Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Steve H on April 05, 2018, 11:30:03 PM
-
...and yet you just know that some fundy fuckwit will say, on some facebook group or other, that no-one has ever seen one species change into another next week or the week after. (One such has just said it in a facebook group I'm a member of.) That's because they are wilfully ignorant idiots who don't even know what "species" means.
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos
-
...and yet you just know that some fundy fuckwit will say, on some facebook group or other, that no-one has ever seen one species change into another next week or the week after. (One such has just said it in a facebook group I'm a member of.) That's because they are wilfully ignorant idiots who don't even know what "species" means.
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos
is it still a finch??
-
is it still a finch??
Yes, but a new species.
-
Yes, but a new species.
so if it's a new species why is it a finch..??
-
You know that there are numerous species of finch, right?
-
Yes, but a new species.
Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.
You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.
Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.
Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.
-
so if it's a new species why is it a finch..??
Because there are many species of finch. They belong to the family fringillidae, which contains more than one genus, and each genus contains many different species.
-
Sassy
For someone who has explained how she managed - as an adult - to climb the precipitous pathway up the mountain to achieve the intellectual summit that is "O" level English, you do show surprising gaps in your understanding of the language. I suspect that you have been reading too much by Arthur Conan Doyle - the meaning of "theory", as used in the Sherlock Holmes stories, is erroneous.
Theory has a very clear and well-understood meaning for scientists. You obviously do not know what that meaning is, nor do you understand its application in evolutionary science.
You are clearly a well-meaning and caring individual. Stop giving other people the opportunity to dismiss your contributions.
-
Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.
You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.
Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.
Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.
Shows once again you don't understand the science if the theory of evolution by natural selection, the meaning if the word theory or, well, science at all. You accuse people if ignorance when they comment on religion yet are happy to display your ignorance on evolution. Best not to comment on stuff you don't understand.
-
Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.
You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.
Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.
Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.
well said ...
It seems to go unnoticed that every creature seems to have parameters set in to their changes ...
-
Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.
You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.
Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.
Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.
Where on this thread have I insulted anyone? I was sorely tempted to, after reading the alarmingly ignorant and stupid posts of some other people, but I resisted the temptation.
I am not going to argue any more about evolution. It is a fact, and those who deny it are wilfully ignorant, closed-minded, superstitious idiots. (NOW you can accuse me of being insulting, if you like!)
-
well said ...
So you approve of breathtaking ignorance.
It seems to go unnoticed that every creature seems to have parameters set in to their changes ...
And this is supposed to mean what, exactly?
-
So you approve of breathtaking ignorance.
And this is supposed to mean what, exactly?
how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..
-
how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..
How come we don't see intelligent fundies?
-
How come we don't see intelligent fundies?
We do, it's just they are so far ahead of you, you don't recognise them.... :)
so no answer to wingless humans..lol
-
We do, it's just they are so far ahead of you, you don't recognise them.... :)
so no answer to wingless humans..lol
Vertebrates are constructed on a basic four-limbed pattern. To have wings, we'd have to do without arms or legs, which would not be much of an improvement. [Edit] Actually, it'd have to be arms we'd have to do without, as they, not legs, are analogous to birds' wings. Legs are in the wrong position.
-
how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..
Is this actually a serious question?
-
how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..
Don't you just love it when a fundy asks what they think is a killer question, that could in fact be answered by any reasonably bright 12-year-old?
-
And another thing, GoG: stop using two question marks at the end of questions. It's bloody annoying.
-
how come we don't see flying pigs for example?? flying humans, that would be a great evolutionary advance..
If this is a serious question, I'm fascinated as to what bizarre misunderstanding has led to you ask it. Please do tell as to why you think evolution would have produced flying pigs or humans.
-
Actually, on this occasion, I think Sassy has a point. This new "species" came about by birds from two other species breeding. Since these two birds successfully mated and produced fertile young, is there any justification for claiming they really were of two different species in the first place?
Also, although the hybrid offspring seem to have bred only amongst themselves so far, presumably they could interbreed with either of their ancestors' species. How, therefore is this a new species?
-
Actually, on this occasion, I think Sassy has a point. This new "species" came about by birds from two other species breeding. Since these two birds successfully mated and produced fertile young, is there any justification for claiming they really were of two different species in the first place?
Also, although the hybrid offspring seem to have bred only amongst themselves so far, presumably they could interbreed with either of their ancestors' species. How, therefore is this a new species?
If that was the only point she was making then I wouldn't have commented - since I had doubts about the headline but do not feel qualified enough to discuss it. Sassy then went on to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of ToE by Natural Selection, the meaning of the word Theory and so on - hence the post.
-
Actually, on this occasion, I think Sassy has a point. This new "species" came about by birds from two other species breeding. Since these two birds successfully mated and produced fertile young, is there any justification for claiming they really were of two different species in the first place?
Nature (specifically evolution) tends to thwart classification systems. See, for example: What Does It Mean to Be a Species? Genetics Is Changing the Answer (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-does-it-mean-be-species-genetics-changing-answer-180963380/)
Perhaps the most classic definition is a group of organisms that can breed with each other to produce fertile offspring, an idea originally set forth in 1942 by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. While elegant in its simplicity, this concept has since come under fire by biologists, who argue that it didn’t apply to many organisms, such as single-celled ones that reproduce asexually, or those that have been shown to breed with other distinct organisms to create hybrids.
-
Nature (specifically evolution) tends to thwart classification systems. See, for example: What Does It Mean to Be a Species? Genetics Is Changing the Answer (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-does-it-mean-be-species-genetics-changing-answer-180963380/)
Perhaps the most classic definition is a group of organisms that can breed with each other to produce fertile offspring, an idea originally set forth in 1942 by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. While elegant in its simplicity, this concept has since come under fire by biologists, who argue that it didn’t apply to many organisms, such as single-celled ones that reproduce asexually, or those that have been shown to breed with other distinct organisms to create hybrids.
So what is the basis of the claim that these finches are a new species?
You can understand why people who are sceptical of evolution might look at things like this and come to the conclusion that the "evilutionists" are making it up as they go along.
-
So what is the basis of the claim that these finches are a new species?
I don't know - but the article in the OP says this:
The birds had a different song from G. fortis, as well as different beak size and shape, and these are what the finches use to attract mates. Reproductively, the new species was completely isolated, and had to mate within its own kind to survive.
So I'd hazard a guess that that had something to do with it.
You can understand why people who are sceptical of evolution might look at things like this and come to the conclusion that the "evilutionists" are making it up as they go along.
Frankly, people who are that position have already decided to totally ignore copious amounts of evidence, so some debate about the exact definition of the word 'species' is hardly going to tip the balance. In any case the difficulties in drawing neat lines around different groups of organisms is a direct consequence of evolution, and actually constitutes (yet more) evidence against the fixed and distinct 'kinds' that many such fantasists favour.
-
The hybridization of two closely related species can result in viable offspring. Whether one chooses to call these offspring a new species or sub species doesn't really matter, and is best left in the hands of the taxonomists in my opinion. Indeed, if you google 'San Isidro owl' you will come across pictures of this fairly new and viable hybrid, and one which I have been lucky to see when I went to Ecuador. The jury is still out as to whether this is a new species, or not.
However, it will be interesting to see whether we can learn more about another of evolution's methods, that of genetic drift, in what seemed a very restricted and inbred population of this new species(sub species?) of Galapago finch.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
-
Vertebrates are constructed on a basic four-limbed pattern. To have wings, we'd have to do without arms or legs, which would not be much of an improvement. [Edit] Actually, it'd have to be arms we'd have to do without, as they, not legs, are analogous to birds' wings. Legs are in the wrong position.
wings would be great, they would be a huge step forward...
-
wings would be great, they would be a huge step forward...
And so....?
As I said in #19 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15448.msg727773#msg727773), I'm fascinated to know what bizarre misunderstanding of evolution is leading you to ask about this...
-
wings would be great, they would be a huge step forward...
Humans do have the capacity to fly. Haven’t you noticed?
-
Humans do have the capacity to fly. Haven’t you noticed?
I have flown countless times but not under my own power... :)
-
Humans do have the capacity to fly. Haven’t you noticed?
That reminds me, my 'angel' wings need servicing. ;D
-
Saying that wings would be good, seems to imply that evolution has targets or plans. Err, no.
-
That reminds me, my 'angel' wings need servicing. ;D
:) :) :)
-
Saying that wings would be good, seems to imply that evolution has targets or plans. Err, no.
it would seem some people think that is true, i often wonder how male and female of any species suddenly sprouted together and what advantage that would produce..
-
it would seem some people think that is true, i often wonder how male and female of any species suddenly sprouted together and what advantage that would produce..
Sprouted together?
Suddenly?
Explain please.
-
Saying that wings would be good, seems to imply that evolution has targets or plans. Err, no.
it would seem some people think that is true...
Only people who are ignorant of how evolution works.
...i often wonder how male and female of any species suddenly sprouted together and what advantage that would produce..
lmgtfy (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+of+sexual+reproduction).
-
Sprouted together?
Suddenly?
Explain please.
why would a species produce male and female and why would it happen at the same time??
-
why would a species produce male and female and why would it happen at the same time??
Once again I'm left wondering what your actual misunderstanding is and just how deep your ignorance runs.
Sexual reproduction predates any modern species and is now thought to have been present in the last eukaryotic common ancestor (http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/6/3/a016154.full). You also do understand that sexual reproduction can happen before distinct sexes, don't you?
-
why would a species produce male and female and why would it happen at the same time??
That really suggests a total lack of understanding of evolution I'm afraid. Have you read any of the links provided?
-
That really suggests a total lack of understanding of evolution I'm afraid. Have you read any of the links provided?
so what would have caused male and female of a species to develop at the same time??
-
so what would have caused male and female of a species to develop at the same time??
FFS at least read the answers you're getting - maybe even risk a glance at the links?
-
so what would have caused male and female of a species to develop at the same time??
Have you read any of the links provided?
-
FFS at least read the answers you're getting - maybe even risk a glance at the links?
just answer in your own words, why and how would make and female of a species develop at the same time in the same place?
-
just answer in your own words, why and how would make and female of a species develop at the same time in the same place?
It's not necessary for that to have happened - as you would know if you'd have been arsed to read #37 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15448.msg728055#msg728055) (even if you didn't follow the link).
You know Orgel's Second Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rules) states that "evolution is cleverer than you are." - which is meant to mean, not that evolution is actually clever, but that people who can't see how evolution could have done something are lacking imagination.
It seems that fundie evolution deniers are particularly lacking in imagination - and also the ability to do internet searches, follow links, or even read posted answers.
-
just answer in your own words, why and how would make and female of a species develop at the same time in the same place?
You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, and you make a bigger fool of yourself with every post. Quit while you're behind!
-
so what would have caused male and female of a species to develop at the same time??
Why don't you go to your local library and see if they've got the Ladybird Book of Biology?
If that's not available then perhaps Janet and John Play Doctors and Nurses?
-
just answer in your own words, why and how would make and female of a species develop at the same time in the same place?
Come to think of it, they didn't, necessarily. There are insect species which are almost entirely female, and which are usually parthenogenetic (google it), but which occasionally have it off with the very rare males of the species to introduce a bit of genetic variation. They could have managed without males altogether for millennia until evolution came up with males of the species. I've no idea whether that is actually what happened, but given the possibility of parthenogenesis in an all-female population of primitive creatures, males may have made their appearance much later.
-
It's not necessary for that to have happened - as you would know if you'd have been arsed to read #37 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15448.msg728055#msg728055) (even if you didn't follow the link).
You know Orgel's Second Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rules) states that "evolution is cleverer than you are." - which is meant to mean, not that evolution is actually clever, but that people who can't see how evolution could have done something are lacking imagination.
It seems that fundie evolution deniers are particularly lacking in imagination - and also the ability to do internet searches, follow links, or even read posted answers.
wiki says England is only 20 miles long..lol
-
It's not necessary for that to have happened - as you would know if you'd have been arsed to read #37 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15448.msg728055#msg728055) (even if you didn't follow the link).
You know Orgel's Second Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rules) states that "evolution is cleverer than you are." - which is meant to mean, not that evolution is actually clever, but that people who can't see how evolution could have done something are lacking imagination.
It seems that fundie evolution deniers are particularly lacking in imagination - and also the ability to do internet searches, follow links, or even read posted answers.
that's the oldest and most pathetic brow beating excuse ever used, you must be to dumb to understand it if you do not believe it, what a croc...
-
...
It seems that fundie evolution deniers are particularly lacking in imagination - and also the ability to do internet searches, follow links, or even read posted answers.
wiki says England is only 20 miles long..lol
I'll add "evaluate and check information found" to the list. ::)
that's the oldest and most pathetic brow beating excuse ever used, you must be to dumb to understand it if you do not believe it, what a croc...
It wasn't an excuse - if it was you wouldn't have an answer. You asked a question that you obviously hadn't thought about, let alone tried to find the answer for yourself and then ignored the relevant information when it was supplied to you.
It doesn't take much knowledge and imagination to realise that male and female didn't have to suddenly appear at the same time.
-
wiki says England is only 20 miles long..lol
I'll add "evaluate and check information found" to the list. ::)
It wasn't an excuse - if it was you wouldn't have an answer. You asked a question that you obviously hadn't thought about, let alone tried to find the answer for yourself and then ignored the relevant information when it was supplied to you.
It doesn't take much knowledge and imagination to realise that male and female didn't have to suddenly appear at the same time.
by evaluate you mean, you chose to believe it's chosen version...
oh i've thought about it and a random mutation that produces a male or female in the same place and the same time seems like a long shot...
-
by evaluate you mean, you chose to believe it's chosen version...
oh i've thought about it and a random mutation that produces a male or female in the same place and the same time seems like a long shot...
Read my earlier post.
-
oh i've thought about it and a random mutation that produces a male or female in the same place and the same time seems like a long shot...
I absolutely agree. What part of them not having to suddenly appear at the same time are you finding difficult to grasp?
-
I'll add "evaluate and check information found" to the list. ::)
...
by evaluate you mean, you chose to believe it's chosen version...
QED
-
I absolutely agree. What part of them not having to suddenly appear at the same time are you finding difficult to grasp?
I guess it's the part that why a mutation or anything else cause males and females to occur, at the same time in the same place..
you know the bit you dance around yet have not actually answered, in your own words..
-
I guess it's the part that why a mutation or anything else cause males and females to occur, at the same time in the same place..
It's extremely unlikely that they did - as I've said several times now. What's the problem? Why keep on asking the same question after it's been pointed out that its whole premise is flawed?
I'm happy to help if you genuinely don't understand why what you're asking about didn't need to happen - but it looks to me as if you aren't even bothering to read the answers you're getting anyway...
-
well said ...
It seems to go unnoticed that every creature seems to have parameters set in to their changes ...
I think you definitely need to read 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkkins, where he sets out in straightforward terms how species evolve.
As I understand it, when a new species is identified, it is so declared becausee it cannot interbreed with the ancestor species, but I might have got that slightly wrong.
ETA I have now read through the rest of the thread. The profound ignorance evident in your posts, GofG, is desperately sad.
-
It's extremely unlikely that they did - as I've said several times now. What's the problem? Why keep on asking the same question after it's been pointed out that its whole premise is flawed?
I'm happy to help if you genuinely don't understand why what you're asking about didn't need to happen - but it looks to me as if you aren't even bothering to read the answers you're getting anyway...
so at some time we never had male and female of a species, so what would have caused the two to occur?? either separately or together ..
-
I think you definitely need to read 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkkins, where he sets out in straightforward terms how species evolve.
As I understand it, when a new species is identified, it is so declared becausee it cannot interbreed with the ancestor species, but I might have got that slightly wrong.
ETA I have now read through the rest of the thread. The profound ignorance evident in your posts, GofG, is desperately sad.
lol i assume you are so profoundly ignorant of God existing that you seem so desperately sad to believers... then again I assume it does not work both ways...
-
Please don't tell me you're a YEC......
-
lol i assume you are so profoundly ignorant of God existing that you seem so desperately sad to believers... then again I assume it does not work both ways...
It is very simple, you know, just present one verifiable fact, one objective observation of this god you believe exists, and all atheists wil accept it.
-
It is very simple, you know, just present one verifiable fact, one objective observation of this god you believe exists, and all atheists wil accept it.
there are facts perhaps you are just so stupid you do not see and understand them... :)
-
there are facts perhaps you are just so stupid you do not see and understand them... :)
That's assertion. Produce some of these facts you believe are available.
-
so at some time we never had male and female of a species, so what would have caused the two to occur?? either separately or together ..
Have you actually read anything that has been said about this? I don't known why your talking about "a species" as if it has to happen for each one. Most species with male and female would have evolved from species that already had the distinction.
As I said before, sexual reproduction came first in very simple, single-celled organisms (probably before the LECA - the ancestor of all plants, animals, and fungi - see previous link) - specialisation into male and female can develop later and doesn't need to happen all at once. There are hermaphrodites, organisms that use both sexual and asexual reproduction (see Steve's post), those that can change sex during their lifetime, and so on.
It really doesn't take much imagination to see any number of possible scenarios - and the changes need not be all that significant for simpler organisms.
-
there are facts perhaps you are just so stupid you do not see and understand them... :)
Perhaps you don't actually have any facts and are just evading the question... :)
-
Perhaps you don't actually have any facts and are just evading the question... :)
another one who is to stupid to understand, are you related to the other poster by any chance??
-
another one who is to [sic] stupid to understand, are you related to the other poster by any chance??
Further evasion noted.
-
That's assertion. Produce some of these facts you believe are available.
you wouldn't understand, you lack the intelligence required.. :)
-
you wouldn't understand, you lack the intelligence required.. :)
And this just looks like further evasion.
-
you wouldn't understand, you lack the intelligence required.. :)
Do you remember your first post on here GoG? If not, this is what you said.
'Hi , I'm a bible believing Christian and i'm looking forward to some very interesting debate, hope we can debate and get along.. :)'
What happened?
-
Have you actually read anything that has been said about this? I don't known why your talking about "a species" as if it has to happen for each one. Most species with male and female would have evolved from species that already had the distinction.
As I said before, sexual reproduction came first in very simple, single-celled organisms (probably before the LECA - the ancestor of all plants, animals, and fungi - see previous link) - specialisation into male and female can develop later and doesn't need to happen all at once. There are hermaphrodites, organisms that use both sexual and asexual reproduction (see Steve's post), those that can change sex during their lifetime, and so on.
It really doesn't take much imagination to see any number of possible scenarios - and the changes need not be all that significant for simpler organisms.
but isn't sexual reproduction less effective in many ways so why would it be a helpful evolutionary device, it wastes resources assuming it produces half and half male and female only half can further produce as opposed to asexual reproduction, so assuming that asexual would produce at probably twice the rate so asexual reproduction would be far more prolific. when you consider that the species that use sexual reproduction only perpetuate half of their successful genotype to transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction is to gamble with 50% of there successful genotype, Given that the whole purpose of natural selection is the preservation of those organisms which pass on their successful genes, this strikes at the heart of evolutionary rationale.
-
but isn't sexual reproduction less effective in many ways so why would it be a helpful evolutionary device, it wastes resources assuming it produces half and half male and female only half can further produce as opposed to asexual reproduction, so assuming that asexual would produce at probably twice the rate so asexual reproduction would be far more prolific. when you consider that the species that use sexual reproduction only perpetuate half of their successful genotype to transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction is to gamble with 50% of there successful genotype, Given that the whole purpose of natural selection is the preservation of those organisms which pass on their successful genes, this strikes at the heart of evolutionary rationale.
And off we go in a totally different direction...
When a creationist who was previously asking really daft questions suddenly posts a few sentences that seem to make some sense, it's always instructive to search for one of said sentences in quotes: like this (https://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=%22Given+that+the+whole+purpose+of+natural+selection+is+the+preservation+of+those+organisms+which+pass+on+their+successful+genes%2C+this+strikes+at+the+heart+of+evolutionary+rationale%22&oq=%22Given+that+the+whole+purpose+of+natural+selection+is+the+preservation+of+those+organisms+which+pass+on+their+successful+genes%2C+this+strikes+at+the+heart+of+evolutionary+rationale%22).
I have no confidence that you understand what you've cut and pasted but much has been written on the possible advantages of sexual reproduction which are not difficult to find if you're interested.
-
And off we go in a totally different direction...
When a creationist who was previously asking really daft questions suddenly posts a few sentences that seem to make some sense, it's always instructive to search for one of said sentences in quotes: like this (https://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=%22Given+that+the+whole+purpose+of+natural+selection+is+the+preservation+of+those+organisms+which+pass+on+their+successful+genes%2C+this+strikes+at+the+heart+of+evolutionary+rationale%22&oq=%22Given+that+the+whole+purpose+of+natural+selection+is+the+preservation+of+those+organisms+which+pass+on+their+successful+genes%2C+this+strikes+at+the+heart+of+evolutionary+rationale%22).
I have no confidence that you understand what you've cut and pasted but much has been written on the possible advantages of sexual reproduction which are not difficult to find if you're interested.
if you have no answer just say so... :)
-
if you have no answer just say so... :)
Are you claiming that you wrote the original words, or just agreeing you cut and pasted them?if so, have alook at the rules and edit your post accordingly.
-
Are you claiming that you wrote the original words, or just agreeing you cut and pasted them?if so, have alook at the rules and edit your post accordingly.
those are my own words....
-
if you have no answer just say so... :)
I really don't see why I should spend any more time on this when half the time you don't read the answers, and when you do get an answer and read it, you change the subject and dishonestly paste things in that you clearly don't understand.
-
those are my own words....
So you wrote them on the websites linked to by Stranger?
-
I really don't see why I should spend any more time on this when half the time you don't read the answers, and when you do get an answer and read it, you change the subject and dishonestly paste things in that you clearly don't understand.
again, if you can't answer just say so... you seem easily shaken on a subject you consider to be an indisputable fact..
-
So you wrote them on the websites linked to by Stranger?
I wrote the original article... :)
-
I wrote the original article... :)
What are your scientific qualifications?
-
What are your scientific qualifications?
why would i give personal information on a forum??
-
why would i give personal information on a forum??
You can say enough so you won't be identified surely.
-
You can say enough so you won't be identified surely.
I will not give any personal details...
debate the subject ... :)
-
I will not give any personal details...
debate the subject ... :)
You mean apart from being Jonathan M blogger?
-
I will not give any personal details...
debate the subject ... :)
I am not qualified enough to debate details, and have not attempted to. I do have a scientific degree but not in relevant fields. Hence why I have asked you about your understanding of the scientific method. You haven't demonstrated one as yet.
-
Do you remember your first post on here GoG? If not, this is what you said.
'Hi , I'm a bible believing Christian and i'm looking forward to some very interesting debate, hope we can debate and get along.. :)'
What happened?
I wondered the same.
[quote SteveH]
And another thing, GoG: stop using two question marks at the end of questions. It's bloody annoying.
[/quote]
Not to mention the ellipsis.......
-
I am not qualified enough to debate details, and have not attempted to. I do have a scientific degree but not in relevant fields. Hence why I have asked you about your understanding of the scientific method. You haven't demonstrated one as yet.
perhaps you are not qualified enough to have noticed it... :)
-
but isn't sexual reproduction less effective in many ways so why would it be a helpful evolutionary device, it wastes resources assuming it produces half and half male and female only half can further produce as opposed to asexual reproduction, so assuming that asexual would produce at probably twice the rate so asexual reproduction would be far more prolific. when you consider that the species that use sexual reproduction only perpetuate half of their successful genotype to transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction is to gamble with 50% of there successful genotype, Given that the whole purpose of natural selection is the preservation of those organisms which pass on their successful genes, this strikes at the heart of evolutionary rationale.
All of that is complete and utter bollocks, but even if it was true and sexual reproductionwas wasteful and less efficient than asexual, why, on your view, did God introduce it? If it's a problem for evoultionists, it's a problem for creationists as well.
-
I wondered the same.
Not to mention the ellipsis.......
getting along is always good, what i like is the opportunity to debate a subject without it tainting every debate after that..
i often disagree strongly on one subject but still can agree on others, some people seem incapable of doing this and once they know you are Christian they just disagree for the sake of it and judge everything you say as "not very Christian", it's childish and very tedious....
-
All of that is complete and utter bollocks, but even if it was true and sexual reproductionwas wasteful and less efficient than asexual, why, on your view, did God introduce it? If it's a problem for evoultionists, it's a problem for creationists as well.
it is no problem for creationists at all, we were made by God as we are, woman was made as a helper, procreation is the way it was meant to be...
-
I wrote the original article... :)
I don't believe you. For a start, "Jonathan M." knows that sentences start with a capital letter and questions only need one question mark at the end.
-
perhaps you are not qualified enough to have noticed it... :)
No.
-
getting along is always good, what i like is the opportunity to debate a subject ......
Then try doing it.
-
All of that is complete and utter bollocks...
It's cobbled together from this article (the "What Are The Problems?" section): Sex, the Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology (https://evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_/). Evolution News & Science Today is an ID propaganda site and the article is the usual mix of bollocks and part truth. However, there are (or have been) legitimate questions about why sexual reproduction is so widespread.
As I said there has been much written about it, for example: Sexual Reproduction and the Evolution of Sex (https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824).
Basically more realistic mathematical models have revealed all sorts of circumstances in which sexual reproduction is advantageous.
-
Saying that wings would be good, seems to imply that evolution has targets or plans. Err, no.
Quite. Mutations occur. Those that give an advantage or are neutral will get passed on. Those that are negative i.e. provide a disadvantage, don't. Advantage and disadvantage, in this context, mean how mutations aid the passing on of DNA. That's it.
-
Quite. Mutations occur. Those that give an advantage or are neutral will get passed on. Those that are negative i.e. provide a disadvantage, don't. Advantage and disadvantage, in this context, mean how mutations aid the passing on of DNA. That's it.
But there are limits to what mutations can achieve, which explains the many design faults in organisms, if you assume design. I don't think any mutation could give a vertebrate six limbs instead of the standard four, so, as I said earlier, if humans were to have wings, we'd have to do without arms, which would be a retrograde step, if you ask me.
-
there are facts perhaps you are just so stupid you do not see and understand them... :)
What facts?
-
What facts?
Funny, isn't it, how, whenever believers are asked for facts, they never seem to appear! :)
-
Funny, isn't it, how, whenever believers are asked for facts, they never seem to appear! :)
Now there's a surprise! ::)
-
Funny, isn't it, how, whenever believers are asked for facts, they never seem to appear! :)
What facts can I oblige you with?
-
What facts can I oblige you with?
That god exists, would be a start.
-
That god exists, would be a start.
Your wish is my command, LR sweetie. God Exists.
-
Your wish is my command, LR sweetie. God Exists.
EVIDENCE?
-
EVIDENCE?
You didn't ask for evidence. You asked to be provided with the fact that God exists - and it was you who called that a fact.
-
Then try doing it.
I do but it does not mean i will always agree with you or anyone else for that matter... :)
-
Another interesting aspect of these finches is, that by tracking weather sequences, you can match these with changes in the shape and size of their beaks. There are periods of drought and rain, and different food becomes available, or not. So if there are more seeds, a thicker beak helps, of course, not as a design. I don't think this has led to new modern species, but probably did in the past.
-
I do but it does not mean i will always agree with you or anyone else for that matter... :)
No one asks you to agree, but your posting style isn't conducive to getting along. And adding a smilie every post doesn't help.
-
No one asks you to agree, but your posting style isn't conducive to getting along. And adding a smilie every post doesn't help.
Just to note as per announcement in Banned Posters, Grace of God has been banned for refusing moderation.
-
Moderator Note a number of posts have been removed which covered discussion of Grace of God's ban. Discussion of bans are derails and any issues members want to raise should be via PM to Moderation team.
-
But there are limits to what mutations can achieve, which explains the many design faults in organisms, if you assume design. I don't think any mutation could give a vertebrate six limbs instead of the standard four, so, as I said earlier, if humans were to have wings, we'd have to do without arms, which would be a retrograde step, if you ask me.
Natural selection would ultimately decide though. Chances are having wings would probably have a negative effect as these wouldn't, on their own, allow humans to fly (we're too heavy and have the wrong muscular skeletal body). In which case, the resulting mutant would not pass on their genes.
-
A thicker beak seems to be a bit like africans having a wider nose, and doesn't indicate a different species. Does being reproductively isolated mean that attempts to mate with other species are unsuccessful or that they just don't attract them?
-
Natural selection would ultimately decide though. Chances are having wings would probably have a negative effect as these wouldn't, on their own, allow humans to fly (we're too heavy and have the wrong muscular skeletal body). In which case, the resulting mutant would not pass on their genes.
Iwas going to say that. The wings would have to be absolutely enormous. Birds are lighter than animals proportional to their size, and the largest bird capable of flight is the swan,which we are a lot bigger than. Correction - it's the Kori Bustard, according to Google, closely followed by the Mute Swan.
-
Correction - it's the Kori Bustard, according to Google, closely followed by the Mute Swan.
Bit misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_birds suggests that there is considerable variability in waterfowl and that the individual cob swan which does appear to have been the largest measured was too heavy to be able to fly. If you consider wing span as indicators of size (since this is an important aerodynamic factor) then albatross and condor are larger.
However, your point about springing wings - angel-like - is not going to be the answer is spot on!
There would have to be radical weight-eliminating mutations as well. The weight of our heads (skull and brain) would completely unbalance the rest of the body.
-
There have been some very large flying animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus).
However, with regard to questions like why hasn't such and such evolved, perhaps the major limitation on what actually evolves is that only a small (and environment dependent) subset of all possible creatures is accessible to evolution, because it can only proceed in relatively small* steps and each step has to be advantageous in its own right.
There has to be a viable path from something that exists to the thing with the perceived advantage. As was pointed out before, evolution can't plan ahead. It may well be an advantage for some land animal to suddenly sprout wings and be able to fly but that would be magic, not evolution.
* Small in terms of the genotype rather than the phenotype. Large mutations are unlikely to be advantageous. Just how much role largish mutations have played is a matter of some debate.
-
Maybe humans will sprout wings in the future! ;D
-
Sassy
For someone who has explained how she managed - as an adult - to climb the precipitous pathway up the mountain to achieve the intellectual summit that is "O" level English, you do show surprising gaps in your understanding of the language. I suspect that you have been reading too much by Arthur Conan Doyle - the meaning of "theory", as used in the Sherlock Holmes stories, is erroneous.
Theory has a very clear and well-understood meaning for scientists. You obviously do not know what that meaning is, nor do you understand its application in evolutionary science.
You are clearly a well-meaning and caring individual. Stop giving other people the opportunity to dismiss your contributions.
What a colourful and roundabout way of saying you really do not have an answer or even a scientific knowledge of the things I was referring to. Like most people who only know what they are told, you believe no one understands science or scientist enough to be able to prove or show they know what they are talking about. DO YOU believe it shows and educated answer or a weak and poor excuse for an answer?
You can dismiss all you like but you cannot give and educated answer to support what you are saying. Now ask yourself why I know that but you cannot prove me wrong? Truth is not a personality contest and like science it requires more than " so and so said". Scientist are just men and most science is "theory" based on what men think. God and the world has no answer in science or scientist when it comes to their existing. I am not trying to be difficult but truth is a better place to start.
-
Are you misunderstanding what a scientific theory is there Sassy?
-
Shows once again you don't understand the science if the theory of evolution by natural selection,
Natural selection - as in survival of the fittest? Darwin stufied for 30 years he proposed that the many differences in individuals of a species their genes etc regarding their suitability to their surroundings made them better able to survive.
He also sent out mixed messages because it was Darwin who suggested 'descent with modification' this is where the idea that species change over a period of time and these changes cause new species to come into existence. But the truth is major animals and their species have no been changing and life on this planet only comes from life forms ALREADY here.Man and animals have all adapted or died according to their surroundings. But new life of a brand new species from NOTHING has not happened. In fact science believe evolution has stopped.
Where would that leave the survival of the fittest is no species evolving? We have to think beyond the pail and think about what Darwins writings really mean by making the comparisons here and now.
the meaning if the word theory or, well, science at all. You accuse people if ignorance when they comment on religion yet are happy to display your ignorance on evolution. Best not to comment on stuff you don't understand.
Many people use 'theory' where they should use 'law'. For instance a 'scientific law' The world and creation is a scientific law not a theory since there is no experiments or even confirmed observations which would make evolution a theory. The reason it should be called a 'law' is that their is no evidence of any kind of how life and the planet earth really came into existence. May be if I can reach this conclusion using your words for theories, science, evolution and scientist then why haven't you? The one truth that does come out, is I think for myself and can reason the information before me, without using my religious knowledge. Whilst you just accept what you are told. I am sure many times you will use the above arguments but you will never be able to give a valid educated reasons for doing so. I want to learn and grow like everyone else. But not remain ignorant or unable to reason for myself. Because I don't share your view and others won't does not make us ignorant. Especially when we can explain why and what we believe based on having the same knowledge as you but using our own ability to reach a personal conclusion. Thanks for your reply.
-
well said ...
It seems to go unnoticed that every creature seems to have parameters set in to their changes ...
Hi Gog,
I have further explained in my previous two posts to this. I hope you will read and tell me what you think. :)
-
Where on this thread have I insulted anyone? I was sorely tempted to, after reading the alarmingly ignorant and stupid posts of some other people, but I resisted the temptation.
I am not going to argue any more about evolution. It is a fact, and those who deny it are wilfully ignorant, closed-minded, superstitious idiots. (NOW you can accuse me of being insulting, if you like!)
and yet you just know that some fundy fuckwit will say, on some facebook group or other, that no-one has ever seen one species change into another next week or the week after. (One such has just said it in a facebook group I'm a member of.) That's because they are wilfully ignorant idiots who don't even know what "species" means.
Do the highlighted not insult ? Are you saying that Darwin did not teach evolution as the 'descent and modification' where SPECIES all change over time so new species evolve and these species all have a common ancestor which they share? The way I see it, no one is a fool for reading and suggesting their has been no new species because cross breed any animal you get a new species but not a brand new one from scratch. Life brings life. What is missing is how life exists in the first instance. We can study that which is here. We cannot answer why it is here.
-
So you approve of breathtaking ignorance.
And this is supposed to mean what, exactly?
It appears simple and clear to me. NO NEW LIFE FROM SCRATCH. Forgive me for answering if I am wrong Gog, but sometime things appear breathtakingly ignorance because some minds never probe to ask questions beyond what they have read. Science can only progress when men question what they already believe may be right. Religion like science is and should be a quest for truth and evidence.
-
We cannot answer why it is here.
I agree. No definitive cause has been identified. No definitive cause. I'll leave that there for you to digest.
-
How come we don't see intelligent fundies?
Christ, was intelligent and a fundamentalist of the highest calling. He could do what science cannot and what science cannot explain.
If Christ was here, who would you want to heal you, the doctors and the medical science or Christ and the power of God which is not invasive?
Intelligent fundies are intelligent because they seek truth and that truth in shown in what choice they would make.
CHRIST.
So unless you have something better than insults to argue with, should you not try and present scientific arguments to fight your case instead of insulting people?
-
We do, it's just they are so far ahead of you, you don't recognise them.... :)
so no answer to wingless humans..lol
He use to be a Christian, but I guess somewhere he was more afraid of what people thought than God and Truth.
Truth is something we seek more as Christians than as atheists. I feel it fair to say, believers seek truth whilst atheists seek information to try and support their own choice of truth. Shame because there are some good minds on this forum who are atheists. :-[
-
Vertebrates are constructed on a basic four-limbed pattern. To have wings, we'd have to do without arms or legs, which would not be much of an improvement. [Edit] Actually, it'd have to be arms we'd have to do without, as they, not legs, are analogous to birds' wings. Legs are in the wrong position.
So how do Angels manage to have wings and all their limbs and fly?
Today we just have the ability to question what we believe and understand why humans do not have wings. God never planned for them to have them could you imagine collisions in mid air or trying to breath in a fallen body. In reality it would be dangerous to have fallen humans flying.
-
Don't you just love it when a fundy asks what they think is a killer question, that could in fact be answered by any reasonably bright 12-year-old?
It did not require any bright 12 year old or adult to know why God does not allow anyone but angels wings.
The intelligent answer for yourself would have been, "I don't know" it would be the truthful one for you.
Do you feel that a bright 12 year old would have given your answer? No! they would have said the same thing as I have written. " I don't know" Because it is the only truthful one on your part as an atheist. As a thinking believer the dangers of men flying would be too apparent as to why God did not give humans wings.
-
If this is a serious question, I'm fascinated as to what bizarre misunderstanding has led to you ask it. Please do tell as to why you think evolution would have produced flying pigs or humans.
Pigs and humans can fly without wings, just put them on a plane. Had you read the replies you would know it was the evolution of species evolving by change into new species.
-
Actually, on this occasion, I think Sassy has a point. This new "species" came about by birds from two other species breeding. Since these two birds successfully mated and produced fertile young, is there any justification for claiming they really were of two different species in the first place?
Also, although the hybrid offspring seem to have bred only amongst themselves so far, presumably they could interbreed with either of their ancestors' species. How, therefore is this a new species?
Well said, JeremyP and thanks for showing as an atheist you can think outside what you have read.
-
Blimey Sass's overactive imagination has been working overtime in these posts of hers. ;D
-
So how do Angels manage to have wings and all their limbs and fly?
Is this a serious question? Firstly, angels probably don't exist. Secondy, I don't think the bible ever mentions them having wings - that is a later idea from art.
-
Is this a serious question? Firstly, angels probably don't exist. Secondy, I don't think the bible ever mentions them having wings - that is a leter idea from art.
You are correct there is no suggestion the Biblical 'angels' have wings.
-
Hi Gog,
I have further explained in my previous two posts to this. I hope you will read and tell me what you think. :)
Sassy, GraceofGod is no longer a member here so no point addressing posts to her/him.
-
Natural selection - as in survival of the fittest? Darwin stufied for 30 years he proposed that the many differences in individuals of a species their genes etc regarding their suitability to their surroundings made them better able to survive.
He also sent out mixed messages because it was Darwin who suggested 'descent with modification' this is where the idea that species change over a period of time and these changes cause new species to come into existence.
Which is not a mixed message at all.
But the truth is major animals and their species have no been changing and life on this planet only comes from life forms ALREADY here.
Existing life forms have changed over long periods of time. Whicch is what Evolutionary is. It says nothing about how life formed initially.
Man and animals have all adapted or died according to their surroundings. But new life of a brand new species from NOTHING has not happened.
Which is not what evolutionary theory is about - it is about existing life forms changing over long periods to become different species.
In fact science believe evolution has stopped.
Totally wrong. Where have you got that idea from?
Where would that leave the survival of the fittest is no species evolving? We have to think beyond the pail and think about what Darwins writings really mean by making the comparisons here and now.
irrelevant since evolution has not stopped.
Many people use 'theory' where they should use 'law'. For instance a 'scientific law' The world and creation is a scientific law not a theory since there is no experiments or even confirmed observations which would make evolution a theory.
That's wrong.
The reason it should be called a 'law' is that their is no evidence of any kind of how life and the planet earth really came into existence.
That's wrong and has nothing to do with evolution anyway since it is not about how life formed on this planet.
May be if I can reach this conclusion using your words for theories, science, evolution and scientist then why haven't you?
Because your concluusion is wrong based on lack of knowledge on the subject.
The one truth that does come out, is I think for myself and can reason the information before me, without using my religious knowledge.
And come to a wrong conclusion.
Whilst you just accept what you are told.
Nope - because I know what theories are and how science works and can look at and assess the evidence.
I am sure many times you will use the above arguments but you will never be able to give a valid educated reasons for doing so.
See above.
I want to learn and grow like everyone else. But not remain ignorant or unable to reason for myself. Because I don't share your view and others won't does not make us ignorant.
No, but displaying a lack of understanding of the science, of what theory means, what evolution is about and about the scientific method does though - not that I have used the word ignorant.
Especially when we can explain why and what we believe based on having the same knowledge as you but using our own ability to reach a personal conclusion. Thanks for your reply.
You don't have the same knowledge though since you don't seem to understand what evolutionary theory is.
-
So how do Angels manage to have wings and all their limbs and fly?
Is that a serious question Sassy?
-
Is that a serious question Sassy?
... of course, and the same question applies to Pegasus.
-
... of course, and the same question applies to Pegasus.
Angel the X-men, he has wings. What about him?
-
Angel the X-men, he has wings. What about him?
I hate to break it to you, but he isn't real.
-
I hate to break it to you, but he isn't real.
That's the point.