Evolution

[blazedaces]

Plenty of people here who talk about evolution don't provide references.

And anyone is welcome to demand the same of them.

Except that you claimed it was all disingenious without proving it. The BoP is on you to prove your claim that it is disingenious.

Ok, so I looked up the word "disingenious[sic]" and found two different results depending on whether or not you spelled it "correctly". First, if you spelled it wrong, disingenuous means "Not straightforward or candid" (http://www.tfd.com/disingenuous), otherwise I found on a site titled Fake Word of the Day it defined "Giving the false impression or appearance of being highly intelligent" (http://dougtionary.com/blog/2007/10/24/fake-word-of-the-day-disingenius/).

Neither really makes sense. Why would I have to prove either about Bob's friend? The BoP is on him to back up his statements. There's nothing else to this. There's no hidden mystery. Plain and simple Burden of Proof.

Asking for falsifiable evidence is silly because the whole point is that the the first cause is outside of the universe. Your demand is designed to make it impossible to be satisfied by the ID side.

Like I said before, I don't care about the universe and whether or not it was designed. I don't care, but not only do I not care Dre, I believe in God, so stop asking me about this. You can very well believe in God and the Theory of Evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. We are not discussing god or the universe here, if you want to discuss that, go make another thread about it.

Besides, showing how fine-tuned the universe is is repeatable.

I'm just going to ignore these, I do not care about the universe, this thread is about Evolution.

You're acting as if the atheist has no BoP to show that it isn't designed, when uncertainty should be the default position.

Saying it is designed and it isn't designed are equally positive claims.

I'm not an atheist.

-blazed

 

[gm jack]

I'm a philosopher of religion, I've heard all this before. You don't need to repeat it.

I know what your position is.

If you demand empirical evidence for a designer, then you believe that a designer isn't metaphysically necessary, in that you believe that it's possible the universe could have come about without one. That doesn't mean that you know for sure it came about without one, but it means you find it logically possible, otherwise you'd believe in a designer.

Theists such as myself don't require empirical evidence because we believe God is metaphysically necessary. I don't need empirical evidence that you have parents, because I know that by necessity,given your existence, I know your parents must have existed at some point before you did.

Now simply believing God is not metaphysically necessary (again, which is what you're doing if you require empirical evidence for his existence) is a metaphysically positive proposition.

This has a lot of implications in your metaphysics, but people aren't educated in mp so they're not aware of it. I could go more into it, and explain the mp propositions you're assuming, but that takes too long and I've done it too many times.

All you've done here is sidestep the question of why you feel the need for a designer, by saying it is part of your beliefs and therefore does not need to be justified.

Assuming it happened randomly is the null hypothesis, where it happened because it did (the physics of the big bang is not fully understood, but might be making progress if recent results at the LHC turn out to be useful). You can ask why we have this set of physics etc that we do, and I feel the best answer is because we do.

Our entire universe has existed under one set of rules, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible for one to exist under a different set, that would find our's completely incomprehensible. Nobody is going to be around if the physics didn't provide a stable universe to talk about it, so by definition, so long as it is possible to happen randomly, it may have happened.

 

[Dre89]

The BoP is on him to prove his claims, but you said his claims were bs, and you have to justify that. A BoP is placed on anyone who makes a claim.

I never said you can't believe in both God and evolution, in fact I basically do that myself.

How come no one answered my questions about suicidal reproduction and camouflage?

 

[Dre89]

I never even attempted to justify my belief, so I don't know what you're talking about.

And this has nothing to do with physics.

All the mp assumptions atheists make are prior to the specifics of physics.

 

[gm jack]

How is a null hypothesis (in this case, something doesn't exist) a positive statement, in absence of evidence to the contrary?

(I'll edit in the stuff on camouflage and reproduction in a second, but I'll need to dig out my notes from last term.)

 

[Dre89]

You need to understand the difference between empirical negativity and mp negativity.

Atheism is e negative but mp positive, because it is a mp position and it is impossible to make negative mp propositions.

If you don't have reason to believe in unicorns, that's e negative, because you don't have to believe in something in its place.

But if you say that a unicorn isn't the first cause (or most ontologically prior reality to accommodate infinite regress theorists) that's still technically positive because something else must fill the role of the OPR.

For example if you're doing a multiple choice question and say the answer isn't d, that's still positve because you're saying it's something else.

With negative atheism you're doing the same thing but you're just not being specific.

The reason why this is important is because when you say God isn't necessary (which is what people who demand empirical evidence for God are doing, otherwise they wouldn't need the evidence), you're saying alot about the type of properties the opr can have.

When you're talking about the ontology of the opr, and what types of properties it can have, there aren't that many options and it really is like s multiple choice question in terms of how many options there are.

I can't get into the specifics because it takes too long, but I may give some examples later. I gave examples in the futility of religion debates thread.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sucumbio- There isn't anything we don't know with regards to the question of the probability of the universe coming about mindlessly. If you think new discoveries in physics will shed new light on the question then you don't understand the nature of the question.

The question is how multiple parties such as space, time etc. could exist, why they exist in the specific forms that they do, why they existed over other things.

The simple potential for any type of existence, including space and time, needs to be explained.

Physical activity has nothing to do with it because the question is how the conditions for physical activity came about.

That has nothing to do with what I said, though.

"One argument for ID is the sheer improbability of this universe coming about."

You replied by clarifying this, which is a good start. We can insert your whole paragraph into the original statement:

"One argument for ID is the sheer improbability of the conditions to be right for physical activity to come about."

However -my- point, is that without US even here to ask the question, we drastically reduce the importance of the question.

Just imagine, that .... say... some arbitrary number of times these "conditions" of which you speak mix and meld unsuccessfully ... say, 10 trillion times, before FINALLY it happens right, and we get the Known Universe.

To us, it's a single event... the event of the creation of Us and everything around us.

To the hypothetical 3rd person observer the odds of our Universe being created is 1:10,000,000,000,000 (I'm not going to play word games, whether we're talking about the creation of the Universe, or that the conditions were just right for it to happen, we're referring to the same darn thing, and you know it.)

But to US, we had a 1:1 chance of it happening. If it didn't happen, we'd not be here to say "hey it didn't happen" so obviously, our perception of these odds is vastly skewed in one direction.

THAT was my point.

It's an inane position - that due to sheer improbability there HAS to be an intelligent designer. Probability of pre-Universe conditions being right to make a Universe is irrelevant, because it'll either happen, or it won't, and when it does, that's the only time we'll notice..

 

[Dre89]

The problem is that avoids the probability bullet but doesn't avoid others.

It doesn't explain where this potency came from, and doesn't address a lot of the metsphysical issues it has.

One non mp problem for example would be the inconsistency of the laws of physics. You're saying that laws that fail to create anything come and go, yet laws which have created something stay consistent for at least billions of years.

Apart from the fact that it makes it highly improbable that the laws of our universe persist and don't just cease existing for billions of years, you also have the problem that mindless laws don't distinguish between failed and successful universes.

So by your logic, one would expect that the laws of the current universe would have changed ceased existing ages ago, or that the first assortment of laws would have persisted even if they failed to create anything.

Unless you're proposing a multiverse. But not only is this mp positive, but empirically positive, in fact more so than theism because quantitatively you're positing the existence of more entities to explain the existence of one (our universe).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Asking for falsifiable evidence is silly because the whole point is that the the first cause is outside of the universe. Your demand is designed to make it impossible to be satisfied by the ID side.

This is why ID isn't science. Our demand is that it meet the basic burden of proof without making assumptions that lie between "unreasonable" and Ridiculous". It doesn't do this. If you use the scientific method, it doesn't even come close.

 

[rvkevin]

Just a reminder, the title of the thread is Evolution. Create another thread if you want to talk about cosmology.

Bob, I've seen some of those claims before addressed at talkorigins. Some are are transparently idiotic like the distance of the moon changing. It would be like saying global warming is impossible because if we extrapolate back to the beginning, we would get a temperature of less than absolute zero. The same goes for comets, as they approach the sun, they start to melt; as they go away, they cool down. The size of a comet over its lifespan is not a uniform process, go figure. Its probably one of those templates that gets copied around thats been previously refuted a thousand times.

Dre., death is not an adaption. Just because there are side effects to adaptions does not mean that they themselves are adaptions. I'm not too informed about the specific historical development of active camo, but can you be more specific as to where you think the problem lies? To clear up some misconceptions you seem to have, evolution is not a conscious process. Animals don't foresee the feature and try to pick the right mutations thaat they predict will be best. Also, there are similar animals that don't have active camo, so I'm not sure what you are talking about there. And why would it take millions of years for an adaption to be effective? This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dre89]

BPC- There is a scientific element to ID in terms of calculating the probability. Other than that I agree it's scientific.

Rv- The first sexual reproducers didn't die after though so it's an adaption l. Not only that, but this adaption is only seen in species of huge numbers who migrate away from their standard habitat to reproduce.

That just suggests to me it's designed to regulate populations and sustain the balance of the eco.

I understand it's not conscious but the problem I have is that it looks like it is.

There are a few probs with camo. First is the fact that it's not a trait like height or a more illongated apparatus, which is just a measurement of an already existing feature. Camo requires an entirely new mechanism
to be created, but it's not as if the body knows this, it would have to be conscious.

The second problem is surviving long enough to develop it. Suppose height was needed in humans, and we needed to reach 4 metres in height. The taller humans of today, even though they are still far too short, will survive because they have an immediate albeit slight advantage.

Camo is different. It would have taken millions of years to develop the necessary mechanisms (colour pigmentation cells etc.) to achieve even the slightest colour change, yet alone perfect camo.

The problem is that until the slightest colour change was possible, which would have taken millions of years, the undeveloped camo mechanism in generations prior gave no advantage whatsoever, and thus they wouldn't be favoured.

Now only the camo variants of those species survive (eg. every blue ringed octopus has camo) which suggests it was necessary to survive. This means they should have been eliminated before they could have developed even the slightest colour change. Or, if it wasn't so necessary, we should still see a lot of blue ringed octopuses without camo, but we don't.

 

[rvkevin]

Dre, you should try to understand the basics of evolution first before tackling the specifics. Death is not something that increases reproductive fitness or is something that is selected for. I still don't understand why you keep on calling it an adaption. Also, I don't care what it looks like to you, I care about what can be demonstrated.

I'll address camo later, but it might be awhile.

 

[Dre89]

Of course death isn't meant to be an adaption.

If every organism before it died after procreation, and it wasn't specific to the type of organisms I described before, I would believe it wasn't an adaption.

But the fact it wasn't an orginal feature of sex, and is basically exclusive to organisms who migrate away from their usual habitat and that if they didn't do it their populations would imbalance ecosystems suggests to me it's done that way to balance them.

What makes it hard for me to accept evo theory is exactly the fact it claims suicidal sex isn't an adaptions, and adaptions are done for the selfish gain of the species, not for the sustainability of the ecosystem, yet suicidal sex seems to contradict that.

 

[rvkevin]

It wouldn't hurt you to provide some examples to explain what you mean. Are you talking about how birth sometimes results in the death of the mother or that sometimes there are cannibalistic practices between partners? The former could simply be explained that it is the result of more complex physiology and therefore a greater chance of complications. Any further connection would then simply be a correlation among higher order animals. The latter doesn't provide many examples that fit your hypothesis. The only example I can think of would be the praying mantis and they don't migrate and are an endangered species. You actually have to provide evidence for your hypothesis. According to your hypothesis, this rate that you speak of will fluctuate depending on the population. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The deal with the evolution of complex new mechanisms like the eye and active camouflage is that they occur over a very long period of time and occur in very small increments. All of these increments are likely advantageous or neutral on their own or in conjunction with the previous increments. The use of these incremental changes is often different at the time that they occurred to their final use.

 

[Dre89]

Rv- I'm not talking about things like praying mantises. That's evolutionarily benefitial anyway because eating the father provides energy to give birth to much more offspring.

There are species which migrate and all die after they give birth. There is a species of crab red in colour that does this (can't remember the name). I think slamon may also do this but I can't remember. I can't actually think of more examples but I know there are more.

Bob- It doesn't even sound like you read my post. The camouflage mechanism gives no advantage until it's capable of colour change. So in those millions of years to took to develop even the slightest colour change, it had no advantage,

 

[blazedaces]

@Dre Please read this article for some information about how camouflage evolved. But seriously man you can Google any questions like "how camouflage evolved". And if you actually tried to find evidence that camouflage was not advantageous in the evolutionary steps leading up to it you would find out that you were wrong.

-blazed

 

[gm jack]

Dre, I think you are anthropomorphising far too much in trying to understand why and how things have developed. How you would set about building a system is not the same way one will gradually develop in nature.

 

[Dre89]

Blazed did you even read what I've posted?

I'm talking about animals that change their colour, like octopuses and chameleons, not things like praying mantises which have a set colour.

The article is irrelevant because my point was that the camo mechanism provides no advantage until it can provide colour change.

It's not as if one generation is born with s functioning camo mechanism out of the blue. My offspring won't be capable of even the slightest colour change because I have no development of a camo mechanism in
me.

If we needed to evolve camo, then maybe my offspring may have the first stage of the mechanism. This is still probably millions of years away from being to create even the slightest colour change. Until that time it provides no advantage.

I'm still yet to get an answer as to why it's only developed in species who need it. Evo doesn't have a mind, it can't decide who needs it and who doesn't.

It's not as if other species developed it they would have died off, because it provides no disadvantage, if anything it gives an advantage.

If an already successful predator developed it it souls become too successful and imbalance the evosystem. Evo is meant to be mindless so there's no reason why that shouldn't have happened by now.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed did you even read what I've posted?

I'm talking about animals that change their colour, like octopuses and chameleons, not things like praying mantises which have a set colour.

The article is irrelevant because my point was that the camo mechanism provides no advantage until it can provide colour change.

It's not as if one generation is born with s functioning camo mechanism out of the blue. My offspring won't be capable of even the slightest colour change because I have no development of a camo mechanism in
me.

If we needed to evolve camo, then maybe my offspring may have the first stage of the mechanism. This is still probably millions of years away from being to create even the slightest colour change. Until that time it provides no advantage.

I'm still yet to get an answer as to why it's only developed in species who need it. Evo doesn't have a mind, it can't decide who needs it and who doesn't.

It's not as if other species developed it they would have died off, because it provides no disadvantage, if anything it gives an advantage.

If an already successful predator developed it it souls become too successful and imbalance the evosystem. Evo is meant to be mindless so there's no reason why that shouldn't have happened by now.

We have the same chemical in our skin which controls pigmentation. A lack of it causes a lack of pigmentation in the skin, otherwise known as being albino.

This same chemical is what causes animals who change color to do so.

Dre, you are making the claim that the intermediary steps along the way of obtaining camouflage don't provide any advantage and therefore could not have evolved. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. But the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

The article I provided was simply an example of what you could find if you googled that question. I don't care about answering every single question you have about evolution. GO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. This is a specific topic with plenty of research behind it. If you actually cared about knowing the answer you could go ahead and find out by doing the research.

If you took the point of view that there is a plausible explanation for this, and more than likely I'm not the first person to think of this question, then the explanation, the answer to the question, exists, and I can easily find it (which you can). Instead you're deliberately taking the point of view that something must be wrong with evolution, since your "reasoning" can't possibly be wrong.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Actually, my point is that I've applied evo theory, and think that things don't add up.

I'm not saying evo can't happen because God exists or for some metaphysical reason.

If we have the necessary tools to evolve camo already, then my offspring could be capable of colour change.

If colour change is still millions of years away, how can it be advantageous now if it can't perform
it's sole purpose?

 

[blazedaces]

Actually, my point is that I've applied evo theory, and think that things don't add up.

I'm not saying evo can't happen because God exists or for some metaphysical reason.

If we have the necessary tools to evolve camo already, then my offspring could be capable of colour change.

If colour change is still millions of years away, how can it be advantageous now if it can't perform
it's sole purpose?

Again, I'm not playing this game with you Dre. Go look it up.

-blazed

Edit: It doesn't exactly make sense to "apply evo theory". Evolution was not first a theory and then evidence was found to support it. It happened the other way around, the world was observed with the question of how we came to be, biologically speaking, and evolution is the conclusion we have come to after looking at all the evidence. Different specifics of how specific animals may have evolved what features has changed over time. If evolution was a one-size-fits-all theory, how could new evidence change it? How do you know you're even using the current "evo theory"?

 

[rvkevin]

If colour change is still millions of years away, how can it be advantageous now if it can't perform it's sole purpose?

This is the same flaw that irreducibly complexy advocates make. Just because a specific complex system isn't functional when you remove one part doesn't mean that the other parts are functionless. They can be useful for other functions, and therefore adaptive for those reasons. Sure, currently, it might be only performing this function, but that doesn't mean that it was intended for this function as it previously was used for others. Since I'm not fully read on the subject, I don't know the specific mutations that are involved in active camo or what uses they had prior to it, but look it up. Actually show that the steps involved couldn't be used for other advantageous functions rather than just asserting it.

There are species which migrate and all die after they give birth. There is a species of crab red in colour that does this (can't remember the name). I think salmon may also do this but I can't remember. I can't actually think of more examples but I know there are more.

Found it here. To quote: "It has been repeatedly demonstrated that semelparous species produce more offspring in their single fatal reproductive episode than do closely related iteroparous species in any one of theirs." This means that these types of species give more offspring than comparative species. This is a perfectly acceptable reproductive strategy, so what's your point? Why is this at odds with evolution? I'm still waiting for your evidence that your before mentioned rate fluctuates with the population as to be a population control method.

 

[Dre89]

This is the same flaw that irreducibly complexy advocates make. Just because a specific complex system isn't functional when you remove one part doesn't mean that the other parts are functionless. They can be useful for other functions, and therefore adaptive for those reasons. Sure, currently, it might be only performing this function, but that doesn't mean that it was intended for this function as it previously was used for others. Since I'm not fully read on the subject, I don't know the specific mutations that are involved in active camo or what uses they had prior to it, but look it up. Actually show that the steps involved couldn't be used for other advantageous functions rather than just asserting it.

But then you're pretty much committed into saying that the incomplete camo mechanism that could not yet produce even the slightest colour change must have had some other advantages. If this is your explanation then you'd need to find some advantages.

The reason why this is a positive proposition in this specific case is because it really becomes the only explanation is to how came species could have survived with mindless evo.

Let's take the Blue Ringed Octopus for example. All BROs have camo, meaning it must have been a necessary adaption seeing as the all the non camo ones died out.

If it was possible to survive for millions of years without colour change, then you'd expect to see plenty of non camo BROs, but there aren't any.

The problem is is that seeing that only the camo variants have survived, that suggest that camo was the deciding factor, but camo would have taken millions of years to have developed.

So you basically have to say that the incomplete camo mechanism gave some serious advantage, but I find that hard to believe.

Also, none of this answers my question as to why camo isn't present in species who don't need it. Camo is different from other adaptions because it's advantages aren't contextual- no species would be hindered by the option to change colour, it can only serve as an advantage.

So why is it only present in species who need it?

This is the third time I've asked it and got no answer, so I'm guessing you guys don't have a legitimate answer.

="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semelparity#Trade-offs"]Found it here.[/URL] To quote: "It has been repeatedly demonstrated that semelparous species produce more offspring in their single fatal reproductive episode than do closely related iteroparous species in any one of theirs." This means that these types of species give more offspring than comparative species. This is a perfectly acceptable reproductive strategy, so what's your point? Why is this at odds with evolution? I'm still waiting for your evidence that your before mentioned rate fluctuates with the population as to be a population control method.

But I still don't see why they would need to die. Unless they're saying that the suicide conserves energy which allows more offspring to be created. So if they're saying the suicide is necessary to create more offspring, then I can accept that.

Although, this would mean that with the every generation the population inreases correct? So wouldn't that mean that eventually there'd be too many of the species, and they'd imbalance the ecosystem by exhaustaing too much of their food supply etc.?

 

[rvkevin]

But then you're pretty much committed into saying that the incomplete camo mechanism that could not yet produce even the slightest colour change must have had some other advantages. If this is your explanation then you'd need to find some advantages.

This is like the creationist demanding a fossil for every single species dating back to the first organism. Such a demand is unreasonable since it is not what we ought to expect. We might not be able to explain every single function of every mechanism in every species, but that is not a flaw of evolution. That is simply a black box in our current understanding. It does not signal a problem. Also, genetic drift can allow neutral mutations to become prevalent in populations. So the reason for some features may not be that it was advantageous, but simply due to chance.

Let's take the Blue Ringed Octopus for example. All BROs have camo, meaning it must have been a necessary adaption seeing as the all the non camo ones died out.

Can you show me a phylogenetic tree for the Blue Ringed Octopus? It may be that this species is simply at the end of a branch, and that there have been no Blue Ringed Octopi that have gone extinct. However, even if there were, this mutation may have caused the species to have a reproductive advantage (i.e. survival benefit) over other closely-related species making this mutation to become commonplace. However, this doesn't mean that the previous species needed this feature to survive in their environment, only that this mutation was beneficial and therefore was selected.

You also need to be careful when you make arguments based on the categorization of a species since it is a fuzzy concept. After all, every organism is of the same species that preceded it. This means that you are related to different species, even though different species can't reproduce. Sometimes species are categorized based on their mutations rather than their reproductive compatibility (this is a more pragmatic approach in paleontology). This means that the defining attribute of a Blue Ringed Octopus might be the trait that you are trying to explain. If this is the case, then the reason why all Blue Ringed Octopi have that trait is because that is how the species is defined, not because all the others have gone extinct.

So you basically have to say that the incomplete camo mechanism gave some serious advantage, but I find that hard to believe.

I find many of things hard to believe, all of which are in fact the case. This is why I'm asking you to provide evidence, not your feelings. After all, advantages are dependent on the environment. Sometimes, it is beneficial to have X, when in other cases, X is considered a disease in need of treatment. Some would have this hard to believe since the same condition can be both good and bad, in different contexts; but it's true. So let's leave the feelings aside and look at what is the case, and not what we think is the case.

Also, none of this answers my question as to why camo isn't present in species who don't need it. Camo is different from other adaptions because it's advantages aren't contextual- no species would be hindered by the option to change colour, it can only serve as an advantage.

Stop asserting things without evidence. I don't know that the ability to change color is always an advantage. Take for example a plant that has a certain toxin in its roots that has no effect on the plant. Would you say having that defense would always be a benefit? Well, then you would be wrong. Virtually everything has a cost, even if that cost is simply requiring nutrients. For further reading, see page 68 in The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins. So, let's stop it with the assumptions and start providing justification for them.

But I still don't see why they would need to die. Unless they're saying that the suicide conserves energy which allows more offspring to be created. So if they're saying the suicide is necessary to create more offspring, then I can accept that.

First Google hit: "Salmon die after spawning due to exhaustion and malnutrition. As most salmon are sea fish, the environment of the creeks and streams are poisonous to them and they are unable to feed as they swim up stream. By the time they get to the spawning grounds they have used up their stores of energy and cannot get back to the sea."

Their death is simply a result of their reproductive behavior.

Although, this would mean that with the every generation the population increases correct? So wouldn't that mean that eventually there'd be too many of the species, and they'd imbalance the ecosystem by exhausting too much of their food supply etc.?

This is no more true than for any other species. All it is saying that species that reproduce using this method leave offspring in greater numbers than other species. This has no bearing on the death rate for either species. As I have explained before, when the population increases, competition for resources causes the death rate to increase. This causes the population to stabilize at an equilibrium.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob- It doesn't even sound like you read my post. The camouflage mechanism gives no advantage until it's capable of colour change. So in those millions of years to took to develop even the slightest colour change, it had no advantage,

Here's how I think active camouflage might have evolved in the case of the chameleon. This is only a guess by the way. The skin cells have pigment. The ability of a chameleon to change colour is based upon the expansion and contraction of these cells and the fact that they are layered. Different layers of pigment cells would be advantageous in that it allows a broader range of colours that a chameleon can be and it would make it easier for the chameleon to evolve camouflage to new environments. Effectively this would make it more adaptable. Now the expansion and contraction of cells would perhaps allow a chameleon to recover from wounds faster. So if you put these two adaptations together, you get the ability for the chameleon to change colour.

If you actually look at the individual steps involved into making active camouflage or really any adaptation, you'll see the point in each individual step, if you look hard enough.

 

[blazedaces]

So you basically have to say that the incomplete camo mechanism gave some serious advantage, but I find that hard to believe.

We shouldn't have to do your homework for you Dre. Look it up. I don't care if you find it hard to believe, that doesn't make it not true. The burden of proof is on you to prove it true.

All you have to do is google the evolution of camouflage and through a little time and effort you can find exactly what you're looking for.

-blazed

 

[BOB SAGET!]

creation vs evolution...http://www2.crossroads.ca/itsyourcall/discussions?id=312

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ouch. My head hurts from reading crap like that.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Another creationist claim....

Evolutionists often respond to the challenge from history-deniers by throwing them the bones of Archaeopteryx, the famous so-called “intermediate” between reptiles and birds. Archaeopteryx is not an answer to the challenge, because there is no challenge worth answering. There are numerous problems; its timing is wrong. Archaeopteryx is allegedly 153 million years old, and even the beaked bird Confuciusornis is dated to 153 million years; but their alleged feathered dinosaur ancestors, such as Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx are “dated” to 125 million years old. Thus, by their own dating methods, Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis are dated as being millions of years older than their alleged evolutionary ancestors. While a grandfather can sometimes outlive its grandson, evolutionary paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia questions how how an “advanced’ beaked bird like Confuciusornis could appear 10 million years before there is a trace of its ‘feathered” dino ancestors.

Also, one of the major “evidences” of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. Therefore the gross mismatch with the dino-birds is a severe challenge to the evolutionary explanation; for example:

(1) Perching foot: This means that its wings would have needed to be sophisticated enough to produce the special wing turbulences (leading edge vortices) like those of modern birds, so that it could land.

(2) Classical elliptical wings like modern woodland birds.

(3) Fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds.

(4). A large wishbone for attachment of strong muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings.

(5). Archaeopteryx possessed the unique avian lung design with air sacs and one-directional airflow, highly efficiently designed to flow in the opposite direction to the blood for maximum oxygen uptake. This is totally different from the bellows-like lungs of a reptile, even Sinosauropteryx. One of the first intermediate forms would have a hole in the diaphragm, so natural selection would work against it. The air sacs require a fixed thigh bone for support, yet dinosaurs have moveable thighs, so could not have supported an avian lung system. Evolutionary paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia’s major work on bird evolution doesn’t even touch this problem.

(6) A brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent body size. The brain had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying.

(7). An inner ear with a cochlear length and semicircular canal proportions in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight.

Note also, these obvious avian features are totally incompatible with the idea that Archaeopteryx was a forgery, a dinosaur fossil with fake feather imprints, as some have falsely claimed. These features show, without question, that it was a true bird--neither a missing link nor a forgery.

Source: “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution” by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry, pages 123-125.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Another creationist claim....

Evolutionists often respond to the challenge from history-deniers by throwing them the bones of Archaeopteryx, the famous so-called “intermediate” between reptiles and birds. Archaeopteryx is not an answer to the challenge, because there is no challenge worth answering. There are numerous problems; its timing is wrong. Archaeopteryx is allegedly 153 million years old, and even the beaked bird Confuciusornis is dated to 153 million years; but their alleged feathered dinosaur ancestors, such as Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx are “dated” to 125 million years old. Thus, by their own dating methods, Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis are dated as being millions of years older than their alleged evolutionary ancestors. While a grandfather can sometimes outlive its grandson, evolutionary paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia questions how how an “advanced’ beaked bird like Confuciusornis could appear 10 million years before there is a trace of its ‘feathered” dino ancestors.

Also, one of the major “evidences” of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. Therefore the gross mismatch with the dino-birds is a severe challenge to the evolutionary explanation; for example:

(1) Perching foot: This means that its wings would have needed to be sophisticated enough to produce the special wing turbulences (leading edge vortices) like those of modern birds, so that it could land.

(2) Classical elliptical wings like modern woodland birds.

(3) Fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds.

(4). A large wishbone for attachment of strong muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings.

(5). Archaeopteryx possessed the unique avian lung design with air sacs and one-directional airflow, highly efficiently designed to flow in the opposite direction to the blood for maximum oxygen uptake. This is totally different from the bellows-like lungs of a reptile, even Sinosauropteryx. One of the first intermediate forms would have a hole in the diaphragm, so natural selection would work against it. The air sacs require a fixed thigh bone for support, yet dinosaurs have moveable thighs, so could not have supported an avian lung system. Evolutionary paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia’s major work on bird evolution doesn’t even touch this problem.

(6) A brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent body size. The brain had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying.

(7). An inner ear with a cochlear length and semicircular canal proportions in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight.

Note also, these obvious avian features are totally incompatible with the idea that Archaeopteryx was a forgery, a dinosaur fossil with fake feather imprints, as some have falsely claimed. These features show, without question, that it was a true bird--neither a missing link nor a forgery.

Source: “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution” by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry, pages 123-125.

Archaeopteryx was discounted a long time ago, it was an example of convergent evolution. The actual link between dinosaurs and birds are species like the Caudipteryx and the Protarchaeopteryx.


Once more creationalists act like discounting debunked scientific theories from decades ago actually improves their case without touching the modern understanding.

 

[Dre89]

Random question why does rain fall down in droplets, rather than one single blob? Is there some form of benefit to that?

 

[blazedaces]

Random question why does rain fall down in droplets, rather than one single blob? Is there some form of benefit to that?

Let me google that for you

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

Random question why does rain fall down in droplets, rather than one single blob? Is there some form of benefit to that?

First of all, is there a reason this is posted in a thread titled "Evolution"?

Second, Google is your friend: "Clouds are made of small water droplets suspended in the atmosphere. If conditions change, or the droplets aggregate together until they are too heavy to stay up, then they will fall. In a heavy storm for example, the water droplets are tossed around for a long time, getting bigger and bigger before they fall, and so are quite large. In a summer shower, the droplets will fall as soon as they are heavy enough to do so, when they may be quite small. Basically, water droplets fall as soon as they possibly can, and that is always well before they have aggregated into one large body of water."

Edit: Putting this here to prevent further derailment, I think that small unrelated questions like this should be asked in the Social Thread.

 

[SuperBowser]

Let me google that for you

-blazed

I used to have this attitude.

But then I realised people from non-scientific backgrounds are actually rather bad at using google to research "simple" questions. Even when you find the correct information, a lot of people don't know what to do with it or how to interpret their findings. Practice makes a huge difference.

 

[blazedaces]

I used to have this attitude.

But then I realised people from non-scientific backgrounds are actually rather bad at using google to research "simple" questions. Even when you find the correct information, a lot of people don't know what to do with it or how to interpret their findings. Practice makes a huge difference.

Alright, I apologize Dre if that post was insulting or condescending.

That being said I don't feel this forum is a place to ask random questions you don't know the answer to and can look up yourself. The truth is there probably are forums where people can ask these questions, this just isn't one of them.

-blazed

 

[Calibrate]

How is standing upright with the ability to greatly use tools and weapons considered being physically inferior? Does raw strength really determine physical superiority?

See this as a question, not an answer.