Crabs with.....human faces

[Prodigy54321]

So I was just watching something on the discovery channel..and there was a science show on and this guy was explaining evolution and natural (and artificial) selection.

the talked about a crab off of Japan(I think...can't remember)..and on the underside of them, they have what looks like a angry (samurai) face...

he said that over the past 800+ years, fisherman around there had been throwing these crabs with faces back into the water..and eating other ones..and said that this selection over time made these crabs hold this "facial" feature due to selection.

he also said that they have a uniquely samurai face..since the reason they throw the crabs back is because of some battle that happened and legend and such..

I'd never heard this before and I found it very interesting..have any of you ever heard of this story?

also..this might just be a shoddy program...(seemed to be a few years back from the narrator's haircut /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

so is there any other explaination for this?
If the first crab with this feature only had a slight image of a face..how likely is it that it was taken to look like a face...

I guess these fisherman were more likely to throw them back if they looked like they had faces..and even more likely to throw them back if the face looked distinctly like a samurai
also jsut thought anyone who hasn't heard this might find it interesting..and I know MOST of this forum appreciates this type of thing

peace easy yall

[MidGe]

fyi. The crab in question is the "Heike" crab.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
fyi. The crab in question is the "Heike" crab.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes...it's all coming back to me now,,I think that was the name of the clan of warriors that died as well..eh?

..and fyi..your avatar adds a level of "hate" to every post you make /images/graemlins/tongue.gif..and I love it

..MidGe..at the Annual Player Hater's Ball /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bisonbison]

That's awesome.

[billygrippo]

http://chantal.nobilitas.com/java/evolhelp/pictures/Image5.gif

is this it?

[PoBoy321]

http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season7/CrabPeople.jpg

Crab people!

[Prodigy54321]

that's the one sohn!!!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
..and fyi..your avatar adds a level of "hate" to every post you make ..and I love it

..MidGe..at the Annual Player Hater's Ball


[/ QUOTE ]

Truly, the only reason to my avatar was to counter godboy's one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But, otoh, I am starting to like mine now. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
So I was just watching something on the discovery channel..and there was a science show on and this guy was explaining evolution and natural (and artificial) selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw it too. The show was Cosmos, and "that guy" was Carl Sagan.

[godBoy]

How has the peacock survived with a massive target strapped to it's butt.
All these ideas are just so unsatisfying for me, but I didn't see the show..
Isn't it just possible that with the vast amount of weird looking creatures on the planet, one was bound to have a face on it. Or at least something that resembles a face..

[godBoy]

It reminds me of the guy who sold a piece of nutrigrain on eBay that looked like E.T.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It reminds me of the guy who sold a piece of nutrigrain on eBay that looked like E.T.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have absolutely not an iota of understanding! You are really a ignorant person, dude.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
How has the peacock survived with a massive target strapped to it's butt.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's called runaway sexual selection and it is fits perfectly with evolutionary theory.


[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just possible that with the vast amount of weird looking creatures on the planet, one was bound to have a face on it. Or at least something that resembles a face..

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point! That's the point! THAT'S THE POINT!
Random variation produces a trait that produces differential reproductive success. Therefore the trait becomes more prevalent in the population.
Nice work godboy, we'll make an evolutionist out of you yet.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
In 1185, the emperor of Japan, seven-year-old Antoku, was involved in a long bloody battle between the Heike and the Genji. On April 24, 1185, the emperor and his forces lost to the Genji. The Heike warrior survivors threw themselves into the sea. The emperor was drowned by his grandmother to prevent the Genji from capturing him. Only forty-three women survived, and they were reduced to selling flowers to the fishermen in the area. These fishermen caught crabs and other fish for a living. As the story goes, one day the fishermen caught some crabs that appeared to have faces on their shells. The surviving women convinced the fishermen, who believed in the divinity of the dead emperor, that the faces represented reincarnated spirits of the dead Samurai warriors and/or the dead boy-emperor, Antoku. Frightened, the fishermen from that time on, threw all the crabs with faces back into the sea where the crabs continued breeding. Over the centuries, each successive generation of crabs included more and more with faces, and the faces came to look more and more like Samurai warriors' faces. Because the people ate only the crabs without faces, the rejected Heike crabs evolved through natural selection to wear faces distinctly resembling those of Samurai warriors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Google rocks. Incidentally I heard of this story before when reading a book about Japanese history.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How has the peacock survived with a massive target strapped to it's butt.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's called runaway sexual selection and it is fits perfectly with evolutionary theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Also worth looking into the 'he-man' theory - think it was proposed by a guy called Zahavi. Yet another little gem discussed in the awesome 'The Selfish Gene'.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
It reminds me of the guy who sold a piece of nutrigrain on eBay that looked like E.T.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were made in God's image, he needs to shape up a bit.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
how likely is it that it was taken to look like a face...

[/ QUOTE ]
The ability to recognize faces is hardwired into our brains by evolution. Unfortunately evolution only produces abilites that are as good as they need to be, not abilities that are perfect. Humans often see facial features where there are none, or to be more precise, we tend to interpret things that have a vague resemblance to a facial feature as a part of a face.

For example, look at the "Before 6 beers" picture on this page:

http://members.lycos.nl/AmazingArt/E/6.html.

When you turn it upside down, you will interpret many details differently. How can a detail that "looks like a nose" appear completely different when it's upside down? Because it doesn't really look like a nose. It's just a close enough match to activate the facial recognition "subroutines" in your brain.

[Max Weinberg]

[ QUOTE ]
http://chantal.nobilitas.com/java/evolhelp/pictures/Image5.gif

is this it?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's one badass crab.

[PastorDavidDD]

The link doesn't work, at least on my computer.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
The link doesn't work, at least on my computer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Weird. Maybe it's the period at the end that breaks it. Let's try again:

http://members.lycos.nl/AmazingArt/E/6.html

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
It's called runaway sexual selection and it is fits perfectly with evolutionary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Runaway sexual selection also explains why bull moose cart around those ridiculous antlers.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
How has the peacock survived with a massive target strapped to it's butt.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s yet another absurdity of the theory of evolution that such an unadaptive overspecialization would occur. Apparently the feedback discriminator that separates successful from unsuccessful mutations has the capacity to resolve the peacock’s feather pattern.

And how did such a discriminative capacity get there in the first place? Oh yeah, the discriminator that selects discriminators.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How has the peacock survived with a massive target strapped to it's butt.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s yet another absurdity of the theory of evolution that such an unadaptive overspecialization would occur. Apparently the feedback discriminator that separates successful from unsuccessful mutations has the capacity to resolve the peacock’s feather pattern.

And how did such a discriminative capacity get there in the first place? Oh yeah, the discriminator that selects discriminators.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that the peacock's feather make it unable to survive and propagate in the wild? If so, how do you account for its continued existence? If you aren't suggesting this, then your point about the absurdity of evolution has no basis. Obviously it isnt "unadaptive" if it attracts mates.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How has the peacock survived with a massive target strapped to it's butt.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s yet another absurdity of the theory of evolution that such an unadaptive overspecialization would occur. Apparently the feedback discriminator that separates successful from unsuccessful mutations has the capacity to resolve the peacock’s feather pattern.

And how did such a discriminative capacity get there in the first place? Oh yeah, the discriminator that selects discriminators.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHAHA! Wow, I'm profoundly moved by this level of ignorance.

You're one of those guys that dismisses things he knows nothing about cos he knows nothing about it, aren't you?

[Mik1w]

Thats amazing. My friend has a mask that looks exactly EXACTLY like that crab. I didn't know evolution could occur over as little as 800 years, but I imagine thats quite a strong evolutionary pressure from the fisherman.

[billygrippo]

[ QUOTE ]
How has the peacock survived with a massive target strapped to it's butt.


[/ QUOTE ]

most of the time they dont have their feathers "on display" like you see in pictures. only when trying to attract a mate.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How has the peacock survived with a massive target strapped to it's butt.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s yet another absurdity of the theory of evolution that such an unadaptive overspecialization would occur. Apparently the feedback discriminator that separates successful from unsuccessful mutations has the capacity to resolve the peacock’s feather pattern.

And how did such a discriminative capacity get there in the first place? Oh yeah, the discriminator that selects discriminators.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that the peacock's feather make it unable to survive and propagate in the wild? If so, how do you account for its continued existence? If you aren't suggesting this, then your point about the absurdity of evolution has no basis. Obviously it isnt "unadaptive" if it attracts mates.

[/ QUOTE ]

The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, when the going gets tough, the unready produce the infamously inadequate ad hominem argument.

[billygrippo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, when the going gets tough, the unready produce the infamously inadequate ad hominem argument.

[/ QUOTE ]


17 42 9er 9er purple monkey dishwaser.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's been adequately shown to all.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, when the going gets tough, the unready produce the infamously inadequate ad hominem argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have already painfully demonstrated in other threads that you have very little knowledge of how evolution works. And now you claim to know for a fact that a peacock's feathers are an "absurdity of evolution" as they do not correspond to any advantage (that you know of). Please provide some evidence for that last claim if you can.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, when the going gets tough, the unready produce the infamously inadequate ad hominem argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have already painfully demonstrated in other threads that you have very little knowledge of how evolution works. And now you claim to know for a fact that a peacock's feathers are an "absurdity of evolution" as they do not correspond to any advantage (that you know of). Please provide some evidence for that last claim if you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s quite possible the detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern is connected to some kind of marginal advantage somewhere. That’s hardly the point. I’ll rephrase:

The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern has not been accounted for in terms of a direct correspondence to the preexisting structure of any purported discriminator for separating successful and unsuccessful mutations.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, when the going gets tough, the unready produce the infamously inadequate ad hominem argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have already painfully demonstrated in other threads that you have very little knowledge of how evolution works. And now you claim to know for a fact that a peacock's feathers are an "absurdity of evolution" as they do not correspond to any advantage (that you know of). Please provide some evidence for that last claim if you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s quite possible the detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern is connected to some kind of marginal advantage somewhere. That’s hardly the point. I’ll rephrase:

The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern has not been accounted for in terms of a direct correspondence to the preexisting structure of any purported discriminator for separating successful and unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about?
You can trace the evolution of the peacock tail from a small tail to gradually enlarging ones.
The peacock feather has been demonstrated experimentally to have adaptive value.
What discriminator are you talking about? Selection is the discriminator. (get out of your computer science class or something)

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats amazing. My friend has a mask that looks exactly EXACTLY like that crab. I didn't know evolution could occur over as little as 800 years, but I imagine thats quite a strong evolutionary pressure from the fisherman.

[/ QUOTE ]

is it a mask from "The Three Ninjas" /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

anyone?...great movie /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, when the going gets tough, the unready produce the infamously inadequate ad hominem argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have already painfully demonstrated in other threads that you have very little knowledge of how evolution works. And now you claim to know for a fact that a peacock's feathers are an "absurdity of evolution" as they do not correspond to any advantage (that you know of). Please provide some evidence for that last claim if you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s quite possible the detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern is connected to some kind of marginal advantage somewhere. That’s hardly the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO, THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! BECAUSE IT COMPLETELY INVALIDATES YOUR ASSERTION THAT THIS FEATHER PATTERN IS AN "ABSURDITY OF EVOLUTION", WHICH SOMEHOW INVALIDATES THE THEORY. !!!!!

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would YOU know? Please elaborate and continue to show us your dearth of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, when the going gets tough, the unready produce the infamously inadequate ad hominem argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have already painfully demonstrated in other threads that you have very little knowledge of how evolution works. And now you claim to know for a fact that a peacock's feathers are an "absurdity of evolution" as they do not correspond to any advantage (that you know of). Please provide some evidence for that last claim if you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s quite possible the detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern is connected to some kind of marginal advantage somewhere. That’s hardly the point. I’ll rephrase:

The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern has not been accounted for in terms of a direct correspondence to the preexisting structure of any purported discriminator for separating successful and unsuccessful mutations.


[/ QUOTE ]

NO, THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! BECAUSE IT COMPLETELY INVALIDATES YOUR ASSERTION THAT THIS FEATHER PATTERN IS AN "ABSURDITY OF EVOLUTION", WHICH SOMEHOW INVALIDATES THE THEORY. !!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it’s not enough.

Sufficient cause, probably the most fundamental scientific principle, has not been established to account for the detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern. Not even close. All you have is an inexplicable complexity and a plausible-sounding, ad hoc fairy tale with little to no science in back of it.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
YOU: "The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern does not correspond to the elements of any purported discriminator for separating successful from unsuccessful mutations."

later...

YOU: "It’s quite possible the detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern is connected to some kind of marginal advantage somewhere. That’s hardly the point."

ME: "NO, THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT!..."

YOU: "Actually, it’s not enough.

Sufficient cause, probably the most fundamental scientific principle, has not been established to account for the detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern. Not even close. All you have is an inexplicable complexity and a plausible-sounding, ad hoc fairy tale with little to no science in back of it."

[/ QUOTE ]

See your initial post in the nested quotes above. It is enough to refute that post. But as we've already seen in other threads, nothing will get you to admit that point--so with that, I'm out of this thread.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
I’ll rephrase:

The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern has not been accounted for in terms of a direct correspondence to the preexisting structure of any purported discriminator for separating successful and unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you need to rephrase it again, because I'm not sure I understand you. You seem to be saying that no one knows why this feather pattern improves the peacocks' chances of passing their genes on to a new generation. But it's not a mystery at all. It's a well known fact that most peahens have a sexual preference for pecocks that look like that, and that's what makes peacocks that look like that more likely to reproduce.

This offspring is more likely than the average peacock/peahen to have the genes that cause a male to look like that and more likely than the average peacock/peahen to have the genes that make a female prefer that look, because in both cases at least one of the parents (probably both) had the necessary genes.

It's also important to realize that a female that prefers a different kind of male is more likely to have a male offspring that doesn't reproduce (because most females will not want to mate with him). So the genes that make the female prefer the "ridicilous" feather pattern actually make her more "fit" in the evolutionary sense, because they make it more likely that her offspring will reproduce.

I'm guessing that other's have told you this already, but I would really like to recommend "The blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It explains these things and a lot more.

[ffredd]

And guys, you don't need to quote everything that's been said so far every time you reply. Just quote the part you're responding to. That would make the discussion easier to follow.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
See your initial post in the nested quotes above. It is enough to refute that post. But as we've already seen in other threads, nothing will get you to admit that point--so with that, I'm out of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

HLMencken,

Don't go out, don't give up. Sharkey may never get the point but other readers may who otherwise may be confused.

I think it is very valuable and important to fight ignorance. It has to be nipped in the bud, they have to be kept within their cages. If not, before you know it, we would have those fundamnentalists as out of control as muslim jihadists. And that would not be for the betterment of mankind. Now is the time to stand up against true evil and that is irrationality.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a well known fact that most peahens have a sexual preference for pecocks that look like that, and that's what makes peacocks that look like that more likely to reproduce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for a coherent post.

You have describe merely a necessary condition for the trait, not a sufficient cause of its detailed complexity.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is very valuable and important to fight ignorance. It has to be nipped in the bud, they have to be kept within their cages. If not, before you know it, we would have those fundamnentalists as out of control as muslim jihadists. And that would not be for the betterment of mankind. Now is the time to stand up against true evil and that is irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think you would, but I am glad you see my point. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a well known fact that most peahens have a sexual preference for pecocks that look like that, and that's what makes peacocks that look like that more likely to reproduce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for a coherent post.

You have describe merely a necessary condition for the trait, not a sufficient cause of its detailed complexity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey, the cause is SELECTION from a gene pool which is distributed based on PRIOR SELECTION and RANDOM VARIATION.

If you still don't understand this, consider this "evolution game": I will generate 3 random numbers within 5% of the starting number, say this initial number is 1. By natural selection, say the highest number is always preferred and used as the starting number for the next iteration. We'll say the higher the number, the more "complex" it is (not talking complex numbers here).

Guess what happens in a fairly short time? You start generating ONLY big numbers--and they keep getting even bigger! Even if you start with a low number! Do you see why? How do you account for this increasing "complexity"? Easy--by selection coupled with variation.

We are actually explaining these processes to you--if you would only pause to consider them. Pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaase? I recognize that my example is simple, but it actually captures how a population changes over time to become more and more "different" than it started due to the two mechanisms of selection and variation. It really isn't that difficult a concept to acknowledge.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think you would, but I am glad you see my point. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree as well. Because I'm still in this damned thread! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a well known fact that most peahens have a sexual preference for pecocks that look like that, and that's what makes peacocks that look like that more likely to reproduce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for a coherent post.

You have describe merely a necessary condition for the trait, not a sufficient cause of its detailed complexity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey, the cause is SELECTION from a gene pool which is distributed based on PRIOR SELECTION and RANDOM VARIATION.

If you still don't understand this, consider this "evolution game": I will generate 3 random numbers within 5% of the starting number, say this initial number is 1. By natural selection, say the highest number is always preferred and used as the starting number for the next iteration. We'll say the higher the number, the more "complex" it is (not talking complex numbers here).

Guess what happens in a fairly short time? You start generating ONLY big numbers--and they keep getting even bigger! Even if you start with a low number! Do you see why? How do you account for this increasing "complexity"? Easy--by selection coupled with variation.

We are actually explaining these processes to you--if you would only pause to consider them. Pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaase? I recognize that my example is simple, but it actually captures how a population changes over time to become more and more "different" than it started due to the two mechanisms of selection and variation. It really isn't that difficult a concept to acknowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have more than paused to consider these details and will do so again. In return I ask that you consider the difference between SAYING that something is the cause of something else (ad hoc storytelling) and PROVING the causation of the detailed complexity of a phenomenon in terms of “a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set” in a scientifically acceptable manner.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
“a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set” in a scientifically acceptable manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you intentionally obfuscate the process of selection so that you can merely dismiss it.

But I agree that the theory of evolution requires data, not just theorizing. If that was the point you were attempting to make.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

I’ll rephrase:

The detailed complexity of the peacock’s feather pattern has not been accounted for in terms of a direct correspondence to the preexisting structure of any purported discriminator for separating successful and unsuccessful mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I actually agree with Sharkey here. Although he has conceded the main point about tail length, bright color which negates his argument.

I'll rephrase his rephase:

How did the patterns on the peacock's tail arise? Through what evolutionary mechanism?

As an additional question, do all peacock's have the same basic feather pattern? If so, then why that pattern?

Joseph

For those that believe that God created, then why the eyelooking things, why not a rainbow?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
then why the eyelooking things, why not a rainbow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a hunch, but a fair number of animal species have false "eyelooking things"--most of these species seem to be prey, so one can guess these markings might help confuse predators.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
How did the patterns on the peacock's tail arise? Through what evolutionary mechanism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the peacock's ancestors had it. Are you seriously surprised that a bird has bright feathers?

[ QUOTE ]
As an additional question, do all peacock's have the same basic feather pattern? If so, then why that pattern?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the pattern is genetic. It's been selected for.

[ QUOTE ]
For those that believe that God created, then why the eyelooking things, why not a rainbow?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if it were a rainbow would you say "Why a rainbow, why not eyespots?"?

[ffredd]

Sharkey, and anyone else who is concerned about exactly how this particular feather pattern arose...

Why are you even asking about this? Do you think that the theory of evolution is in trouble if biologists don't have a complete answer for this? Do you realize what's needed to answer questions like this? Biologists would have to figure out a) exactly what every gene in every possible animal does, b) exactly what mutations prehistoric peacocks went through and c) why these mutations ocurred.

Unfortunately a) is very likely a problem that no computer that could possibly be built could solve in a time less than the age of the universe (which by the way is 13.7 billion years), b) is impossible to know since the DNA of prehistoric peacocks hasn't been preserved and c) is impossible to know according to the laws of physics.

The theory of evolution doesn't answer questions like that. No theory could possibly do that. The best a theory can hope to do is to explain the reasons why a runaway sexual selection like this is possible. That's something the theory of evolution does very thoroughly.

[MidGe]

Quite right ffredd,

The point to bear in mind is that over 150 years evolution has only been confirmed, not falsified. What is more, is that disciplines which Darwin had no idea about, like genetics, have even more blatently confirmed evolution. Indeed, I would say that new confirmations pour in on a daily basis nowadys. There is also the fact that a number of advances in medecine beneficial to human beings, are the direct result of the application of evolution theory.

[godBoy]

I wasn't using the peacock's tail as an attempt at debunking evolution. I was merely making a joke. I've even heard that they use it as a defense mechanism to scare predators away. I mean the bird grows 3 times as large in a second. how terrifying.

[godBoy]

To defend Darwinism is to defend a belief in a goo that no one can falsify, similarly that life can self assemble from amino acids, at least at this point in time it can't be falsified. A common ancestor, that many scientists find outlandish or even absurd. Wasn't that what you chose to rave on about when 'discussing' ID? falsifiable theories...
You need to overlook the fossil evidence that reveals a time when life took great leaps not slight modifications, and the fact that fossil evidence in support of the theory just isn't there.
Don't stretch the truth MidGe. Modifications have been confirmed over and again, but these other 'theories' are not fact... No matter how many posts you make saying the opposite.

Only a truly arrogant person would say that their theory is flawless. You are one of a kind, MidGe.

[godBoy]

That's fantastic.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Only a truly arrogant person would say that their theory is flawless. You are one of a kind, MidGe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we know god"boy", your post as an answer to the Haike crabs was enlightening enough.

Regarding common ancestry, the amazing thing is that genetics, a scientific discovery that was unknown and unforeseen by Darwin, indicates that it is very much so.

Go back to your beliefs. Don't try to pollute science with it. Stick to your domain.

And keep your irrational arrogance to what concerns it.. whatever is not natural!

[godBoy]

Darwin saw the cell as a blob.
Most scientific discoveries were unknown to Darwin..

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't using the peacock's tail as an attempt at debunking evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey was very explicit in trying to do exactly that.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Darwin saw the cell as a blob.
Most scientific discoveries were unknown to Darwin..

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and yet they all confirm Darwin theory or, at least, never falsify it.. Glad we agree.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
To defend Darwinism is to defend a belief in a goo that no one can falsify, similarly that life can self assemble from amino acids, at least at this point in time it can't be falsified. A common ancestor, that many scientists find outlandish or even absurd. Wasn't that what you chose to rave on about when 'discussing' ID? falsifiable theories...
You need to overlook the fossil evidence that reveals a time when life took great leaps not slight modifications, and the fact that fossil evidence in support of the theory just isn't there.
Don't stretch the truth MidGe. Modifications have been confirmed over and again, but these other 'theories' are not fact... No matter how many posts you make saying the opposite.

Only a truly arrogant person would say that their theory is flawless. You are one of a kind, MidGe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cough... Punctuated Equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium)...cough...

Actually, many scientists believe evolution tends to be more rapid in small, isolated gene pools. Look at Darwin's finches, for example.

This means this evolution may often proceed in specific, isolated places...you're gonna be lucky to hit the right place to find the assorted missing links you need, aintcha?

[godBoy]

I realise that.
I wouldn't choose an example that is so wishy washy.
Which is what I find in a lot of examples trying to support evolution. If science can defend something great, but when science looks at what theories suggest.. it get's unsatisfying for me.
The expanding universe, a know fact, shows a certain point of creation. This is science, not the theoretical warm goo.
IMO.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The expanding universe, a know fact, shows a certain point of creation. This is science, not the theoretical warm goo.
IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are wrong, the expanding universe [not a known fact btw] doesn't show a point of creation, just a question mark. It is your fantasy that tries to fill the gap in an unscientific way!

[godBoy]

Obviously I was referring to a beginning.
A beginning cannot be uncaused IMO.

Or were you saying the theory was unscientific?

[MidGe]

If god can have no uncaused beginning, why not the universe?

If not, why could there be not a cause before the expanding universe?

I really think you are the one trying to justify and going thru hoops of logic to do so. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
To defend Darwinism is to defend a belief in a goo that no one can falsify

[/ QUOTE ]
The theory of evolution is falsfiable. If extremely complex features such as eyes were to "evolve" in a single generation, that would falsify the theory. If you were to find fossils of e.g. dogs that are 200 million years old, that would also falsify the theory. If a monkey were to give birth to a human, that would falsify the theory. (This last example is kind of funny because creationists sometimes say that they will believe in evolution when a monkey gives birth to a human. But if that happens, biologists won't belive in evolution any more).

[ QUOTE ]
...similarly that life can self assemble from amino acids

[/ QUOTE ]
The theory of evolution onlys says what happens once life has started. It doesn't say how it started.

[ QUOTE ]
A common ancestor, that many scientists find outlandish or even absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must be talking about religious people who work as scientists in fields where they can get by without knowing much about evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to overlook the fossil evidence that reveals a time when life took great leaps not slight modifications...

[/ QUOTE ]
You really need to read The blind watchmaker. Dawkins explains this part pretty well.

[ QUOTE ]
..and the fact that fossil evidence in support of the theory just isn't there.


[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't true. The fossils that have been found support the theory even though they aren't sufficient to prove that it's correct.

Also, you're making unreasonable demands here. If you learn that there's no direct empirical evidence that a brown M & M that's been painted red and dropped by a person covered in peanut butter will fall to the ground, will you reject the theories of gravity (Newton's and Einstein's) that predict that this will happen? Will you claim that gravity doesn't even exist? I'm pretty sure you won't.

Why would you demand proof of every consequence of the theory of evolution when you don't demand it of the theories of gravity?

[godBoy]

That's not the Kalam.
'Whatever begins to exist has a cause', we know this is fact.
The singularity that science has confirmed strongly suggests that there was a beginning.
Are you going to argue that the universe is infinite?
What do you actually believe MidGe?

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
...the expanding universe [not a known fact btw]

[/ QUOTE ]
You're saying that the expansion of the universe is not a known fact!? It is a known fact. The evidence that supports it is even stronger than the evidence for evolution.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not the Kalam.
'Whatever begins to exist has a cause', we know this is fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think so, I'll humour you and say what is the cause of the cause, and why would that be more likely to be different. If I look at nature I see mandelbrott type repetitions, and I find them very mechanical.

[Prodigy54321]

ffredd,

I enjoy your posts...you're my new favorite 19 post 2+2er /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not the Kalam.
'Whatever begins to exist has a cause', we know this is fact.
The singularity that science has confirmed strongly suggests that there was a beginning.
Are you going to argue that the universe is infinite?
What do you actually believe MidGe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you begging the question though? Assuming that the singularity that caused what we call the universe isn't eternal? Could you not use the same argument to prove it's eternality as you do the eternality of God?

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
ffredd,

I enjoy your posts...you're my new favorite 19 post 2+2er /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for that compliment. It's always nice to hear something like that.

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ Over the centuries, each successive generation of crabs included more and more with faces, and the faces came to look more and more like Samurai warriors' faces. Because the people ate only the crabs without faces, the rejected Heike crabs evolved through natural selection to wear faces distinctly resembling those of Samurai warriors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am wondering how this experiment was conducted. Who was in charge of counting and photographing the different crabs in say 1641?
Different patterns are caused by different randomly chosen cellular automata programs. New ones don't evolve just because a fisherman believes in reincarnation.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Different patterns are caused by different randomly chosen cellular automata programs. New ones don't evolve just because a fisherman believes in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think a poodle "evolved"? Do you really think artificial selection has no role?

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Different patterns are caused by different randomly chosen cellular automata programs. New ones don't evolve just because a fisherman believes in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think a poodle "evolved"? Do you really think artificial selection has no role?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need A and C to make B. A and an imaginary C won't make it.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Different patterns are caused by different randomly chosen cellular automata programs. New ones don't evolve just because a fisherman believes in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think a poodle "evolved"? Do you really think artificial selection has no role?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need A and C to make B. A and an imaginary C won't make it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between the crab and the poodle? A poodle was artificially selected. The crabs were artificially selected. The former was done through humans breeding dogs and the latter through humans eating (or rather, not eating) crabs.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ Over the centuries, each successive generation of crabs included more and more with faces, and the faces came to look more and more like Samurai warriors' faces. Because the people ate only the crabs without faces, the rejected Heike crabs evolved through natural selection to wear faces distinctly resembling those of Samurai warriors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am wondering how this experiment was conducted. Who was in charge of counting and photographing the different crabs in say 1641?
Different patterns are caused by different randomly chosen cellular automata programs. New ones don't evolve just because a fisherman believes in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same crab in terms of everything except pattern on the back of shell exists today in other places. The ones that have the face, exist only in one part of the sea where the legend is.

[godBoy]

No, because science points strongly towards a beginning. The singularity is a starting point for the expansion of the universe. It's also much harder to rationise belief in an eternal universe that just has always existed uncaused. Many people have said that God is the obvious answer, perhaps there's something in that.

[godBoy]

Gravity is simple and makes only one claim - all matter attracts surrounding matter depending on the size of the mass. more or less...
also, I can prove gravity exists by dropping a rock.

Evolution makes many claims that aren't so straight forward..
I believe the parts of evolutionary theory that have facts supporting it.
It's dissapointing to hear when people throw off the idea of a creator when exposed to evolutionary theory though. These theories should be scrutinised and tested thoroughly.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

It's dissapointing to hear when people throw off the idea of a creator when exposed to evolutionary theory though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this come up?

[ QUOTE ]
These theories should be scrutinised and tested thoroughly.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are!!!

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because science points strongly towards a beginning. The singularity is a starting point for the expansion of the universe. It's also much harder to rationise belief in an eternal universe that just has always existed uncaused. Many people have said that God is the obvious answer, perhaps there's something in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does the existence of God provide an answer to a beginning? You seem to be saying that a "scientific beginning" needs scientific proof, but a "Godly beginning" does not.

also

[ QUOTE ]
Many people have said that God is the obvious answer, perhaps there's something in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you assume the existence of a magical deity just because you don't know the answer to a question?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It's dissapointing to hear when people throw off the idea of a creator when exposed to evolutionary theory though. These theories should be scrutinised and tested thoroughly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should the idea of a creator not be tested and scrutinised as rigourously? Ah, no... It is not falsifiable... and neither has it any place in a scientific argument.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
I can prove gravity exists by dropping a rock.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you can't prove any theory of gravity that way.

You can however prove every major feature of evolution with simple experiments like that, e.g.

a) that some properties of living things are hereditary
b) that mutations occur in nature
c) that natural selection occurs in nature

Such experiments have been performed and they prove conclusively that evolution is real, just like your rock-dropping experiment proves that gravity is real. Unfortunately, no experiments can ever prove that the theories that describe these things are correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Gravity is simple and makes only one claim - all matter attracts surrounding matter depending on the size of the mass. more or less...
...
Evolution makes many claims that aren't so straight forward..


[/ QUOTE ]
What you say about gravity is a close enough description of Newton's theory, but it has been conclusively proven that Einstein's theory is a much better description of gravity. And the predictions of general relativity are far from straightforward. They completely defy anyone's "common sense" and yet they continue to be confirmed, one by one, and with ever increasing precision.

I think I see what you mean about the claims of evolution not being straightforward. The theory doesn't just say those things I listed earlier in this post. It also says that those facts are capable of explaining all the diversity and complexity found in nature.

What is that you want? Conclusive proof that every odd-looking living thing found in nature has been produced by evolution? That's really no different than it would be to demand conclusive proof that gravity put the planets of our solar systems exactly where they are now. Just as the theories of gravity predict that we will see elliptical orbits, but don't predict the location of the planets, Darwinism predicts that we will see evolution, but doesn't predict exactly how a certain animal will evolve.

The only relevant difference between the theories of gravity and the theory of evolution in this context is that the orbits of planets are fixed by the initial conditions, while the evolution of species is not. It's impossible to predict how the genetic code will change because mutations are caused by interactions that can only be described by quantum mechanics.


[ QUOTE ]
I believe the parts of evolutionary theory that have facts supporting it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what parts don't you believe? Do you believe a), b) and c) above?

[ QUOTE ]
It's dissapointing to hear when people throw off the idea of a creator when exposed to evolutionary theory though.


[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution makes it very very hard to believe that there can be a creator who specifically wanted to create humans. Maybe that's why you don't like it.

[ QUOTE ]
These theories should be scrutinised and tested thoroughly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you really believe that they haven't been already? Scientists are testing them all the time, and will continue to do so for a long time.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
You can however prove every major feature of evolution with simple experiments like that, e.g.

a) that some properties of living things are hereditary
b) that mutations occur in nature
c) that natural selection occurs in nature


[/ QUOTE ]
You have omitted a major unproven feature of “evolution”:

d) that mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
d) that mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Belgium!

Read about genetic drift or absolutely anything about evolutionary theory and experimentation and stop being a jackanape.

[madnak]

You should post in here more often. "Jackanape." I'll have to use that one.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
d) that mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Belgium!

Read about genetic drift or absolutely anything about evolutionary theory and experimentation and stop being a jackanape.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to contradict me? Apparently you don’t have any hard facts at your disposal.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
You have omitted a major unproven feature of “evolution”:

d) that mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a feature of evolution. It's extremely unlikely that the result of a mutation that's big enough to e.g. turn a lion into a tiger will even be alive. It's so unlikely that we can safely assume that no such mutant offspring will ever survive.

But that's not how new species arise. Basically it happens like this: A large number of animals of the same species are spread out over a large region. Then something happens that separates a large number of them from the others. It could be something like a climate change that creates a desert between the two groups, or even a continent splitting in two pieces that drift apart. Now there are two groups of animals that will evolve differently, because the living conditions are not identical in the two regions.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have omitted a major unproven feature of “evolution”:

d) that mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a feature of evolution. It's extremely unlikely that the result of a mutation that's big enough to e.g. turn a lion into a tiger will even be alive. It's so unlikely that we can safely assume that no such mutant offspring will ever survive.

But that's not how new species arise. Basically it happens like this: A large number of animals of the same species are spread out over a large region. Then something happens that separates a large number of them from the others. It could be something like a climate change that creates a desert between the two groups, or even a continent splitting in two pieces that drift apart. Now there are two groups of animals that will evolve differently, because the living conditions are not identical in the two regions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying the present diversity of species arose absent a process in which “mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring”?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
d) that mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Belgium!

Read about genetic drift or absolutely anything about evolutionary theory and experimentation and stop being a jackanape.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really believe that this guy is serious. It's physically impossible to be as ignorant as he paints himself and still maintain the sense of superiority he tries to exude.

Some people just get their kicks by playing these games.

~D

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
d) that mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Belgium!

Read about genetic drift or absolutely anything about evolutionary theory and experimentation and stop being a jackanape.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really believe that this guy is serious. It's physically impossible to be as ignorant as he paints himself and still maintain the sense of superiority he tries to exude.

Some people just get their kicks by playing these games.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

Let’s hear your example of change by mutation, sufficient to account for the observed diversity of species, that has producing viable offspring.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
d) that mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Belgium!

Read about genetic drift or absolutely anything about evolutionary theory and experimentation and stop being a jackanape.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to contradict me? Apparently you don’t have any hard facts at your disposal.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm just calling you names. I do that to trolls when they get particularly annoying and pretend profound stupidity and/or ignorance as a way to continue eliciting responses. And this is my last response to you.

[Sharkey]

How sad.

Next!

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying the present diversity of species arose absent a process in which “mutations great enough to account for the observed speciation produce viable offspring”?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's what I'm saying. A mutation from one generation to the next is either small or kills the offspring. Large single-step mutations that lead to new species are not a part of evolution theory.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s hear your example of change by mutation, sufficient to account for the observed diversity of species, that has producing viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]
What you need to understand is that small changes add up.

[Sharkey]

Why are you referring to large single-step mutations?

I’ll try to be a clear as possible. If you agree that there is such a thing, I would like to see your citing of a specific change by mutation (an accumulation of however many incremental instances you need), sufficient to account for the observed diversity of species, that has producing viable offspring.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
How does the existence of God provide an answer to a beginning?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't say how or why he did it, but if God exists then he is the creator.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying that a "scientific beginning" needs scientific proof, but a "Godly beginning" does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what i was trying to say. I don't even know what a scientific beginning would look like. It's not rational to me(scientifically or otherwise) for a universe to pop into existance uncaused. Nor does it seem fitting that the universe existed for eternity because of the laws of maths(regarding infinity). As well as the strong scientific support of a beginning.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you assume the existence of a magical deity just because you don't know the answer to a question?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a question to me, it's the question. I don't just assume it, evidences strongly reveal it IMO. It's a rediculous thought to me that the universe can be uncaused. It also seems rediculous to me that the universe has existed for eternity. So i'm left to 'assume' that something caused the universe and that thing I call God.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't say how or why he did it, but if God exists then he is the creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.. if god exists...


[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know what a scientific beginning would look like. It's not rational to me(scientifically or otherwise) for a universe to pop into existance uncaused.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is rational for a god to exists forever? lol

[ QUOTE ]
It's a rediculous thought to me that the universe can be uncaused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite as ridiculous as a god would be uncaused... at least there is some evidence for the universe to exists..


Stop your preaching, it is most annoying and totally unreasonable.. Go back and hide in your faith, don't try to make it look rational, it only makes you look stupid.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
But it is rational for a god to exists forever? lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's precisely what i'm saying.
For something to be eternal and the cause of the universe, dust just doesn't cut it IMO.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it is rational for a god to exists forever? lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's precisely what i'm saying.
For something to be eternal and the cause of the universe, dust just doesn't cut it IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it, dust doesn't cut it but unicorns do? lol

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you referring to large single-step mutations?


[/ QUOTE ]
Because that's what you seemed to be talking about. Why else would you assume that the offspring isn't going to be viable?

Most mutated offspring are slightly less fit to survive and reproduce than members of the previous generation, but some are slightly more fit to survive and reproduce. Even though there aren't as many of the "fitter" kind from the beginning, there will be eventually because they are more likely to survive and reproduce.

[ QUOTE ]
I’ll try to be a clear as possible. If you agree that there is such a thing, I would like to see your citing of a specific change by mutation (an accumulation of however many incremental instances you need), sufficient to account for the observed diversity of species, that has producing viable offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you asking me to name every single mutation that occured during the evolution of a species?! That isn't possible of course, for reasons I have stated before.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a rediculous thought to me that the universe can be uncaused. It also seems rediculous to me that the universe has existed for eternity. So i'm left to 'assume' that something caused the universe and that thing I call God.

[/ QUOTE ]
But why would that thing be conscious? Even if you knew for a fact that the big bang was caused by something that existed "before" it (whatever that means), or something that exists outside of space and time, you couldn't logically infer that there was a conscious intention behind it.

Besides, it's perfectly possible that our universe is simply a small region in a much larger universe that experienced some kind of quantum fluctuation that made a Planck-sized region expand rapidly. See e.g. The string theory landscape, by Polchinski and Bousso in the latest special edition of Scientific American, "Frontiers of physics". This larger universe could be infinitely old.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking me to name every single mutation that occured during the evolution of a species?! That isn't possible of course, for reasons I have stated before.

[/ QUOTE ]

In response to the statement by you that it is possible to “prove every major feature of evolution with simple experiments,” I am asking you to cite a specific experimentally observed change by mutation (singular or cumulative) that can be extrapolated to account for the present diversity of species.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
In response to the statement by you that it is possible to “prove every major feature of evolution with simple experiments,” I am asking you to cite a specific experimentally observed change by mutation (singular or cumulative) that can be extrapolated to account for the present diversity of species.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm still not sure I understand what you're talking about. You want experimental proof that the number of species in the world today can be produced by evolution? Or that species that have a common ancestor can look very different from each other?

Perhaps you can clarify by telling me about one such "change by mutation [...] that can be extrapolated to account for the present diversity of species" that hasn't been observed, but would satisfy you if it had.

[Sharkey]

Since you claimed it is possible to “prove every major feature of evolution with simple experiments,” I am asking for a record of an observation. I want actual evidence that there exists a process whereby one species can develop into many others as distinct from adaptation within the genome of a single species (broadly defined).

This is rudimentary stuff. If you say f(x) has transformed A to B, show me a step in the process. Show me an experiment in which a phenomenon is demonstrated that can, by extension, be used to account for speciation of the sort seen today. In other words, cite an observed change by mutation (an accumulation of however many incremental instances you need) that necessarily implies the existence of a process that can produce the required speciation.

It’s a very general principle, so I hesitate to get over-specific, but one example of what has not been observed but would satisfy is a new anatomy, adapted to a different niche, that is not mutually fertile with its parent. This is a large change. A single step in the process that can be proven to lead to the full result would be enough. However, no such has been produced.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you claimed it is possible to “prove every major feature of evolution with simple experiments,” I am asking for a record of an observation.


[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I also made it clear what I meant. I will explain it again, very briefly: What I called "a", "b" and "c" have all been verified by experiments and/or observations. That's what I meant, and nothing else.

I didn't say that experiments have been performed in which a single species evolves into many others that are very different from each other. You do realize that it would take millions of years to do that, don't you? Also, to produce a new species, you need to separate some specimens from the others and subject them to different living conditions. This is something you would have to do repeatedly, since you're not asking for an experiment that produces two species, but an experiment that produces many different species. I hope you realize that it would be enormously difficult to perform such an experiment, and impossible to do it in our lifetime.

There are millions of species in the world today by the way. I wonder how many new species you would need to see evolve, and how different they would have to be, before you consider the experiment a success.

At least I understand what you mean now. You're not asking for proof that species are capable of evolving in accordance with the theory of evolution. You're asking for proof that the theory of evolution is capable of explaining why there are so many species on Earth and why they are so different from each other.

I'd like to know why you're not asking for proof of the first part. Does it mean that you have accepted that already?

As for the second part, how can you not believe that part if you believe the first? Is it so hard to believe that small changes can add up to a bigger change?

[ QUOTE ]
It’s a very general principle, so I hesitate to get over-specific, but one example of what has not been observed but would satisfy is a new anatomy, adapted to a different niche, that is not mutually fertile with its parent. This is a large change. A single step in the process that can be proven to lead to the full result would be enough. However, no such has been produced.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, that may not take millions of years to accomplish in the lab, but it's certainly not something you can do in a few months either.

[Sharkey]

What I’ve been getting at can be rephrased yet another way to address some of the issues you’ve brought up, though by using some license of expression:

I’m looking for a transformation function f(x) that has been experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first on a direct line of descent. Just as in the case of the effects proper to the evolution of an astronomical system, which for like reasons cannot be directly reproduced or observed, a bone fide “f(x)” must be experimentally shown to have the capacity to account for what is purported to happen over the long term for a theory to have validity.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
What I’ve been getting at can be rephrased yet another way to address some of the issues you’ve brought up, though by using some license of expression:

I’m looking for a transformation function f(x) that has been experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first on a direct line of descent. Just as in the case of the effects proper to the evolution of an astronomical system, which for like reasons cannot be directly reproduced or observed, a bone fide “f(x)” must be experimentally shown to have the capacity to account for what is purported to happen over the long term for a theory to have validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've answered this a hundred times. The transformatiuon fcn is selection, applied incrementally over long periods of time to yield a significant change in population.

This is the same "fcn" that has transformed domesticated dogs into select breeds with very different characteristics over a short period of time. If German Shephers were to continue to breed only with other German Shepherds, then it is qyuite likely that in a few thousand years, they would be a different species than current dog species.

WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON BEING SO OBTUSE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS POINT AND JUST KEEP REPHRASING YOUR QUESTION TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE????????????????????

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I’ve been getting at can be rephrased yet another way to address some of the issues you’ve brought up, though by using some license of expression:

I’m looking for a transformation function f(x) that has been experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first on a direct line of descent. Just as in the case of the effects proper to the evolution of an astronomical system, which for like reasons cannot be directly reproduced or observed, a bone fide “f(x)” must be experimentally shown to have the capacity to account for what is purported to happen over the long term for a theory to have validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've answered this a hundred times. The transformatiuon fcn is selection, applied incrementally over long periods of time to yield a significant change in population.

This is the same "fcn" that has transformed domesticated dogs into select breeds with very different characteristics over a short period of time. If German Shephers were to continue to breed only with other German Shepherds, then it is qyuite likely that in a few thousand years, they would be a different species than current dog species.

WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON BEING SO OBTUSE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS POINT AND JUST KEEP REPHRASING YOUR QUESTION TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

But here, I will answer your post with your own words you used to defend your "theory" of the dinosaurs. I will just replace "creator" with "evolution". Surely this answer should suffice any logical test or question you can raise, because after all it is your own manner of argument.

It should be obvious to any ape reading this thread that the evolution of the universe is not subject to its laws. If evolution wants something to happen, it happens. No problem, except for you maybe.

Now, how do you think YOUR logic holds up?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I’ve been getting at can be rephrased yet another way to address some of the issues you’ve brought up, though by using some license of expression:

I’m looking for a transformation function f(x) that has been experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first on a direct line of descent. Just as in the case of the effects proper to the evolution of an astronomical system, which for like reasons cannot be directly reproduced or observed, a bone fide “f(x)” must be experimentally shown to have the capacity to account for what is purported to happen over the long term for a theory to have validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've answered this a hundred times. The transformatiuon fcn is selection, applied incrementally over long periods of time to yield a significant change in population.

This is the same "fcn" that has transformed domesticated dogs into select breeds with very different characteristics over a short period of time. If German Shephers were to continue to breed only with other German Shepherds, then it is qyuite likely that in a few thousand years, they would be a different species than current dog species.

WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON BEING SO OBTUSE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS POINT AND JUST KEEP REPHRASING YOUR QUESTION TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again.

Your funny superstitions don’t make it. I’m looking for an EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED function f(x), not mere storybook tales about dogs or pixie dust.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I’ve been getting at can be rephrased yet another way to address some of the issues you’ve brought up, though by using some license of expression:

I’m looking for a transformation function f(x) that has been experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first on a direct line of descent. Just as in the case of the effects proper to the evolution of an astronomical system, which for like reasons cannot be directly reproduced or observed, a bone fide “f(x)” must be experimentally shown to have the capacity to account for what is purported to happen over the long term for a theory to have validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've answered this a hundred times. The transformatiuon fcn is selection, applied incrementally over long periods of time to yield a significant change in population.

This is the same "fcn" that has transformed domesticated dogs into select breeds with very different characteristics over a short period of time. If German Shephers were to continue to breed only with other German Shepherds, then it is qyuite likely that in a few thousand years, they would be a different species than current dog species.

WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON BEING SO OBTUSE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS POINT AND JUST KEEP REPHRASING YOUR QUESTION TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again.

Your funny superstitions don’t make it. I’m looking for an EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED function f(x), not mere storybook tales about dogs or pixie dust.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you really don't believe that breeding dogs occurred? Now it's just a story or pixie dust?

I really am wasting my time responding to you. WTF.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I’ve been getting at can be rephrased yet another way to address some of the issues you’ve brought up, though by using some license of expression:

I’m looking for a transformation function f(x) that has been experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first on a direct line of descent. Just as in the case of the effects proper to the evolution of an astronomical system, which for like reasons cannot be directly reproduced or observed, a bone fide “f(x)” must be experimentally shown to have the capacity to account for what is purported to happen over the long term for a theory to have validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've answered this a hundred times. The transformatiuon fcn is selection, applied incrementally over long periods of time to yield a significant change in population.

This is the same "fcn" that has transformed domesticated dogs into select breeds with very different characteristics over a short period of time. If German Shephers were to continue to breed only with other German Shepherds, then it is qyuite likely that in a few thousand years, they would be a different species than current dog species.

WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON BEING SO OBTUSE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS POINT AND JUST KEEP REPHRASING YOUR QUESTION TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again.

Your funny superstitions don’t make it. I’m looking for an EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED function f(x), not mere storybook tales about dogs or pixie dust.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you really don't believe that breeding dogs occurred? Now it's just a story or pixie dust?

I really am wasting my time responding to you. WTF.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I mean is the change demonstrated through the breeding of dogs has not been “experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first [in] a direct line of descent.”

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I’ve been getting at can be rephrased yet another way to address some of the issues you’ve brought up, though by using some license of expression:

I’m looking for a transformation function f(x) that has been experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first on a direct line of descent. Just as in the case of the effects proper to the evolution of an astronomical system, which for like reasons cannot be directly reproduced or observed, a bone fide “f(x)” must be experimentally shown to have the capacity to account for what is purported to happen over the long term for a theory to have validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've answered this a hundred times. The transformatiuon fcn is selection, applied incrementally over long periods of time to yield a significant change in population.

This is the same "fcn" that has transformed domesticated dogs into select breeds with very different characteristics over a short period of time. If German Shephers were to continue to breed only with other German Shepherds, then it is qyuite likely that in a few thousand years, they would be a different species than current dog species.

WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON BEING SO OBTUSE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS POINT AND JUST KEEP REPHRASING YOUR QUESTION TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again.

Your funny superstitions don’t make it. I’m looking for an EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED function f(x), not mere storybook tales about dogs or pixie dust.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you really don't believe that breeding dogs occurred? Now it's just a story or pixie dust?

I really am wasting my time responding to you. WTF.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I mean is the change demonstrated through the breeding of dogs has not been “experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first [in] a direct line of descent.”

[/ QUOTE ]

The Galapagos iguana then shows an offshoot of iguana that once isolated from the rest of its population, evolved into a separate species. I am sure you won't find this example worthy because scientists didn't collect data throughout the 100s of generations this occurred--which will be the case for any example one provides, which makes the whole point you are making meaningless.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I’ve been getting at can be rephrased yet another way to address some of the issues you’ve brought up, though by using some license of expression:

I’m looking for a transformation function f(x) that has been experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first on a direct line of descent. Just as in the case of the effects proper to the evolution of an astronomical system, which for like reasons cannot be directly reproduced or observed, a bone fide “f(x)” must be experimentally shown to have the capacity to account for what is purported to happen over the long term for a theory to have validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've answered this a hundred times. The transformatiuon fcn is selection, applied incrementally over long periods of time to yield a significant change in population.

This is the same "fcn" that has transformed domesticated dogs into select breeds with very different characteristics over a short period of time. If German Shephers were to continue to breed only with other German Shepherds, then it is qyuite likely that in a few thousand years, they would be a different species than current dog species.

WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON BEING SO OBTUSE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS POINT AND JUST KEEP REPHRASING YOUR QUESTION TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again.

Your funny superstitions don’t make it. I’m looking for an EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED function f(x), not mere storybook tales about dogs or pixie dust.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you really don't believe that breeding dogs occurred? Now it's just a story or pixie dust?

I really am wasting my time responding to you. WTF.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I mean is the change demonstrated through the breeding of dogs has not been “experimentally demonstrated to have the capacity, when applied over very long periods, to develop one species into another where the second species is arbitrarily remote from the first [in] a direct line of descent.”

[/ QUOTE ]

The Galapagos iguana then shows an offshoot of iguana that once isolated from the rest of its population, evolved into a separate species. I am sure you won't find this example worthy because scientists didn't collect data throughout the 100s of generations this occurred--which will be the case for any example one provides, which makes the whole point you are making meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have two Galapagos iguana species that are mutually infertile?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have two Galapagos iguana species that are mutually infertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have a Galapagos iguana that is a different species from other iguanas from which it is descended. The whole reason it is a separate species is because it was isolated and thus evolved differently. If there were 2 species on the island, then they would interbreed and face the same environment, and thus not diverge.

SERIOUSLY, ARE YOU PLAYING DUMB OR ARE YOU REALLY THAT DUMB??? If you want to complain about an ad hominem attack, be my guest.

You asked for an example of a species which evolved into a separate species in the same manner that dog breeding produces differences, but you wanted to carry that through all the way to formation as a new species. The Galapagos iguana is one such simple example. You once again show the inability to accept any asnwers, but will merely shift the question--so now we need 2 species on the same island to become infertile?--why?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have two Galapagos iguana species that are mutually infertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have a Galapagos iguana that is a different species from other iguanas from which it is descended. The whole reason it is a separate species is because it was isolated and thus evolved differently. If there were 2 species on the island, then they would interbreed and face the same environment, and thus not diverge.

SERIOUSLY, ARE YOU PLAYING DUMB OR ARE YOU REALLY THAT DUMB??? If you want to complain about an ad hominem attack, be my guest.

You asked for an example of a species which evolved into a separate species in the same manner that dog breeding produces differences, but you wanted to carry that through all the way to formation as a new species. The Galapagos iguana is one such simple example. You once again show the inability to accept any asnwers, but will merely shift the question--so now we need 2 species on the same island to become infertile?--why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I’m not playing dumb, are you?

If your purported “f(x)” can’t account for mutually infertile species, then you’re stuck without evolution on square one.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
If your purported “f(x)” can’t account for mutually infertile species, then you’re stuck without evolution on square one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, there are 2 species on the Galapagos--marine and land iguanas. They can in some cases produce a hybrid iguana whose fertility is unknown. The 2 species are considered distinct species from each other, as well as from other iguana species such as the common green iguana.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

No, I’m not playing dumb, are you?


[/ QUOTE ]

What you're doing is cutting and pasting text from some ID site. Whether or not you actually believe the text or are just a troll is irrelevant, it's quite clear that you do not understand it. You are just repeatedly blindly cutting and pasting it as a response to those who are trying to answer your questions.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What you're doing is cutting and pasting text from some ID site.

[/ QUOTE ]

What’s the URL?

Put up or shut up.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're doing is cutting and pasting text from some ID site.

[/ QUOTE ]

What’s the URL?

Put up or shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Troll,

Whether or not you're cutting and pasting it from a website is irrelevant. You're cutting and pasting it from *somewhere*. Maybe your preacher sent you an email with this information, or maybe you go to school in Pennsylvania and you're copying this from your ID textbook. It doesn't really matter. You obviously don't understand what you're posting (as people have answered your questions repeatedly, yet you don't realize and/or acknowledge it), and your posts are filled with the pseudo-science that ID's proponents have been spouting off for the last few years.

Keep posting, though. It's important for everyone to see what nonsense ID is, and you're doing a fine job of demonstrating it.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're doing is cutting and pasting text from some ID site.

[/ QUOTE ]

What’s the URL?

Put up or shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Troll,

Whether or not you're cutting and pasting it from a website is irrelevant. You're cutting and pasting it from *somewhere*. Maybe your preacher sent you an email with this information, or maybe you go to school in Pennsylvania and you're copying this from your ID textbook. It doesn't really matter. You obviously don't understand what you're posting (as people have answered your questions repeatedly, yet you don't realize and/or acknowledge it), and your posts are filled with the pseudo-science that ID's proponents have been spouting off for the last few years.

Keep posting, though. It's important for everyone to see what nonsense ID is, and you're doing a fine job of demonstrating it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Troll,

Prove it!

Keep posting, though. It's important for everyone to see how ready evolution is for the dustbin of history.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep posting, though. It's important for everyone to see how ready evolution is for the dustbin of history.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...oh you wacky wacky creationists.

[Sharkey]

That’s not proof, just another weak ad hominem attack.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s not proof, just another weak ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have this troll thing down a science, I'll give you that.

Oh wait, you don't believe in science...

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s not proof, just another weak ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have this troll thing down a science, I'll give you that.

Oh wait, you don't believe in science...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in evidence. You’re grasping at straws.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're doing is cutting and pasting text from some ID site.

[/ QUOTE ]

What’s the URL?

Put up or shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of what you're posting is from Michael Dembski's "No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence". You have simply reworded most of his arguments. For instance, you substitute "detailed complexity" for "specified complexity" when you argue that a peacock's tail feathers can only be explained through ID. You might also be "borrowing" from Michael Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity.

The rest of what you have posted are the same dishonest arguments that supposedly invalidate the Theory of Evolution that can be found on any number of ID sites. To figure out which one that you're quoting from *exactly* is like finding a needle in a haystack.

I'm not sure what sending me on this treasure hunt accomplished.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're doing is cutting and pasting text from some ID site.

[/ QUOTE ]

What’s the URL?

Put up or shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of what you're posting is from Michael Dembski's "No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence". You have simply reworded most of his arguments. For instance, you substitute "detailed complexity" for "specified complexity" when you argue that a peacock's tail feathers can only be explained through ID. You might also be "borrowing" from Michael Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity.

The rest of what you have posted are the same dishonest arguments that supposedly invalidate the Theory of Evolution that can be found on any number of ID sites. To figure out which one that you're quoting from *exactly* is like finding a needle in a haystack.

I'm not sure what sending me on this treasure hunt accomplished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly which phrases are pasted?

Are any of your arguments for evolution original?

You’re putting up a very poor showing so far. It seems you prefer speculating in the dark about me rather than addressing the topic. Apparently you agree that evolution itself is pretty indefensible.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s not proof, just another weak ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please keep posting. Not only do your ridiculous posts bring a chuckle, but Hopey is right--no better way to show how ridiculous your positions are then to have you explain them (or rather, not explain them) yourself.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s not proof, just another weak ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please keep posting. Not only do your ridiculous posts bring a chuckle, but Hopey is right--no better way to show how ridiculous your positions are then to have you explain them (or rather, not explain them) yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s just another weak ad hominem attack.

[AJFenix]

Sharkey, people like you blow my mind. I guess to be able to truly believe in fairy tales you must lack in the common sense department.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s not proof, just another weak ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please keep posting. Not only do your ridiculous posts bring a chuckle, but Hopey is right--no better way to show how ridiculous your positions are then to have you explain them (or rather, not explain them) yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s just another weak ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

and just another ad nauseam response

[ffredd]

Sharkey,

you still haven't explained why you're demanding that biologists perform an experiment that would take millions of years to finish. It would be nice if you could tell us that.

I'm also interested in what you think about the details I called a, b and c. Do you think there's sufficient evidence to know that they're true.

Just to remind you, here they are again:

a) some properties of living things are hereditary
b) mutations occur in nature
c) natural selection occurs in nature

[Sharkey]

I'm certainly not demanding an experiment that would take millions of years, for the same reason I wouldn’t impose that standard on astronomy.

What a science must provide, however, is a demonstrated transformation f(x), to return to that manner of speaking, that is extrapolatable to account for the purported long term phenomenon, as is done in astronomy when taking basic laboratory observations and expanding them, according to verified methods, into “transformation functions” that account for the large-scale data gathered through the telescope. It's primarily a matter of building macro theories from micro (laboratory) physics.

As for your a, b and c, they’re fine as far as they go. It’s just that they are not enough to account for the several species without an “f(x)” demonstrated to have the CAPCITY of generating successful new species (after however many steps), the intra-species diversity of dogs notwithstanding.

[MidGe]

Sharkey,

This has been answered over and over again. One more time, every different species in existence today share a common ancestry. Drawin was the first to promulgate this notion, which has now been proven so many times by genetic science, tat only real laggards in scientifc knowledge or stubborn fantasists, still maintain it is not so.

The most amazing thing is the possible reliance on genetics, a discipline totally unknown and un-envisaged in Darwin's time, which has done nothing but bring confirmations and continue to do so on a daily basis.

Of course if you don't believe in genetics, I hope you don't abandon all the medical adavances that it has made possible, as obviously those should not work. I sincerely hope that you can keep your self contradictory and incoherent position, so as to reduce your suffering and lengthen you live by taking adavantge of whatever is available even it seems impossible to you.

[TomBrooks]

I don't see the face. Can we get a picture that shows the face better, please.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the face. Can we get a picture that shows the face better, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://filter-kom.de/tonygorilla/gfx/Crab.jpg

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the face. Can we get a picture that shows the face better, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't find another picture, sorry

do you mean that you can't see it AT ALL?? or it just doesn't look all that specific

it's a kind of skowl with the two eyes (upper left), nose (mid) and mouth (lower right) with legs coming out of the mouth.

hope that helps....or maybe you're looking for a more detailed face..I don't think selection will get you that though.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the face. Can we get a picture that shows the face better, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this help?

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/589/image54ce.gif

[Prodigy54321]

I was going to do that but I'm too lazy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh soo, now I see. The whole body is the outline of the head. OK, thanks.