Author
|
Topic: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis (Read 30609 times)
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 491
|
This brings me right back to my point as you've seen fit to post videos in the hope of mocking the opposition. I guess since this is in fashion I'll link the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0
Iv'e seen it and love that video.
Yes, those are pretty embarassing if creationists are indeed truely advocating such nonsense.
Also, I couldn't care less about the politics behind ID. I find their scientifc arguments compelling, that is it.
You have said before that you are just trying to expose people here to new ideas. You seem to be operating under the impression that just because an alternative exists it must be at least equal. Well let me tell you something, from one agnostic to another. Not all alternatives are necessarily equal. I can understand if you want to sound out the arguments for and against them, but you keep treading on the same territory over and over again, and in your frustration you appear to have resorted to ad hominem attacks, red herrings, mockery, and ridicule over and over again.
The repitition of arguments is for new people joining the conservation. And I have thrown out a few provocative posts. But I assure you it has never been outright malicious and didn't realize just how thin skinned some people might be about it.
AS far as being agnostic, I just don't get atheisim. No god, no designer, no purpose or plan, just random chemicals that happened. What is the point of even following scientific endeavors? What is the point of obeying any law? Why not kill my neighbor, rape his wife and steal his car, does it matter since we are all just evolved sacks of chemicals? What is the point of anything at all?
Creationists, They might have the right idea but I personally don't believe their theology. It's hard for me to accept a homocidal god that kills out of anger. That is why I'm agnostic.
How about you? And why does it seem you are very biggoted against creationists? These people are not stupid (at least not all of them) and do come up with some good scientifc arguments. And in fairness, most evolutionists are intelligent and do have good scientifc arguments for their case as well.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2007, 01:19:41 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 2847
|
As has been said many times before, you can only say that a species is fittest for its particular environment. But is it really the "fittest" for it's particular enviornment? I say all animals in a particualr ecosytem are fit for their particular enviornment. It is only when a chance change comes along that weeds out certian individuals. It depends solely on what that random change is.
(quick note: "fittest" means "fittest of the variants". It does not mean that some end form has been reached and no further improvements can be made.)
A species which has evolved in one environment might not be able to survive in another. And if the environment changes quickly enough, a species will die out. I understand this, and have said so many times. But how does that drive evolution in a particular direction?
Please explain to me how this his a "crap shoot". It's a crap shoot because anything could happen, at any time and anywhere, that could wipe out a species no matter how "evolved" or not.
AS far as being agnostic, I just don't get atheisim. No god, no designer, no purpose or plan, just random chemicals that happened. What is the point of even following scientific endeavors? What is the point of obeying any law? Why not kill my neighbor, rape his wife and steal his car, does it matter since we are all just evolved sacks of chemicals? What is the point of anything at all? FALLACY DETECTED: Wishful Thinking -- Just because there is no point, doesn't mean it isn't true.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2007, 02:06:25 am by meep-eep »
|
Logged
|
“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
Yes, those are pretty embarassing if creationists are indeed truely advocating such nonsense.
Also, I couldn't care less about the politics behind ID. I find their scientifc arguments compelling, that is it.
Well you clearly had no qualms posting a video mocking Dawkins and his position.
AS far as being agnostic, I just don't get atheisim. No god, no designer, no purpose or plan, just random chemicals that happened. What is the point of even following scientific endeavors? What is the point of obeying any law? Why not kill my neighbor, rape his wife and steal his car, does it matter since we are all just evolved sacks of chemicals? What is the point of anything at all?
Well hopefully the police would stop you from doing any of that crazy stuff 
But seriously, you've already admitted you are agnostic....so.....you are saying their must be a 'purpose'...and I guess you can say as much as an agnostic....but you sure as hell don't know what it is. You are ardently supporting ID....for what then?
Moreover what is the correlation, or lack of correlation, between evolution and the meaning of life as opposed to ID? ie how do you conclude that if evolution were true, then there *must* not be a purpose to life, as that does seem to be a significant factor in your preference for ID. As I see it evolution doesn't create any issues in the realm of spirituality except for those that, say, believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament.
Also, when you draw conclusions like this when you don't see a 'higher purpose', it places further doubt in my mind that your earlier comment about Dawkins' atheism was intended as a joke.
How about you? And why does it seem you are very biggoted against creationists? These people are not stupid (at least not all of them) and do come up with some good scientifc arguments. And in fairness, most evolutionists are intelligent and do have good scientifc arguments for their case as well.
I'm not 'bigoted' at all. You came in here and said your piece...and I listened....but you stayed and got stuck on the same topic. I'm not thin skinned either; you have a very long history in these threads of doing all the things I said you did. And no, the burden of proof is not on me to go find examples. It is obvious to everyone here.
Those people that you mention are at the center of all the politics you said you were avoiding. That is a key difference distinguishing the ID folks from the evolutionists. Key proponents of ID, even ones that I think you've referred to, are clearly hacks and frauds. You have on more than one occasion already posted 'educational' or 'documetary' pro-ID works that are blatantly propagandistic. Do your ID people even produce any research? Or are they all busy campaigning directly to the electorate to get a wedge in our schools?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2007, 03:43:32 am by Baltar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
This is one of those things that sounds awesome in the textbooks. It certainly sounds reasonable, almost intuitive in fact... but what real life examples from scientific testing do we have that this is indeed reality? If this could be empirically demonstrated, my doubts would diminish considerabily. If that scientific evidence is there, please show me and I will have to rethink my position.
Empirically testing random mutations for millions of years might be tricky. But on the positive side, i figured out a way to test your ID theory in a lab. Now granted, we won't be able to do it right away, but with some research it should be entirely possible.
Step 1: Identify the optimization program in the genome. We've mapped the entire human genome, have a good picture of the chimpanzees and a rough draft of the Macacas, plus the mapping of many simpler organisms. This is admittedly the hardest part, but once you stumble upon the first IF, OR or AND it should become considerably easier.
Step 2: Find the Input/output parameters of the code. This will enable us to figure out how every organism in the world stays in contact and figures out what kind of evolving is necessary. Might be some sort of quantum wavelength or maybe just an fourdimensional vibration.
Step 3: Isolate one organism (preferably something large and easily observable, a rabbit or rat perhaps?) From this input system, effectively rendering them blind.
Step 4: Broadcast false random commands to the organism, and if it suddenly spotaneously mutates we know that your theory is correct!
So off you go to prove yourself!
EDIT: As an example of survival of the fittest (or best equipped) within a race, how about this? Or are those just freak accidents? Actual article (slightly NWS).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2007, 07:04:22 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
jucce
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 95
|
Like I said before, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+... does eventually reach 1.000.000. This is one of those things that sounds awesome in the textbooks. It certainly sounds reasonable, almost intuitive in fact... but what real life examples from scientific testing do we have that this is indeed reality? If this could be empirically demonstrated, my doubts would diminish considerabily. If that scientific evidence is there, please show me and I will have to rethink my position.
There's simply no barrier that would halt the evolution at a specific point. There's no reason that should happen. I've already shown you the retrovirus evidence but this really ends in general evidence for evolution, fossils etc.:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
Fossils, genetics, computer programs simulating evolution and so on.
What more evidence do you require? Why would there be an arbitrary barrier to change at a specific point?
Also, for Jucce:
It is thought that the first multi-celled organisms appeared 600 million years ago. Around 2 - 3 billion for single celled animals.
As far as I know the oldest know multi-cellular life form is 1.2 billion years old. But evolution started as far back as the first life.
AS far as being agnostic, I just don't get atheisim. No god, no designer, no purpose or plan, just random chemicals that happened. What is the point of even following scientific endeavors? What is the point of obeying any law? Why not kill my neighbor, rape his wife and steal his car, does it matter since we are all just evolved sacks of chemicals? What is the point of anything at all?
You can be moral and still atheist, there's no problem with that. Just because there may not be a point with our existance doesn't mean we should squander it or take other peoples existance from them. And being an agnostic isn't that far from an atheist really so I thought you'd understand. And one can hardly claim that theists behave morally as a rule. In fact there are more theists in prison in the US and very atheist countries like Sweden thrive.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2007, 03:23:22 am by jucce »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
EDIT: As an example of survival of the fittest (or best equipped) within a race, how about this? Or are those just freak accidents? Actual article (slightly NWS).
Of course they're not freak accidents. How can a female duck evolve defenses against forced matings without some sort of intelligence into the matter? How can sex organs come about in the first place, let alone "co-evolve" withoutout an intimate "knowledge" of the opposite genetalia? How does random mutaion and natural selection fit into any co-evolution scenario? It defies logic.
Also how is this outside the realm of microevolution when you are altering an existing organ? Some people have curly hair and some have straight hair, is that an example of evolution? And what of the fact that a similar co-evolution of genitals are shown in insects as well? To me, this rules out random anything.
If evolution simply means "change over time" to you, then we are in full agreement. And as I've said before, my biggest gripe with the prospect of macroevolution is the mechanism that supposidly drives it.
Jucce: Because there IS a barrier there. We can breed all kinds of interesting variants and breed for specific characteristics. Take domestic dog, cow and pigeons as examples. But there are limits to this. We can only breed them so big, so small, limited colors and coat patterns, beak sizes etc. etc. What is also interesting is (especially pigeons) that when left to natural breeding they tend to revert back to a common breed. This is because some genes are dominant and some recessive. There honestly is no evidence whatsoever that you can breed changes indefinately. Until there is I will remain skeptical.
FALLACY DETECTED: Wishful Thinking -- Just because there is no point, doesn't mean it isn't true You are correct and my position here is philosophical. but I also believe that it's counter intuitive that there isn't a point. When we look deep into the "simplest" cell, every part of every function has a "point" and a reason to be there. Every part behaves in a contrived way and is used to establish function. Those microcelluar functions are then parts of more complex functions so on and so forth. And just because you, as an athiest, think there is no point doesn't mean there isn't one either.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 05, 2007, 01:11:10 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 2847
|
FALLACY DETECTED: Wishful Thinking -- Just because there is no point, doesn't mean it isn't true You are correct and my position here is philosophical.
but I also believe that it's counter intuitive that there isn't a point. When we look deep into the "simplest" cell, every part of every function has a "point" and a reason to be there. Every part behaves in a contrived way and is used to establish function. Those microcelluar functions are then parts of more complex functions so on and so forth. Just respond to my arguments for once. I had counter-arguments or requests for clarification for all the points you made, and you go off on a tangent again. It's always the same. Each time you find some new link, or some new reason to bring up something new, without actually going in a deeper discussion.
I quit. You're just trying to spread propaganda. You're not actually interested in this discussion, regardless of your claims of keeping an open mind.
And just because you, as an athiest, think there is no point doesn't mean there isn't one either. I don't know whether there is any point. If there is, I'm not aware of it. But this is also irrelevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Natural selection is a phenomenon in which some individuals survive and others do not. This is important.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
It is also irrelevant to the discussion.
Then why did you bring it up ?
Quote from: RTyp06 on May 03, 2007, 01:25:50 am
Quote from: meep-eep on May 03, 2007, 12:23:33 am
As has been said many times before, you can only say that a species is fittest for its particular environment. But is it really the "fittest" for it's particular enviornment? I say all animals in a particualr ecosytem are fit for their particular enviornment. It is only when a chance change comes along that weeds out certian individuals. It depends solely on what that random change is. Could you please rephrase that question? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, and how it relates to the argument. (quick note: "fittest" means "fittest of the variants". It does not mean that some end form has been reached and no further improvements can be made.)
I don't know how to rephrase the question. What is the fittest of the variants? Nobody saying it's an end form and that no further improvements can be made.
Let me try this:
If you took all of today's marine animals and somehow transported them back in time, dumped them into the terrassic or cambrian ocean with all then living species, are you telling me todays animals would survive as the fittest? That may sound absurd but it seems that is what you are telling me. I'm saying the history of life has been shaped by random events and that the ancient animals are just as "fit" as anything living today. There isn't a steady progression of simple to complex that the evolutionary theory predicts.
just because one variant has an edge in one situation, doesn't mean it will have an edge in the next, or it may.
It's a crap shoot.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 05, 2007, 01:09:22 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
