organismal behavior and expression? The answer is a clear, resounding, and unequivocal, YES! Electromagnetic energy fields, which include energies in the ranges of microwaves, radio-frequencies, the visible light spectrum, ELF and even acoustic frequencies, have been shown to profoundly impact every facet of biological regulation. Specific frequencies and patterns of electromagnetic radiation regulate: cell division; gene regulation; DNA, RNA and protein syntheses; protein conformation and function; morphogenesis; regeneration; and nerve conduction and growth.

If electromagnetic fields can affect enzymes and cells, there is no reason of principle why one should not expect to be able to tailor a waveform as a therapeutic agent in much the same way as one now modulates chemical structures to obtain pharmacological selectivity. The high specificity of electromagnetic signals may result in the "direct targeting" of activity, without many of the side-effects common to pharmaceutical substances.

OMG my sig was hacked!

Well all that information is from that same source.

A Doctor Bruce Lipton.

so.... errrrg

Find me some it from a respected biological journal and i might be happier.

The guy dose have a Ph'd so i am reading it, but its possible hes just a mavrick fudgeing it a bit to try and make a name for himself.

Well in all fairness, Einsteins work was all from the same source and not found in any respected scientific journal until it was accepted. I don't know of anyone else doing the work that Dr. Bruce Lipton is doing.

Of course he is going to show results that "prove" his point. Of course there will be other scientists that disagree with him. Einstien had a whole gaggle of respected scientists calling him a nutter and they all got pwned!

AGAIN I am merely posing this as a theory with seemingly solid "proofs" and not the truth of all truths.

Thank you for keeping an open enough mind to read it.

Well all that information is from that same source.

A Doctor Bruce Lipton.

so.... errrrg

Find me some it from a respected biological journal and i might be happier.

One of the most prominent warning signs of questionable science... the person who goes to much trouble to emphasize their degrees and such while publishing their 'ground breaking work'... in a book they're selling through the popular media instead of presenting in a peer reviewed journal.

I hate to do this. I know most people are really sick of creation/evolution threads. Sorry folks, I'm just too curious to let this go.

This thread is only about one question. That question is: How do you reconcile the fact that the human body has some stupid design flaws with the idea that an intelligent being designed it?

Examples of stupid design flaws: Appendix and Occular nerve connection in front of retina

They seem pretty consistent with evolution, but I don't think they seem consistent with intelligent design.

why is it your so insistent that Intelleigent design and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.. ?? yes some finatics may say they are... but moderist realize that evolution can work within intelegent design quite nicely..

I don't see him going through any trouble to emphasize what his qualifications are. He calls himself Bruce Lipton PHD at the top of the page as any doctor would on their webpage, especially if they want to try to add credibitlity to their work.

How do you know anything about what channles this guy is goign through to get his work recognized? Are you en expert on teh life of Dr. Bruce Lipton? Have you been tracking his every move since he began to make his claims? I'd really like to know.

Also, is it not true that it is very hard to even get legitimate science to be recognized, when it goes against what is currently known? If you can get widespread public support for something, it's easier for you to get the scientific community to give it more of a chance.

This from a friend of mine:
There has been one (singular) peer-reviewed article published on intelligent design (in a fairly minor journal on taxonomy). It received less-than-favorable criticism, but it is encouraging to see intelligent design advocates at least attempt to give their theory scientific legitimacy the same way ever other modern theory has - by convincing the professional community.

You can find the article here. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177)

A critique of it is located here. (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html)

why is it your so insistent that Intelleigent design and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.. ?? yes some finatics may say they are... but moderist realize that evolution can work within intelegent design quite nicely..
no it cant, evolution is soley influenced by natural factors, if god were to inverence it woulnt be evolution anymore simply becuase he would interfear with the suviral of the fittest princle.

why is it your so insistent that Intelleigent design and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.. ?? yes some finatics may say they are... but moderist realize that evolution can work within intelegent design quite nicely..

That's a cop out even if it does work. It's basically accepting that the evolution of species shows no evidence of divine interference, while going on to say that that doesn't prove that God exists.

It's impossible to logically prove for absolute certain that God doesn't exist. However, unless there is even a small bit of evidence to show that he does then there is no reason to think it. The onus is on the ones putting forward a positive statement to demonstrate the truth in it, either by empirical evidence or by logical proof. There is no possibility of a logical proof (the ontological argument is bunk), and you are, in saying that God is making something look like there is no God, admitting that there is no evidence in that area either. So where is the evidence?

no it cant, evolution is soley influenced by natural factors, if god were to inverence it woulnt be evolution anymore simply becuase he would interfear with the suviral of the fittest princle.
Well said, but... are you seeing double? ;)

I don't see him going through any trouble to emphasize what his qualifications are. He calls himself Bruce Lipton PHD at the top of the page as any doctor would on their webpage, especially if they want to try to add credibitlity to their work.

And then includes a very flattering biography of himself... written in the third person no less... and then links to his curriculum vitae listing every professional position he has ever held and every society he has ever joined...

How do you know anything about what channles this guy is goign through to get his work recognized?

It's right there on the page you linked.

Also, is it not true that it is very hard to even get legitimate science to be recognized, when it goes against what is currently known?

Quite often.. yes. And there's a reason for that. To go against what is currently known in science peer reviewers tend to have this unreasonable requirement that you back up the counter-claims you are making with some rather substantial evidence.

Publishers of popular mass media are considerably less stringent in their standards.

Scientists are expected to submit new findings to peer review to publish. It's the professionally ethical thing to do.

So when someone chooses the latter medium over the former to spread his 'amazing new scientific information', guess what great blaring warning sirens start going off?

If you can get widespread public support for something, it's easier for you to get the scientific community to give it more of a chance.

No, it isn't.

If you can get good solid FACTUAL support for something it's easier to get the scientific community to give it a chance. Science isn't a democratic process, and it never has been. Popular opinion unsupported by solid observation and research results means absolutely NOTHING.

That's a cop out even if it does work. It's basically accepting that the evolution of species shows no evidence of divine interference, while going on to say that that doesn't prove that God exists.

It's impossible to logically prove for absolute certain that God doesn't exist. However, unless there is even a small bit of evidence to show that he does then there is no reason to think it. The onus is on the ones putting forward a positive statement to demonstrate the truth in it, either by empirical evidence or by logical proof. There is no possibility of a logical proof (the ontological argument is bunk), and you are, in saying that God is making something look like there is no God, admitting that there is no evidence in that area either. So where is the evidence?

where is the logical proof for macro evolution ? as far as i know in the scientific community.. there is none. Yet we accept without proof it is likely to occur. I dont see how evolution proves no divine interference, when one can logically argue something as random as mutation infact IS the devine interference.. and mutation is what fules evolution.

where is the logical proof for macro evolution ? as far as i know in the scientific community.. there is none.

I think you mean the "evidence". "Proof" is for mathematics.

Let's see... the fossil record, the genetic nested hierarchy (endogenous retroviral insertions are particularly ironclad evidence of it), the existence of vestigials and atavisms, etc, etc...

And... oh yeah... we've seen it happen.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

*snippies*


Oh okay thianks I see now, I didn't look at every page on the site. Okay so he lists his credentials. What is wrong with that? Shouldn't a person list their credentials if they want to convince someone of something they are working on? I guess he should ahve said that he barely passed med school and that was only because he cheated but please pay attention to what he has to say anyway.

If you think that scientists don't overlook proofs so that they don't have change their view on something you are highly mistaken. It's actually a very political game. I have a friend in teh anthropology field that was talkign about somethign on e of his professors discovered and was offering very solid proof of it, but it went against something that a more respected scientist has postulated and that higher up guy shot him down and trashed his work and reputation without even reading it.

no it cant, evolution is soley influenced by natural factors, if god were to inverence it woulnt be evolution anymore simply becuase he would interfear with the suviral of the fittest princle.

and yet sceince has no explaination to answer the question why it is these mutations take place in the first place.. and how they occur... I would argue mutation IS the devine intervention in nature ... or gods way of influencing life. He created man (not in 7 days) but over millions of years, and now that we have reached his vision we no longer evolve.. and as science has so deterimned.. man is infact no longer evoloving

and yet sceince has no explaination to answer the question why it is these mutations take place in the first place.. and how they occur... I would argue mutation IS the devine intervention in nature ... or gods way of influencing life. He created man (not in 7 days) but over millions of years, and now that we have reached his vision we no longer evolve.. and as science has so deterimned.. man is infact no longer evoloving


Thats not true, there are still strange genetic mutations in humans - like there was a kid in germany that was born with unlimited muscle growth. I don't know the exact issue but it was somethign liek that. Supposedly we have something that limits our muscle growth.

I think you mean the "evidence". "Proof" is for mathematics.

Let's see... the fossil record, the genetic nested hierarchy (endogenous retroviral insertions are particularly ironclad evidence of it), the existence of vestigials and atavisms, etc, etc...

And... oh yeah... we've seen it happen.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

im not sure these are evidence of macro evolution though... even with fossil records we cannot show how humans have evolved, while we see different stages of humaniods there is no linking factor in fossil record... What you are showing is evolution on a micro scale within a species.. not macro evolution from one species to another...

The very fact that our fossil records are incomplete is what makes accepting macroevolution impossible... because if you follow the first theory that macroevolutoin is made up of an accumulation of microevolution we dont have fossils showing gradual change from say apes to humans, and if you support the second theory of periods of sustained stais then a short period of quick change.. we are still lacking that "missing link" the species between ape and human. In fact its even dificult to speak of evolution in plants.. as we have heard recently some plants contain backup genetic data so that in the event of mutation they may revert to genetic structures which they did not inheret form their parent plant (going back one or two generations to a more sustained genetic structure)... which in some ways flys in the face of evolution.... A topic I fould particularly interesting if nothing more then it being an astonshing find

Thats not true, there are still strange genetic mutations in humans - like there was a kid in germany that was born with unlimited muscle growth. I don't know the exact issue but it was somethign liek that. Supposedly we have something that limits our muscle growth.

... but that is not evidence of evolution... that is simply said a deviant mutative event (this mutation does not show evidence of existance in enough humans to propose a change on an evolutionary level)... which occurs frequently in any species... however, as a species humans are not evolving.

if this guy breeds and it becomes something that spreads thruought humanity then it will become pert of our human evolution. Perhaps this could be a trait that serves humanity well.

I don't understand your statement.


My statement means what we are arguing here are two irrelevent and unassociated theories. It's not possible to make a one or the other decision.

where is the logical proof for macro evolution ? as far as i know in the scientific community.. there is none. Yet we accept without proof it is likely to occur. I dont see how evolution proves no divine interference, when one can logically argue something as random as mutation infact IS the devine interference.. and mutation is what fules evolution.

There is no logical proof, but there is plenty of empirical evidence instead. God doesn't have even that.

And what planet are you on when you think that a random process is evidence of God? (Actually you said it was logical proof, but as it clearly can't be that because there was no logic involved, you must have been referring to empirical evidence).

The lack of evidence of 'missing links' isn't really any indication that there is no micro-evolution. We have few enough examples of many of the species that we know exist. The chances of us having them all are tiny. We would expect there to be large gaps because our knowledge is so small. What we have is not at all inconsistent with evolution. It is incredibly highly suggestive of it, though we do not yet know all the ins and outs.

There is, by contrast, no evidence of God in any of this, as it can all be explained just the same but without him.

... but that is not evidence of evolution... that is simply said a deviant mutative event (this mutation does not show evidence of existance in enough humans to propose a change on an evolutionary level)... which occurs frequently in any species... however, as a species humans are not evolving.

Deviant mutant events are always the first stage in any evolution. Any mutation has to happen in a single organism originally. Most mutations fail, and do not spread, of course. This will almost certainly be the same.

Evolution doesnt have *failing* evidence AND evolution is a fact. We know Evolution happens, it's the *exactly how* and the mechanisms that make it work that we are not sure on.



I have had enough of the idiotic missconception of the evolutionary theory (aka the evolution of man) and microevolution. Get your fact strait, Micro is incapable of disproving or proving anything past the fact that animals are capable of addaption over time to fit their nitches. The evolutionary theory the main thing that Christians should have a problem with is the idea that it is possible for something to evolve from one form of life to another, I.E. lizard to bird. they are NOT the same thing please stop implying that one proves the other.

what is crazy is that two things of the same mutation have been shown to breed and have offspring that lose the mutation and resemble the parents.

There is no logical proof, but there is plenty of empirical evidence instead. God doesn't have even that.

And what planet are you on when you think that a random process is evidence of God? (Actually you said it was logical proof, but as it clearly can't be that because there was no logic involved, you must have been referring to empirical evidence).

The lack of evidence of 'missing links' isn't really any indication that there is no micro-evolution. We have few enough examples of many of the species that we know exist. The chances of us having them all are tiny. We would expect there to be large gaps because our knowledge is so small. What we have is not at all inconsistent with evolution. It is incredibly highly suggestive of it, though we do not yet know all the ins and outs.

There is, by contrast, no evidence of God in any of this, as it can all be explained just the same but without him.

Empirical evidence does not ironclad evidence make.. which you so claimed existed. and we have evidence of micro-evolution as it is easily observed in bacterium.. however, there is no evidence of macro evolution on any scale because of the incomplete nature of our fossil record. So to suggest macro-evolution as the end all answer is foolishness at best. One should not discount something just because of the no evidence exists.. otherwise we ould be discounting macroevolution as many discount the existance of inteligent design.. in fact many in the sceintific community belive that the structure of nature is so complex it is impossible to be sustained and even have formed from pure randomness.

Im not saying we should throw out macroevolution because there is no evidence, but im saying we shouldn't throw out intelegent design either... just by observing the great complexity of nature, should allows us to consider that something formed this system by othermeans then pure randomness (intellegent design). In fact empircial evidence is pretty weak for macro-evolution as well.. the only evidence we have for it is the existance of microevolution... but microevolution is not proof of macroevolution

I have had enough of the idiotic missconception of the evolutionary theory (aka the evolution of man) and microevolution. Get your fact strait, Micro is incapable of disproving or proving anything past the fact that animals are capable of addaption over time to fit their nitches. The evolutionary theory the main thing that Christians should have a problem with is the idea that it is possible for something to evolve from one form of life to another, I.E. lizard to bird. they are NOT the same thing please stop implying that one proves the other.

THANKYOU!

Deviant mutant events are always the first stage in any evolution. Any mutation has to happen in a single organism originally. Most mutations fail, and do not spread, of course. This will almost certainly be the same.

look.. the idea of evolution is reliant on the gene pool by which genes are taken from.. the only way Evolution can occur is in the system of survival of the fittest... However, in modern day even sick people are able to live and produce offspring who are weak, so that the weaker genes are sustained and spread. Evolution cant occur if there is no survival of the fittest.. this is why evolution is no longer occuring in humans!

Im not saying we should throw out macroevolution because there is no evidence, but im saying we shouldn't throw out intelegent design either... just by observing the great complexity of nature, should allows us to consider that something formed this system by othermeans then pure randomness (intellegent design). In fact empircial evidence is pretty weak for macro-evolution as well.. the only evidence we have for it is the existance of microevolution... but microevolution is not proof of macroevolution

It's funny all these people who are so interested in evidence and proof are still deciding what to believe on faith.

I have had enough of the idiotic missconception of the evolutionary theory (aka the evolution of man) and microevolution. Get your fact strait, Micro is incapable of disproving or proving anything past the fact that animals are capable of addaption over time to fit their nitches. The evolutionary theory the main thing that Christians should have a problem with is the idea that it is possible for something to evolve from one form of life to another, I.E. lizard to bird. they are NOT the same thing please stop implying that one proves the other.

Thats the thing though. They are the same thing. The terms micro and macroevolution where only made up by some creationist who didnt understand evolution. They happen through the same process and are not distinguished between in scientific literature. A lot of small changes eventually looks like one big change.

THANKYOU!


My father actualy e-mailed me that response after reading some of the stuff I had sent him from this thread. He's an MS in animal biology, F&W biology and a BS in Natural Sci, and comparitive religions. But we both apreciate you thanks.

Thats the thing though. They are the same thing. The terms micro and macroevolution where only made up by some creationist who didnt understand evolution. They happen through the same process and are not distinguished between in scientific literature. A lot of small changes eventually looks like one big change.


No they are not the same thing Micro is the absolutely plausible possibility of the development of a fan on the back of a lizard. Macro on the other hand is the compleetly impossible idea of a 2 celled cold blood heart can become a 3 celled warm blood heart in either a single birth or over centuries. The first any evolutionist would agree is too far too fast and the second would kill the beast at time of birth because the rest of the body would not be able to support it.

Thats the thing though. They are the same thing. The terms micro and macroevolution where only made up by some creationist who didnt understand evolution. They happen through the same process and are not distinguished between in scientific literature. A lot of small changes eventually looks like one big change.

they are not the same thing.. this is one example like i which explains the difference between them :
In Evolution and Entropy: Toward A Unified Theory of Biology by DR Brooks and EO Wiley, microevolution and macroevolution are distinguished from each other on the basis of reversibility. They make an analogy between macroscopic and microscopic processes in thermodynamics. Thus in microevolution there is no "arrow of time" to the extent that the process can be run backward. Hence in the classic example of Industrial melanism when the pollution of the industrial revolution was reduced and trees resume their natural coloration the frequency of mottled to black moths changed again.

Macroevolution is identified with speciation. Once speciation has occurred the gene pools are permanently separated. Selection and adaptation after speciation has occurred will increase genetic divergence which in turn will increase the amount of morphological divergence. Hence morphological divergence is a result of speciation but not the cause of speciation.

No they are not the same thing Micro is the absolutely plausible possibility of the development of a fan on the back of a lizard. Macro on the other hand is the compleetly impossible idea of a 2 celled cold blood heart can become a 3 celled warm blood heart in either a single birth or over centuries. The first any evolutionist would agree is too far too fast and the second would kill the beast at time of birth because the rest of the body would not be able to support it.

Okay so i was wrong about a couple of things in my post, such as the origins of the terms micro and macro evolution. But the rest was okay. The example you give is a strawman. Read up on it if you care to challenge your preconceptions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

they are not the same thing.. this is one example like i which explains the difference between them :

That quote makes no mention of what drives the process. Its irrelavant, unless could could point out where it does.

That quote merely says that after a certain amount of microevolution occurs, speciation occurs and the animals cannot evolve back.

Okay so i was wrong about a couple of things in my post, such as the origins of the terms micro and macro evolution. But the rest was okay. The example you give is a strawman. Read up on it if you care to challenge your preconceptions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

your far too reliant on this website as a source of information simply because it agrees with your mindset.. there are many arguments and examples of evidence which show clear distinctions between macro and micro evolution.. as the example i have given.. i suggest you diversify your information selection before you continue to make your argument

your far too reliant on this website as a source of information simply because it agrees with your mindset.. there are many arguments and examples of evidence which show clear distinctions between macro and micro evolution.. as the example i have given.. i suggest you diversify your information selection before you continue to make your argument

I rely on that site because its convenient and uses good references. Read my last post for comments on that quote.

I have had enough of the idiotic missconception of the evolutionary theory (aka the evolution of man) and microevolution. Get your fact strait, Micro is incapable of disproving or proving anything past the fact that animals are capable of addaption over time to fit their nitches. The evolutionary theory the main thing that Christians should have a problem with is the idea that it is possible for something to evolve from one form of life to another, I.E. lizard to bird. they are NOT the same thing please stop implying that one proves the other. Thats the thing though. They are the same thing. The terms micro and macroevolution where only made up by some creationist who didnt understand evolution. They happen through the same process and are not distinguished between in scientific literature. A lot of small changes eventually looks like one big change.If I understand this correctly, the creationists' main issue with evolution is that it contradicts the evidence of the Bible? Or is it that man, "created in God's image", evolved from a primate? Whichever way you look at it, you can see:

1) The change from this ancestor to a human is comparatively small (i.e. it's not a change from a fish to a bird). The two creatures look similar, just the ancestor was probably covered with hair and didn't have clothes, shopping malls, or computers for that matter. Therefore that is "micro macroevolution", so to speak.

2) Micro- and macro-evolution are practically the same thing. Only microevolution consists of small changes (i.e. the average height increases or wings grow short and stubby) while macroevolution consists of large changes (i.e. bone tissue is replaced by metal and protein by silicon). San haiti is right in that many small changes appear like one big change over a period of time.

3) The unnecessary human body parts probably had some function in a primeval ancestor that is no longer necessary, like the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

4) A question for the ID people: If man was designed as the "perfect" individual, why is it that humans have few of the properties that make evolution's triumphs work? For example, unlike the 300-million-year-old cockroaches, humans are large, slow, and clumsy. Unlike birds, they cannot fly. And humans are pitiful in comparison to dinosaurs. No wonder they resorted to reasoning and thinking to improve their status on the planet.

That quote makes no mention of what drives the process. Its irrelavant, unless could could point out where it does.

That quote merely says that after a certain amount of microevolution occurs, speciation occurs and the animals cannot evolve back.

thats not what the qoute says at all... it says that micro evolutoin is a process by which can be reversed... your proposing that microevolution is driving macro evolution.. but according to this, at any given point microevolution maybe reversed. By showing that speciation is occuring and that there is no longer a possibility for reversability there is the difference.. if it was microevolution which was driving macro evolution it would logical to expect that reverasbilty is still possible... this is showing this is not the case. The fact is that while changes in one spiecies is very much possible... the jump from one species to another is too great to use microevolution as the driving factor.. and no evidence (in fossil record) exists to suggest such an occurance

So are people trying to argue that macroevolution, as they call it, is the work of God? Or that it can't exist? Are they arguing that God puts species onto the earth periodically with macroevolutionary differences from other species?

In any case they will be interested to know that there is a community of mussels on an English coast that was observed by scientists decades ago to be a single species, with all its members breeding with each other, and which has now split into two distinct types which do not breed between each other, but which are nevertheless mixed up together. This is presumably non-reversable. The lesson here is that the fact that we haven't seen something happen doesn't mean that it happen. Only now we have seen this happen, so we know that it does.

Evolution is not proven, but all that is missing from it is gaps. I will say again - there is plenty of evidence in its favour. There is no evidence whatsoever to believe in intelligent design, other than doubt in existing theories. It is therefore just an idea to fill a gap, with no intrinsic merit of its own. It is a sound principle of a rational mind that if there is no evidence whatsoever for something (and no logical proof - not relevant in this case) then there is no reason to believe that it exists. This is the case with intelligent design.

By contrast there is a lot of evidence for evolution, even if there are many things that have not yet been explained. The two ideas are not equivalent. One is based on facts, one is superstition.

what is crazy is that two things of the same mutation have been shown to breed and have offspring that lose the mutation and resemble the parents.


Not crazy at all. Some genetic diseases caused by gene mutation, such as Huntington's Disease, only need one defective copy of chromosome 4 to show symptoms of the disease. The other copy can be normal or defective, but either way the symptoms of the disease still show up because the huntingtin gene is dominant. Say two parents each had genotype (Hh), with (H) representing the defective huntingtin gene and (h) representing the normal one. You can put (Hh)x(Hh) into a Punnet square and find that there is only a 75% chance that the child of two parents with said genotypes will develop the disease.

Therefore two parents, each with one good copy of chromosome 4 and one bad copy, both showing the disease, can have a baby without the disease.

So are people trying to argue that macroevolution, as they call it, is the work of God? Or that it can't exist? Are they arguing that God puts species onto the earth periodically with macroevolutionary differences from other species?

In any case they will be interested to know that there is a community of mussels on an English coast that was observed by scientists decades ago to be a single species, with all its members breeding with each other, and which has now split into two distinct types which do not breed between each other, but which are nevertheless mixed up together. This is presumably non-reversable. The lesson here is that the fact that we haven't seen something happen doesn't mean that it happen. Only now we have seen this happen, so we know that it does.

Evolution is not proven, but all that is missing from it is gaps. I will say again - there is plenty of evidence in its favour. There is no evidence whatsoever to believe in intelligent design, other than doubt in existing theories. It is therefore just an idea to fill a gap, with no intrinsic merit of its own. It is a sound principle of a rational mind that if there is no evidence whatsoever for something (and no logical proof - not relevant in this case) then there is no reason to believe that it exists. This is the case with intelligent design.

By contrast there is a lot of evidence for evolution, even if there are many things that have not yet been explained. The two ideas are not equivalent. One is based on facts, one is superstition.

what is the name of this study your speaking of so i can look it up ? Also is it that the two mussel colonies dont mate with one another or CANNOT mate with one another.. there is a difference.. Different Species are incable of mating with one another and producing viable offspring, it maybe just that these species do not mate with one another by chioce, differences in courting processes .. who knows... it just maybe this has not been studyied enough to know the reason WHY they dont mate.. from what youve stated all we know is that they dont mate, dosn't mean they cant mate, and produce viable offspring

thats not what the qoute says at all... it says that micro evolutoin is a process by which can be reversed... your proposing that microevolution is driving macro evolution.. but according to this, at any given point microevolution maybe reversed. By showing that speciation is occuring and that there is no longer a possibility for reversability there is the difference.. if it was microevolution which was driving macro evolution it would logical to expect that reverasbilty is still possible... this is showing this is not the case. The fact is that while changes in one spiecies is very much possible... the jump from one species to another is too great to use microevolution as the driving factor.. and no evidence (in fossil record) exists to suggest such an occurance

Just because macroevolution is not reversible does not mean its a different process. As a rather crude analogy, think of stretching a rubber band, you can stretch it a bit (microevolution), and a bit more and it will still go back. Stretch it too much and it will snap (macroevolution, speciation), and the process is then irreversible.

If you want to say there is a different process, then outline the 2 processes and say how they are different.

Just because macroevolution is not reversible does not mean its a different process. As a rather crude analogy, think of stretching a rubber band, you can stretch it a bit (microevolution), and a bit more and it will still go back. Stretch it too much and it will snap (macroevolution, speciation), and the process is then irreversible.

If you want to say there is a different process, then outline the 2 processes and say how they are different.

that is just a theory though.. with no evidence to suggest in its favor.. you may as well be agreeing with ID, because it has just as much supportive evidence.

if a process is driven by small changes over a long period of time.. why then would speciation not be reversable ? of course it oculdn't go back to where it started right away.. but if all that was driving it was small changes, then given the right circumstances we should see a gradual change possible backward. But this is not the case once specisation occurs.

that is just a theory though.. with no evidence to suggest in its favor.. you may as well be agreeing with ID, because it has just as much supportive evidence.

if a process is driven by small changes over a long period of time.. why then would speciation not be reversable ? of course it oculdn't go back to where it started right away.. but if all that was driving it was small changes, then given the right circumstances we should see a gradual change possible backward. But this is not the case once specisation occurs.


Why would it go back if it was a successful mutation? The entire principle of survival of the fittest states it wont go back only forwards, because going back you put it at a disadvantage and it would die.

that is just a theory though.. with no evidence to suggest in its favor.. you may as well be agreeing with ID, because it has just as much supportive evidence.

if a process is driven by small changes over a long period of time.. why then would speciation not be reversable ? of course it oculdn't go back to where it started right away.. but if all that was driving it was small changes, then given the right circumstances we should see a gradual change possible backward. But this is not the case once specisation occurs.
A species is a certain animal that only mates with animals of its kind. It's not capable of mating outside its species.

EDIT: It's a go-forward process.

that is just a theory though.. with no evidence to suggest in its favor.. you may as well be agreeing with ID, because it has just as much supportive evidence.

if a process is driven by small changes over a long period of time.. why then would speciation not be reversable ? of course it oculdn't go back to where it started right away.. but if all that was driving it was small changes, then given the right circumstances we should see a gradual change possible backward. But this is not the case once specisation occurs.

What theory was in my last post? Read the site for evidence. You want evidence for everything now? Give me it for whatever you beleive in.

When speciation occurs, mating between the two species is then impossible. Thats what is meant by irreversible. It would be possible for a species to evolve back to an original form, but i dont think there would ever be any cause to do that. As the new species has adapted to fit their enviornment and wouldnt need to go back.

that is just a theory though.. with no evidence to suggest in its favor.. you may as well be agreeing with ID, because it has just as much supportive evidence.

if a process is driven by small changes over a long period of time.. why then would speciation not be reversable ? of course it oculdn't go back to where it started right away.. but if all that was driving it was small changes, then given the right circumstances we should see a gradual change possible backward. But this is not the case once specisation occurs.

Speciation is reversible. It's called going extinct.

what is the name of this study your speaking of so i can look it up ? Also is it that the two mussel colonies dont mate with one another or CANNOT mate with one another.. there is a difference.. Different Species are incable of mating with one another and producing viable offspring, it maybe just that these species do not mate with one another by chioce, differences in courting processes .. who knows... it just maybe this has not been studyied enough to know the reason WHY they dont mate.. from what youve stated all we know is that they dont mate, dosn't mean they cant mate, and produce viable offspring

Sadly I can't remember the name of the study. It was in the news a few months ago. I believe in any case that mussels just spew their stuff into the water, in which case the lack of fertilisation would indicate that they are no longer compatible with each other genetically.

Imagine a mutation of one gene on a chromasome. By itself it does not affect reproduction, and the gene therefore continues in that species. However, if one of those animals has two of them it can only breed with another that has two. Eventually a part of that species will become genetically isolated.

There are probably other ways of speciation occurring, and my way may not even work if tested properly. But the point is that there are bound to be ways, in situations where the mutation effects breeding.

And I am still waiting for ONE piece of evidence that stands for ID, rather than against evolution. Evolution is possibly disprovable, but if there is no evidence for ID then there is no reason to think that it is therefore proven, just because evolution might be disproved. We would be better off looking for an alternative scientific theory, unless SOME positive evidence for ID emerges. None has so far been produced.

What theory was in my last post? Read the site for evidence. You want evidence for everything now? Give me it for whatever you beleive in.

When speciation occurs, mating between the two species is then impossible. Thats what is meant by irreversible. It would be possible for a species to evolve back to an original form, but i dont think there would ever be any cause to do that. As the new species has adapted to fit their enviornment and wouldnt need to go back.
Might I point out, too, that even if it did go back to something resembling its old form, it would not be the old form. It could never be the same, what with its cumulative mutations.

A species is a certain animal that only mates with animals of its kind. It's not capable of mating outside its species.

EDIT: It's a go-forward process.

and so you just proved my point!!!

yes.. macro-evolution is.. which is why it is different from micro evolutoin.. which is not nessesarly a go-forward process.. but your arguing they are essentailly the same!!! thats why im saying.. they are not. If it is the case that macro-evolution is dirven by micro evolution then reversability would still be possible

so if we had a species

1.0 and it evolved 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 being the new species .. and its change has taken over this many generations, while its quite plausible to say 2.0 can no longer mate with 1.0 ... if all that was at work here was micro evolution then 2.0 should beable to mate with 1.9... and it could in essence move backward. But just as you stated.. macro-evolution is a go-forward process and THATS how it is different from micro-evolution and why there is more at work then just micro-evolution! and the fact that there is no fossil evidence showing the 1.1 to 1.9 evolutionary patterns in any given species indicates to us there is no evidence supporting marco-evolution

Might I point out, too, that even if it did go back to something resembling its old form, it would not be the old form. It could never be the same, what with its cumulative mutations.

Yeah, sorry thats what i meant to say.

Just out of interest dose anyone arguing for ID have any formal education in biology, its just some of the points your raising seem to conflict with basic biologic genetic principles, for example I’ve seen a few people say things that suggest they don’t understand recessive genes, something along the lines of how can a mutation stay dormant and then reoccur.

Might I point out, too, that even if it did go back to something resembling its old form, it would not be the old form. It could never be the same, what with its cumulative mutations.

but according to macro-evolutoin it can't even go back to somethign resembling its old form.. its a "go-forward" process as the other fellow so pointed out. however in micro-evolution it is quite possible to go back to the old form such as the example of the white moth going to black moth back to white again! We could then extrapolate on a grander scale that if only micro-evolutoin was at work this process could actually occur on a grand level.. the fact that it can't tells us micro-evolutoin is not the only thing at work in macro-evolution (if macro-evolution even occurs)

and so you just proved my point!!!

yes.. macro-evolution is.. which is why it is different from micro evolutoin.. which is not nessesarly a go-forward process.. but your arguing they are essentailly the same!!! thats why im saying.. they are not. If it is the case that macro-evolution is dirven by micro evolution then reversability would still be possible

so if we had a species

1.0 and it evolved 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 being the new species .. and its change has taken over this many generations, while its quite plausible to say 2.0 can no longer mate with 1.0 ... if all that was at work here was micro evolution then 2.0 should beable to mate with 1.9... and it could in essence move backward. But just as you stated.. macro-evolution is a go-forward process and THATS how it is different from micro-evolution and why there is more at work then just micro-evolution! and the fact that there is no fossil evidence showing the 1.1 to 1.9 evolutionary patterns in any given species indicates to us there is no evidence supporting marco-evolution

2.0 could mate with 1.9, but by that time 1.1 to 1.7 probably would have died off after not being able to compete for food or mates. There is no need to go back so it doesnt happen.

and so you just proved my point!!!

yes.. macro-evolution is.. which is why it is different from micro evolutoin.. which is not nessesarly a go-forward process.. but your arguing they are essentailly the same!!! thats why im saying.. they are not. If it is the case that macro-evolution is dirven by micro evolution then reversability would still be possible

so if we had a species

1.0 and it evolved 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 being the new species .. and its change has taken over this many generations, while its quite plausible to say 2.0 can no longer mate with 1.0 ... if all that was at work here was micro evolution then 2.0 should beable to mate with 1.9... and it could in essence move backward. But just as you stated.. macro-evolution is a go-forward process and THATS how it is different from micro-evolution and why there is more at work then just micro-evolution! and the fact that there is no fossil evidence showing the 1.1 to 1.9 evolutionary patterns in any given species indicates to us there is no evidence supporting marco-evolution


In theory 2.0 could probably mate with 1.2, after all tigers and lions can mate for example are there probally what. pffft 6 million generations apart or more.

I just dont understand your point at all really, you just dont seem to get the principle of suvial of the fittests at all. yes it probally could go back, but it woulnt last very long becuase the increse competion from superior animals(what it unevolved from)

2.0 could mate with 1.9, but by that time 1.1 to 1.7 probably would have died off after not being able to compete for food or mates. There is no need to go back so it doesnt happen.

but there are times in nature in which there IS a reason to go backward.... as with the case of the moth.. it mutated to better hid itself from preditors.. once the pollution was reduced the mutation worked agaist it making it a target again.. but because it was a microevolutionary event it was still able to reverse its mutation back to white. However in the case of specisation once a new species is created it can't.. de-evolve, and so if conidtions change that work agains the species.. in which the more de-evolved species is now given the advantage the more evolved species will almost always die out

and as i stated... no fossil evidence esists showing the path of any one species from 1.1 to 1.9 .. so we know know how a species moves from 1.0 to 2.0 and if 2.0 can mate with 1.9 .. because technically 1.9 is still the same species as 1.0..

that is just a theory though.. with no evidence to suggest in its favor.. you may as well be agreeing with ID, because it has just as much supportive evidence.

if a process is driven by small changes over a long period of time.. why then would speciation not be reversable ? of course it oculdn't go back to where it started right away.. but if all that was driving it was small changes, then given the right circumstances we should see a gradual change possible backward. But this is not the case once specisation occurs.For the subset of evolution that we shall now dub (for the sake of labelling it) 'microevolution', we have members of a population exhibiting signs of minor changes that may or may not benefit the survival of those individuals and the population as a whole. While there is still a mix of "changed" and "unchanged", then if the conditions favour "changed", then the breeding population for a successive series of breeding seasons will gradually contain more and more individuals with the "changed" quality. If conditions existed by which the original "unchanged" quality became more favourable once more, before the adoption of such changes became near-total, then that "unchanged" quality could become dominant once more.

Now let us observe what has happened to a population where "changed" has not just become dominant, but has become universal. And further examples of all-pervasive changes have occured, so that the population exclusively contains a lot of such differences from the bare "unchanged" population. Depending on whether you're comparing this population with their "unchanged" ancestor stock (perhaps a population whose selection pressures were firmly against "changed") or a sibling member of the family tree (who have developed and inherited and 'all-pervasived' such beautious changes as the "altered" quality, and have also moved on with many differences) you may have to wait more or less time for it to occur, but eventually the incompatibilities of the built up differences (bilateral or unilateral) that, at any one time, did not cause parents and children to be particularly infertile, now find themselves with incompatible chromosome mixes, or somesuch, and (angain, for the sake of labelling) 'macroevolution has occured.

Whereas microevolution could be reversed by the new trait being no longer 'top dog' and the old trait once again being advantageous, in a 'macroevolution' setting the one or both of the comparison populations now entirely lack the original "unchanged" quality in their stock. For selection to push back time now, there needs to be the spontaneous development of "unchanged" as a mutation of "changed" (and all the other changes/alterations that have occured).

This is not impossible, of course. The thing is that "changed" and "altered" were chance biproducts. Had they been instead come out as "shuffled" and "munged" (perfectly valid analogues of the originals) then we'd have had populations with them, it did not really matter, but in order to reverse a 'macro level of evolution, then we are no longer able to say "something will randomly come along", but instead we find ourselves saying "we must have $blah". We're now aiming for an end result (a specific mutation to reverse the original) rather than letting any old result happen as and when it will.

There is an alternative, of course. Both species could spontaneously develop the "novel" mutation, one from "changed" and one from "altered". That would also allow the two populations to forget their genetic differences, but the chances of them both settling on the same cmpromise solution? Comparable with them reversing their respective differences. And don't forget that it's not just one little change, it loads of little ones. The chances of them coming together are pretty slim. Doesn't mean you can't get Tigons and Ligers, but it does produce a 'fuzzy threshold', that, once across, means less and less chance of reversal. Does not need any differentiating of processes between the 'micro' and 'macro' levels, it's the same thing but early on it's small and reversible and much later it's large and not reversible. And there's a gradient inbetween that you'd be hard pressed to tie down as "the point" where speciation was more obvious than pure adaption.

In theory 2.0 could probably mate with 1.2, after all tigers and lions can mate for example are there probally what. pffft 6 million generations apart or more.

I just dont understand your point at all really, you just dont seem to get the principle of suvial of the fittests at all. yes it probally could go back, but it woulnt last very long becuase the increse competion from superior animals(what it unevolved from)

.... its not about the mating process.. its about the offspring.. can lions and tigers produce viable offspring ?? there is a reason why horses and jackasses can't naturally produce the new species of donkies .. (for vis versa i forget how it goes..) because those offpsring are naturally infertile so the new species can't be sustained...

and so you just proved my point!!!

yes.. macro-evolution is.. which is why it is different from micro evolutoin.. which is not nessesarly a go-forward process.. but your arguing they are essentailly the same!!! thats why im saying.. they are not. If it is the case that macro-evolution is dirven by micro evolution then reversability would still be possible

so if we had a species

1.0 and it evolved 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 being the new species .. and its change has taken over this many generations, while its quite plausible to say 2.0 can no longer mate with 1.0 ... if all that was at work here was micro evolution then 2.0 should beable to mate with 1.9... and it could in essence move backward. But just as you stated.. macro-evolution is a go-forward process and THATS how it is different from micro-evolution and why there is more at work then just micro-evolution! and the fact that there is no fossil evidence showing the 1.1 to 1.9 evolutionary patterns in any given species indicates to us there is no evidence supporting marco-evolution

Let's say the world heats up and species 1.1 is more efficient in hot weather than 1.0 and 1.2 more than 1.1 and so on. 2.0 is more successful because it is better able to deal with the new climate. If the climate later changed back, then evolution would move back towards 1.0 and if any previous generations still existed they would become more successful than higher number generations. This is how evolution works. So it can "go backward" as you put it when it needs to. It just doesn't follow exactly the same path, usually, because there is a low probablity of following the exact same long path holding many, many mutations. It is, however, possible.

.... its not about the mating process.. its about the offspring.. can lions and tigers produce viable offspring ?? there is a reason why horses and jackasses can't naturally produce the new species of donkies .. (for vis versa i forget how it goes..) because those offpsring are naturally infertile so the new species can't be sustained...
thats not what you said.

Prehaps,

but as i know for a fact cats and tigers can produce viable offspring, there called bengal cats, bloody expensive i know a breeder.

Seriously domesticated, thats right house cats, and tigers how far you think they are appart, can produce very viable offspring.

So your wrong.

point and match

1.0 and it evolved 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 being the new species .. and its change has taken over this many generations, while its quite plausible to say 2.0 can no longer mate with 1.0 ... if all that was at work here was micro evolution then 2.0 should beable to mate with 1.9... and it could in essence move backward. But just as you stated.. macro-evolution is a go-forward process and THATS how it is different from micro-evolution and why there is more at work then just micro-evolution! and the fact that there is no fossil evidence showing the 1.1 to 1.9 evolutionary patterns in any given species indicates to us there is no evidence supporting marco-evolution
The thing is that if a 2.0 mated with a 1.9 they would produce another 2.0 --that's the mutation being passed on. The more 2.0's there are in comparison to 1.x's, the more 2.0's will mate with other 2.0's.

The thing is that if a 2.0 mated with a 1.9 they would produce another 2.0 --that's the mutation being passed on. The more 2.0's there are in comparison to 1.x's, the more 2.0's will mate with other 2.0's.Using a sequence of numbers is a little distracting. Nothing against your explanation, Willamena, except that it might confuse some people.

Even if you can get around the possibility that "2.0 is better than 1.9" and acknowledge that the selective pressures on a "2.0 and 1.9" mixed population could select for the 1.9s under 'reverse tendency' circumstances, you're then tempted to think that the pressures would allow a 1.8s to be 'rediscovered' and then a "1.8 and 1.9" mix would occur and the former selected for, heading back to 1.0

In reality, if the selection conditions reverse the selection advantages (so that 1.0s are the 'ideal' template once more) you might still end up at "i.0" instead (where i=sqrt(-1) for the sake or getting us off of the numberline), a population fit for the same conditions as 1.0s are, but no longer the same as they were... Random walks, of course, lead east and west as well as north and south, and even if the wind is encouraging the random walkers to head in one cardinal direction, then back on the opposite cardinal direction, they'd still spread out in the perpendicular directions, rather than mill around the starting point...

thats not what you said.

Prehaps,

but as i know for a fact cats and tigers can produce viable offspring, there called bengal cats, bloody expensive i know a breeder.

Seriously domesticated, thats right house cats, and tigers how far you think they are appart, can produce very viable offspring.

So your wrong.

point and match
And there lies the central problem with determining species. Most use the biological species concept, which is what you said, but for some kingdoms (ie the bacterial) it is impossible to do so, or in some situations simply wrong due to a phenotypical standpoint (where the difference between cats and tigers come from). Interestingly enough, you're mistaken, the interbreeding is between Felis bengalensis (Asian leopards) and Felis silvestris (house cat), very closely related indeed.

And there lies the central problem with determining species. Most use the biological species concept, which is what you said, but for some kingdoms (ie the bacterial) it is impossible to do so, or in some situations simply wrong due to a phenotypical standpoint (where the difference between cats and tigers come from). Interestingly enough, you're mistaken, the interbreeding is between Felis bengalensis (Asian leopards) and Felis silvestris (house cat), very closely related indeed.
well bateria reproduced by mitosis so i cant see who it would be possible to go back. theres no gene exachange between adult bateria.

Bengal Tigers and Household cats, to be precise, i was just illustrating that species could cross breed.

well bateria reproduced by mitotsis so i cant see why it would be possible to go back. theres no gene exachange between adult bateria.

Actually, there is. In many species, two cells will form a bridge between them and pass genetic material back and forth.

Actually, there is. In many species, two cells will form a bridge between them and pass genetic material back and forth.
wasn’t aware bacteria could do that, you sure its bacteria not an amoeba or something.

thats not what you said.

Prehaps,

but as i know for a fact cats and tigers can produce viable offspring, there called bengal cats, bloody expensive i know a breeder.

Seriously domesticated, thats right house cats, and tigers how far you think they are appart, can produce very viable offspring.

So your wrong.

point and match

Does the breeder breed cats and tigers, or two begal cats?

Two species cannot produce *viable* offspring, which means that they cannot produce offspring which lives *and* is capable of reproduction.

Ligers and mules, for instance, are infertile. They are alive - they exist, but they are infertile.

wasn’t aware bacteria could do that, you sure its bacteria not an amoeba or something.

Yup. It's called trans-something. I believe it is called transduction, but I would have to check on that.

They generally discuss it in any biology book.

God got bored and decided to have some fun?

..if god gets bored that would meen he is not a perfect being and therefor not what people say

Does the breeder breed cats and tigers, or two begal cats?

Two species cannot produce *viable* offspring, which means that they cannot produce offspring which lives *and* is capable of reproduction.

Ligers and mules, for instance, are infertile. They are alive - they exist, but they are infertile.
tigers and cats, and then more cats to test the tiger/cat oppspring on, i think it took a lot of goes but eventually the tiger/cat could mate with a cat, but theve not acually got the tiger/cat to mate with a tiger/cat.

Awsome cats btw, like mini tigers.

Does the breeder breed cats and tigers, or two begal cats?

Two species cannot produce *viable* offspring, which means that they cannot produce offspring which lives *and* is capable of reproduction.

Ligers and mules, for instance, are infertile. They are alive - they exist, but they are infertile.
Technically incorrect. It happens all the time in plants (polyploidy) and there are rare exceptions in animals, generally when there is a cascade of meiotic errors that cause the gametes to be able to split correctly.

Oddly enough, its those rarities and genetic freaks that lead to the largest development of new species (in plants).

well bateria reproduced by mitosis so i cant see who it would be possible to go back. theres no gene exachange between adult bateria.

Bengal Tigers and Household cats, to be precise, i was just illustrating that species could cross breed.
Yes, they can. Some. It depends on how one defines a species, and my point with bacteria was to demonstrate the difficulty. Some bacteria can conjucate with other bacteria of a different species (gives hospitals headaches), however the standpoint for defining a species for bacteria is different then that for most plants and animals. The Felis family is one of the exceptions, the reason for the classification of species in that family is more due to phenotypical species then any reproduction barrier.

By chance, do you happen to have a copy of Biology (Campbell and Reece) around? I can show you the chapter that it's in if you do.

For those of you interested in reading about the Biology of Belief (how our consciousness affects our genes). I shall include some snippets from the articles to give you a little taste.
The environment affecting how genes behave is old hat. There are a lot of genes that can be triggered by the environment, for instance schizophrenia. Some are genetically predisposed to become severe addicts, but if they don't put themselves at risk, they won't lapse into addiction. That is indeed something the individual can decide what to do about.

But this doesn't evolve the genes, future generations will inherit them and the only way to stop that is to neuter the carriers, genetic manipulation or hoping that the genes will mutate on their own. They react with the environment because they've evolved to do that, which is an entirely different matter.

i dont think ive ever ran across any information/evidence supporting that an organism can _will_ its genetic material to change. I believe some of the supporters of Lamarckian evolution (the more common evolutionary theory before Darwin's natural selection theory)-basically that traits aquired by the individual during it's lifetime were then passed on to future generations. cant remember where, but someone proposed that ancestral-giraffes 'willed' their necks longer to eat those tasty leaves up out of reach.
granted, Lamarckian evolution never held up to testing, so it was pretty much dismissed.

anyways, if you have any more info on the biology of belief, or even just a summary, id at least like to hear what it is
Actually, it was purposed that those traits would only be passed on to future generations if both parents had the same trait, and that unless the trait continued to be developed by both parents through the generations and passed off to the offspring, it wouldn't get passed very far.

Also, from what I read, Lamarckian evolution was never properly tested nor supported by the scientific community, but instead, his work was apparently sabatoged and they labelled him a fraud and eventually drove him to suicide, at which point it was pretty much dismissed.

Actually, it was purposed that those traits would only be passed on to future generations if both parents had the same trait, and that unless the trait continued to be developed by both parents through the generations and passed off to the offspring, it wouldn't get passed very far.

Also, from what I read, Lamarckian evolution was never properly tested nor supported by the scientific community, but instead, his work was apparently sabatoged and they labelled him a fraud and eventually drove him to suicide, at which point it was pretty much dismissed.

its not really very plausible though, the man just look at the genealogy of a giraffe, seeing that it slowly went from being horse like to a giraffe, and concluded that it willed its neck to longer.

when some one show me the exact chemical pathways that lead from the conscious mind to inside the individual nucleus of every cell, and then changes just the right number of bases for every cell, in just the right place on the same chromosome.
Then, then ill believe it. Until then its highly implausible. Not to mention any gene change in one animal during its life time, would have all kinds of horrible side effects, such as cancer all kinds of other weird things resulting in drastically different proteins being produced.

Yes, they can. Some. It depends on how one defines a species, and my point with bacteria was to demonstrate the difficulty. Some bacteria can conjucate with other bacteria of a different species (gives hospitals headaches), however the standpoint for defining a species for bacteria is different then that for most plants and animals. The Felis family is one of the exceptions, the reason for the classification of species in that family is more due to phenotypical species then any reproduction barrier.

By chance, do you happen to have a copy of Biology (Campbell and Reece) around? I can show you the chapter that it's in if you do.
Nah the only biology material i have around is my stupid SNAB curse books, don’t get me wrong incredibly precise material which i appreciate my course for (not dumbing it down)

For my definition of a bacteria it would have to be prokaryotic, anything else really 'isn’t' bacteria, that’s why I was kind of bamboozled by the idea of cell walls fusing, I dint think and still don’t that cellulose can do that.

Nah the only biology material i have around is my stupid SNAB curse books, don’t get me wrong incredibly precise material which i appreciate my course for (not dumbing it down)

For my definition of a bacteria it would have to be prokaryotic, anything else really 'isn’t' bacteria, that’s why I was kind of bamboozled by the idea of cell walls fusing, I dint think and still don’t that cellulose can do that.
Well, no, as in the species of bacteria. You can't apply the biological species concept to it because they generally don't reproduce sexually and when they do it can occur between many different species.

Actually, it was purposed that those traits would only be passed on to future generations if both parents had the same trait, and that unless the trait continued to be developed by both parents through the generations and passed off to the offspring, it wouldn't get passed very far.

Also, from what I read, Lamarckian evolution was never properly tested nor supported by the scientific community, but instead, his work was apparently sabatoged and they labelled him a fraud and eventually drove him to suicide, at which point it was pretty much dismissed.
There is no evidenece to support Lamarkian evolution, seeing as how you can't change your genes (the known method of expressing traits) just by use or willpower.

But god is omnipresent and omnipotent, and thus infallbile.

He has no limits.

but that dosent solve the question

why, why would he make us flawed, and why would he make us look evolved

what is his logic.

oh wait we can understand it, the old relgion catch 22, defy all reasoning with a simple anser.

there's always the answer they giv to dinosaur bones, he did it to test our faith....

its not really very plausible though, the man just look at the genealogy of a giraffe, seeing that it slowly went from being horse like to a giraffe, and concluded that it willed its neck to longer.

when some one show me the exact chemical pathways that lead from the conscious mind to inside the individual nucleus of every cell, and then changes just the right number of bases for every cell, in just the right place on the same chromosome.
Then, then ill believe it. Until then its highly implausible. Not to mention any gene change in one animal during its life time, would have all kinds of horrible side effects, such as cancer all kinds of other weird things resulting in drastically different proteins being produced.
A bit on Lamarckism from An Occult History of the World by J H Brennan:

Most modern textbooks of the evolutionary picture tend to dismiss Lamarckism as little better than a historical curiosity. Its arguments are presented in oversimplified form. We read that - by way of illustration - Lamarckists believed the blacksmith's son would be born with stronger biceps than the average man. And the arguments are refuted just as simply. Any Rabbi, we are told, can give you the proof that Lamarck was wrong. Jewish boy children have been circumcised for the past four thousand years, yet they continue to be born with intact foreskins.

But Lamarck did not believe the blacksmith's son would be born with better biceps. He believed that if the blacksmith married a physically strong woman, the characteristic might be inherited - and then only if the characteristic had survival potential in the environment of the offspring. This is a very different concept indeed and one which makes total nonsense of the foreskin objection.

Darwin himself accepted the Lamarckist hypothesis. He felt Lamarck embodied the 'highest endowment of lofty genius' and while he went through a stage in which he felt Lamarckist ideas to be rubbish, he eventually reverted to them in later editions of his Origin of Species. He was convinced chance variation and natural selection alone could not account for evolution. This attitude is completely at variance with the attitudes of the bulk of Darwin's followers - up pto the present day. The collective blind spot of the scientific establishment is strikingly illustrated by its treatment of one man who claimed that his experiments showed there must be something in Lamarckism after all.

(It would seem this is the man I was referring to in my previous post, Dr Paul Kammerer, not Lamarck himself.)

Kammerer had successfully taken two breeds of salamanders, one who breeds baby salamanders on dry land, and one who breeds larvae in water, and changed their environment, and after a few aborted litters, got them to successfully breed in opposite environments, then got their offspring to breed in such a way as well, then moved on to midwife toads and repeated the experiment. He also caused cave-dwelling newts to develop eyes by exposing them to red light over several generations among other experiments. He was later discredited, but not until after some of Europe's top biologists at the time had examined his work and found no evidence of a fraud (which, at the time of the discovery, could be seen by the naked eye, suggesting that it did not take place until after it had already been examined, or that most of said biologists were blind).

From later in the same chapter:

Flattid bugs are flying insects native to Africa. They live in colonies and have, collectively, perfected a trick which must be breathtaking to witness. Some of these bugs are green, some coral, some part green, part pink in colour. They protect themselves from predators by clumping together in such a way that they take on the appearance of a coral-coloured lilac with a green tip. The illusion is almost perfect until they are disturbed, when the 'blossom' breaks apart into an insect cloud.

Wilson argues that Darwiniian evolution can explain most examples of imitation...

But to Wilson, the flattid bug is a very different case. He emphasises that the flower imitated by these bugs does not exist in nature. This is perhaps less remarkable than it appears at first, since insects have been around for many millions of years and we cannot say what flowers once bloomed that have now become extinct. Yet Wilson's second point is valid. Natural selection works in terms of individuals. No responsible Darwinian would ever suggest a communal mutation of colours allowing the accidental formation of a flower so many times that it became an instinctive survival pattern.

Nevertheless, the flwoer-forming communities of flattid bugs exist. How then can we explain them? Remy Chauvin, writing on animal societies, has something to say which may be of relevance here: 'Many biologists, myself among them, are tending more and more to alter their concept of the bee as an isolated insect ... Suppose the bee to be no more than an abstract idea in our minds, suppose insect societies to be not societies, but organisms of which the bees, the ants, the termites are the cells?' We might well add the flattid bug to the list. But once we do, says Wilson, we must drop the idea that genes cannot be influenced by telepathy - the great emotional stumbling block on the road to Lamarckism.

Also, if you want some good science fiction (and I mean real science fiction, as in, based on actual science), try Michael Crichton's prey, that's got a lot of good information on evolution, hive minds, and all that good stuff.

And to end this long bit of dribble with a bit of humor:
http://www.thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg

Yeah i see were your comming from,

But that evolove through will bollucks, some guy posted a bit back was utter well.. bollucks

Cartoons awsome btw.

[...in turn, quoting source material]
Flattid bugs are flying insects native to Africa. They live in colonies and have, collectively, perfected a trick which must be breathtaking to witness. Some of these bugs are green, some coral, some part green, part pink in colour. They protect themselves from predators by clumping together in such a way that they take on the appearance of a coral-coloured lilac with a green tip. The illusion is almost perfect until they are disturbed, when the 'blossom' breaks apart into an insect cloud.

Wilson argues that Darwiniian evolution can explain most examples of imitation...

But to Wilson, the flattid bug is a very different case. He emphasises that the flower imitated by these bugs does not exist in nature. This is perhaps less remarkable than it appears at first, since insects have been around for many millions of years and we cannot say what flowers once bloomed that have now become extinct. Yet Wilson's second point is valid. Natural selection works in terms of individuals. No responsible Darwinian would ever suggest a communal mutation of colours allowing the accidental formation of a flower so many times that it became an instinctive survival pattern.

Nevertheless, the flwoer-forming communities of flattid bugs exist. How then can we explain them? Remy Chauvin, writing on animal societies, has something to say which may be of relevance here: 'Many biologists, myself among them, are tending more and more to alter their concept of the bee as an isolated insect ... Suppose the bee to be no more than an abstract idea in our minds, suppose insect societies to be not societies, but organisms of which the bees, the ants, the termites are the cells?' We might well add the flattid bug to the list. But once we do, says Wilson, we must drop the idea that genes cannot be influenced by telepathy - the great emotional stumbling block on the road to Lamarckism.

I personally don't see any evolutionary barriers to developing this trick... I wouldn't go so far as to say it supported them (because the mechanism I give below is pure conjecture, and there could be a different underyling mechanism) but Darwin's theory is perfectly consistent with both the behaviour and colorations that are 'contrived' for the purposes of this trick.


Multiple pigmentation strains exist in other species (which either have no perception of the coloration differences, to our and predator's senses, due to monochrome/shifted-spectrum senses or have alternatively developed 'not picky what colour my mate is' tendencies in tandem with the trait) which could create a multi-hued population of single (and mixing) genotype. The sub-populations of this species that happened to have genetically-influenced behavoural tendencies towards grouping 'as of the flower' would be less predated, and subtle variations could develop a more flower-like organisation, all without 'consciously' imitating any particular flower.

Alternately, the grouping came first (looking like a general plant) and the groups with mutated coloration in strategic locations did better at looking like a genuine flower.


As to how they group, simple chemical signaling could develop such 'colony' behaviour out of individuals, ensuring that they spread out and don't all try to be a particular part of the 'plant' and (whichever way it happened) if the gene expression variation related to what colour you turned out to be also happened to be connected to the response to the chemical signals then it would put you in the correct place. And all this could develop over time to the current 'peak' of evolution (though no doubt it could get better).

In fact, chemical densities could be used to explain why there are always around the right number of each colour bug. Gene expression is notably able to be influenced by environmental conditions, including temperature and pheremone concentration. The colour (and, by extension, 'prefered position') genes could be activated differently in sibling eggs either by how a temperature gradient exists throughout the 'nursery' area (if that's applicable to this species) or by the concentration of signal molecules, meaning that a given density of 'soon to be green' larvae suppress this tendency in their less mature siblings, encouraging them to be coral or pink, likewise with the other colours, thus giving a population with roughly the right proportion of each colour to 'perform the trick'. Perhaps skewed, of course, to counter the disadvantage of individuals of certain colours when not bunched, but it's all explainable by generations and generations of evolution giving the 'random' walk the impetous towards the phenomenon that we see today.


The only real argument that I see 'against' this evolution-justified view is that no predator appears to have developed a method of recognising the colony for what it really is (either because there is no equivalent plant to the one they 'mimic', or through the subtle chemical overtones in the organisational mechanism I propose), but then maybe that development never really occured enough, or with enough advantage over other insectivores to make the possessors of the skill (marginally better for snatching some 'bug-flower' meals, at first, but perhaps at the expense of the ability to catch other prey) a contender in the Game Of Life...

Yeah i see were your comming from,

But that evolove through will bollucks, some guy posted a bit back was utter well.. bollucks

Cartoons awsome btw.
Yeah, I thought the cartoon summed up the argument nicely, it just replaced the Bible with the Eddas, which made it even better ;)
Snip
You may have explained how such a thing could occur, but you failed to explain how a colony of these bugs one day back in their early evolution, suddenly decided to themselves "hey, lets all group together to look like this plant" and it was early spring and at the time they were all green, so eventually the plant started to bloom, so they were like "well fuck, now what're we gonna do, we need a flower" and so eventually evoled among the entire group the chemical signaling you speak of when evolution relies entirely on chance occurance and natural selection among indivuals. This would suggest evolution can indeed be a group effort. As in, the group knew it would be beneficial to its survival, and so purposely evolved this trick among themselves, otherwise, you did nothing to prove that such a system as you spoke of could be developed entirely by random chance and survival of the fittest.

Now, this is not to suggest that it is an act of will, or conscious effort as we understand it as humans, but you must understand, we as humans are a massive collection of highly organized and specialized cells, each and everyone of those cells has some sort of awareness of its environment and purpose. We are not aware of every single cell in our body, in fact, we are virtually oblivious to the inner workings of our bodies, but our cells have the same purpose as we do, to live, to reproduce, to die. Basically what is being purposed as far as I can understand it is that the cells themselves know they need to pass on new information based on certain environmental stimuli and not necessarily entirely by chance, and it is during drastic changes in the environment that mainly motivates species to evolve.

When it's a matter of adapt soon or die soon, life tends to want to adapt soon.. Humans no longer evolve because humans no longer need to evolve to adapt to any environment, we have technology to help us.

A quick point:


But to Wilson, the flattid bug is a very different case. He emphasises that the flower imitated by these bugs does not exist in nature. This is perhaps less remarkable than it appears at first, since insects have been around for many millions of years and we cannot say what flowers once bloomed that have now become extinct. Yet Wilson's second point is valid. Natural selection works in terms of individuals.

Evolution does not work in terms of individuals. It works in terms of populations. You will never find a single half-way reputable biology textbook that says the reverse. "Individuals don't evolve, populations do" is one of the first things a teacher of evolutionary biology will attempt to drill into your skull.

No responsible Darwinian would ever suggest a communal mutation of colours allowing the accidental formation of a flower so many times that it became an instinctive survival pattern.

Communal mutation? Hell no. But the color variations already pre-existing and then a natural selective pressure favoring those members of the population which had genetic predispositions to gathering together with others in a type of instinctive herd behaviour which gradually over time came to manifest itself in more and more effective camouflaging structures? Absolutely.

But once we do, says Wilson, we must drop the idea that genes cannot be influenced by telepathy...

:rolleyes:

Evolution does not work in terms of individuals. It works in terms of populations. You will never find a single half-way reputable biology textbook that says the reverse. "Individuals don't evolve, populations do" is one of the first things a teacher of evolutionary biology will attempt to drill into your skull.
yes, EVOLUTION describes the changes in a population. but read what you quoted...he said "Natural selection works in terms of individuals," which is exactly correct. NATURAL SELECTION works on the individual, NOT ON THE POPULTION, and any evolutionary biologist worth their salt will tell you so.

yes, EVOLUTION describes the changes in a population. but read what you quoted...he said "Natural selection works in terms of individuals," which is exactly correct. NATURAL SELECTION works on the individual, NOT ON THE POPULTION, and any evolutionary biologist worth their salt will tell you so.

Noted... however the entire context of his remarks was referring to the evolution of behavioral mechanisms within the population over time, which is what I was focussing on.

The idea that evoutionary theory would require some kind of "communal mutation" to account for the development of the described behaviour since "natural selection acts on individuals" was what I was taking issue with.

Noted... however the entire context of his remarks was referring to the evolution of behavioral mechanisms within the population over time, which is what I was focussing on.

The idea that evoutionary theory would require some kind of "communal mutation" to account for the development of the described behaviour since "natural selection acts on individuals" was what I was taking issue with.
fair enough. "communal mutation" is most certainly bunk, so i'm with ya on this one :).

You may have explained how such a thing could occur, but you failed to explain how a colony of these bugs one day back in their early evolution, suddenly decided to themselves "hey, lets all group together to look like this plant" and it was early spring and at the time they were all green, so eventually the plant started to bloom, so they were like "well fuck, now what're we gonna do, we need a flower" and so eventually evoled among the entire group the chemical signaling you speak of when evolution relies entirely on chance occurance and natural selection among indivuals. This would suggest evolution can indeed be a group effort. As in, the group knew it would be beneficial to its survival, and so purposely evolved this trick among themselves, otherwise, you did nothing to prove that such a system as you spoke of could be developed entirely by random chance and survival of the fittest.I'm tempted to say "what they said" (the others who responded to your general points) but as I actually considered all the above answered, anyway, I'll restate, in different words.

Grouping: swarming is an observed trait among many types insects, (essentially just a more 'compact' version of flocking, herding and other synonyms from other creatures) and amorphous grouping is just an extension of this
Mixed colouration: an observed trait in other creatures
Chemical signalling: an observed trait in... well, just about all creatures with the mobility and population (or prey) density to take advantage of it

Grouping and chemical signalling allows structured grouping (as opposed to a general 'beard of bees' sort of thing and, if nothing else, makes the group of insects look like something to big and strange to be eaten, if not actually no longer within your chosen form of food-group. Put everything into a mix and I'm not surprised that this sort of thing evolved.

And time of year needn't have come into it. We see that the 'flower' they pretend to be doesn't exist, yet it's still (I assume) an effective camoflage to look like they aren't a swarm of insects. Once you've got "we aren't a swarm, honest" traits, then the ones that look even less like swarms because of novel behavoural traits (non-green beetles now tend to sit in various parts) get advantage over those that the smarter insectivores realised were actually viable food...

The group does not 'know' anything, they do not strive towards 'looking like a plant' and they do not all 'change as one' to accomplish anything, but there are many colonies all stumbling over different improvements (and, frankly, disadvantaging alterations) through the general mix of genotypes within it, that a colonyes of genetic and it looks like the most succesful ones happened to head towards 'imitating' a flower, though it's pure chance... I wouldn't be surprised (though maybe I'd marvel) if they'd have replicated a tree-sloth or some-such creature, had they swarmed (and therefor grouped) in such numbers as to allow something like that.

My apologies; I shouldn't have resorted to a second-person grammar, which made what I said more of a personal attack than I intended.

Yes, some people use "all knowing" to include the future (which I think is inappropriate) but for argument's sake, let's say just for a moment that they're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and just plain wrong, and maybe a little bit wrong, too, because it is not really limiting at all to say God cannot do the impossible, cannot know the unkown, and cannot be in places that aren't places at all.
Again I compleatly agree that if he existed this would be the MOST likly :) but could it be called god rather then just an "important" or "powerfull" being

It may WAY out class us but what makes it "God"?