12 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnaswow, this is not regarded as evolution but simple diversification, well thats refreshing! Actually Fabs i realise that science is dealing with plausibility, however i shall let you establish this plausibility for it is interesting in itself, for already a preconception has been dispelled, perhaps later we can discuss 'intelligent design', for even here there are vast differences of opinion even among creationists, and my favourite 'irreducible complexity', a la professor of biology, M.J.Behe whose blog i sometimes delve into. But please carry on.
No, the evolution part comes later. What this is all about is that species actually can change over time. Spontaneously. With no cause, nor direction. Brown cows will have white spots, rabbits can be a bit larger, human can have blue eyes or can develope ability to eat some food that the other population cannot, and so on. But still no evolution a la Darw ...[text shortened]... equal method give me a lesson in Intelligent Design. With mutual respect, of course. You like?
12 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAlright. So we have a population on an island. And something happens. A temperature shift, a change in the flora, another animal turns up that threatens the population, or something whatever that changes the environment of some kind.
wow, this is not regarded as evolution but simple diversification, well thats refreshing! Actually Fabs i realise that science is dealing with plausibility, however i shall let you establish this plausibility for it is interesting in itself, for already a preconception has been dispelled, perhaps later we can discuss 'intelligent design', for even h a la professor of biology, M.J.Behe whose blog i sometimes delve into. But please carry on.
This change is lethal and will kill the whole population if nothing else happens. However, it's a progressing danger, not a sudden one. Let's say a temperature shift for 10 degrees up over a period of 10 thousands of years. What will happen?
Joseph thinks (as one can read in the initial posting in the thread) that every individual must have knowledge about the change in order to prepare an action. I say this is not necessary.
(I wait here for a while. I have other things to do. When I come back, after a certain amount of time, several hours, or even tomorrow at this time, I dont know. You have to bear me with this.)
Edit: I wrote Joweph and his bats with memory. Perhaps I meant Galvestone. Perhaps it doesn't matter, the creationists are all alike... (?)
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree as this is usually the same explinations I get with others. It is completely ok for a species to have some changes from ones of the same type of animal depending on their enviroment. We see thousands of examples alive today like that. But they all still stay in their family group and never switch to another. So I agree, this is not evolution but adaptation and that is the way the creator made all life with that ability.
actually its kind of weird, this civility, normally we creationists are subject to all manner of abuse, as you are aware and develop a siege mentality, even now i am waiting for the portcullis to drop , the draw bridge to shudder close and the cannonballs to start flying! but yes, its a pleasant surprise, however i draw no conclusions as such, for ev ...[text shortened]... ss as being one and the same as 'evolution', even as Darwin did with his famous finches.
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo problem...
Alright. So we have a population on an island. And something happens. A temperature shift, a change in the flora, another animal turns up that threatens the population, or something whatever that changes the environment of some kind.
This change is lethal and will kill the whole population if nothing else happens. However, it's a progressing danger, no ...[text shortened]... me, several hours, or even tomorrow at this time, I dont know. You have to bear me with this.)
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you don't know, than why do you introduce it in this discussion?
actually i dont know, that why i am down here asking all these questions, do you think that its an evolved trait?
you wrote:
Also i have a question for those professing evolution, if we have existed as humans for so long, why is it only recently, as recently as five thousand years that we have developed the 'ability', for written speech? for if this is the case then humans have developed more rapidly in the last five thousand years than the previous five hundred thousand, how many is it?
This is an argument against evolution only if you regard writing, and the other advances you refer to, as evolved traits. So surely, you must have an opinion about it. Do you think 'developing' is the same as 'evolving'?
12 Nov 09
4 edits
i frankly have not considered all the possible avenues for evaluation to warrant any type of definitive answer, simply a question about definitions is hardly satisfying?
as for the question i posed earlier and why it was introduced, well let us liken it to a game of chess, where we may think objectively at every point, but the 'truth of the matter', is only established through the interaction of the pieces, the dialogue or conversation if you like between the two players. There is no objective truth prior to the commencement of the game, for how is it possible to declare that 1.e4 is objectively the better move, its nonsense if you like slow manoeuvring games which suit your particular temperament. The truth of the matter , if it can be grasped, unfolds as a result of play and is one of the beautiful aspects of chess, thus the same in conversation. I may have a plan, but if my opponent overturns my strategy then am i not forced to acknowledge that the plan was faulty, built on a premise and found to be unsound. i hold therefore that it is the same with conversation, the truth emerges, if such a entity can be obtained, through the interaction of the contributors.
My point was very simple, for it seemed quite odd to me, that given the supposition that humans had lived for hundreds of thousands of years, even millions by some estimates, only fairly recently, had they thought to write things down. while Matt gave a plausible answer as to why writing itself may have come into existence, it still reattains a nagging doubt as to why it should have taken so long, given the stream of time.
12 Nov 09
A thought that I raised earlier, maybe it was missed, but given the huge amount of time that all the species have had on the earth and the huge amount of time they've had to evolve into bigger, better, stronger, smarter etc, according to the general plans of evolution per say, why are there still prey species? If they supposedly have the same opportunities as the hunting species, why do they even exist in the state their in? Why wouldn't they have evolved somewhere in the same condition as their enimies? Has some force caused then to be slower to change for the better in their evolutionary trip?
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by galveston75Why do you assume that evolution is always for the good of the species ?
A thought that I raised earlier, maybe it was missed, but given the huge amount of time that all the species have had on the earth and the huge amount of time they've had to evolve into bigger, better, stronger, smarter etc, according to the general plans of evolution per say, why are there still prey species? If they supposedly have the same opportuniti ...[text shortened]... Has some force caused then to be slower to change for the better in their evolutionary trip?
GRANNY.
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by smw6869Well the way it's usually explained is that if given time, the species always adapts and make physical changes as is needed. So following the thread about the field mouse changing it's color to be less of a target would suggest that it would be for the advantage of the mouse to survive hence bettering it's odds.
Why do you assume that evolution is always for the good of the species ?
GRANNY.
But......in most cases of genes changing on their own is usually to the disadvantage of that specific species.
So it would seem the gene pot luck stuff would not really be the way to go. Just my thought though....
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by galveston75But mice Are surviving. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with how strong a mouse is or how big it's teeth are for protection. Survival of the fittest is about reproduction rate. A critter that reproduces at a high rate all year round is more fit for survival than an elephant that reproduces once every several years. This is how bacteria are able to mutate and become immune to current drugs. The bacteria doesn't mutate by willing itself to do so. It's how mom nature works.
Well the way it's usually explained is that if given time, the species always adapts and make physical changes as is needed. So following the thread about the field mouse changing it's color to be less of a target would suggest that it would be for the advantage of the mouse to survive hence bettering it's odds.
But......in most cases of genes changing ...[text shortened]... ld seem the gene pot luck stuff would not really be the way to go. Just my thought though....
GRANNY.
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot at liberty? Why?
no one disputes that there is a genetic link between 'species', of the same kind, what we are disputing is the 'transmutation' of 'species'. As for the other questions i am not at liberty to state anything.
And I thought we agreed in another thread that you do not have any dispute regarding the transmutation of species. Or have you forgotten already?
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, in an open exchange of ideas I consider it to be a good thing if one admits ones premise turned out to be faulty. I don't consider conversation and discussion to be similar to a game of chess.
i frankly have not considered all the possible avenues for evaluation to warrant any type of definitive answer, simply a question about definitions is hardly satisfying?
as for the question i posed earlier and why it was introduced, well let us liken it to a game of chess, where we may think objectively at every point, but the 'truth of the matt ...[text shortened]... ll reattains a nagging doubt as to why it should have taken so long, given the stream of time.
By the way, your estimates of how long humans have been around are way off. That is, if you are talking about modern humans. Modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago (some estimate 200,000 years, other 80,000). And only about 50,000 years ago, human culture started to develop more quickly and became more varied. So the 'millions [of years] by some estimates' you cite is absurd.
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by Jintronice of you to couch your estimates with the terms of 'modern humans', thus qualifying your own statement, nice trick! as to estimates, then where is this plethora of mystical beings, for as stated earlier you could fit the fossil evidence for transient beings on my coffee table. whether you think that 'truth', may be established through the course of conversation or not, is simply a personal opinion, i gave an analogy which well illustrated the principle, you as yet have proffered nothing as to why it should not be the case.
Well, in an open exchange of ideas I consider it to be a good thing if one admits ones premise turned out to be faulty. I don't consider conversation and discussion to be similar to a game of chess.
By the way, your estimates of how long humans have been around are way off. That is, if you are talking about modern humans. Modern humans appeared about 100,0 ...[text shortened]... ly and became more varied. So the 'millions [of years] by some estimates' you cite is absurd.
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot a trick, defining the terms is important to have a decent conversation. Also, my limititation is not arbitrary, since I reacted to your surprise about the amount of time it took to develop writing. Considering the material culture of earlier hominids, it's extremely unlikely any hominids before modern man could ever have developed writing. So you should only be surprised by the amount of time it took modern man to develop writing. 'The plethora of mystical beings' doesn't come into play here. Unless you were trying te erect a straw man, of course.
nice of you to couch your estimates with the terms of 'modern humans', thus qualifying your own statement, nice trick! as to estimates, then where is this plethora of mystical beings, for as stated earlier you could fit the fossil evidence for transient beings on my coffee table. whether you think that 'truth', may be established through the course ...[text shortened]... trated the principle, you as yet have proffered nothing as to why it should not be the case.
As for your analogy: it's faulty. I consider a conversation as an opportunity to learn from each other, to have my ideas challenged, to examine arguments used to defend a certain position with an open mind. Not acknowledging the faultiness of an argument or strategy just leads to empty rethorics, IMO.
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by galveston75That is the heart of the matter. If they exist, then they are not in as bad a state as you make out. When it comes to evolution, survival is key. It doesn't matter how you survive, only that you survive. If you survive then you are the 'fittest'.
.... why do they even exist in the state their in?
If anything the current state of things points more towards a mindless evolution, and far less towards some thoughtful designer.