Re: Darwin In Evolution
AgitProp
> Well folks, some of us must think that Darwin is resting in peace on
> his well-earned laurels but evolution in its subtle ways has got hold
> of "The Origin of Species" itself and gave it a mighty nudge.
>
> There is a NEW EDITION, and the best part is that IT IS FREE.
>
> But before you eat that inexpensive lunch you may want to judge by
> what lies beyond the cover.
>
> Wow! It has a NEW INTRODUCTION.
>
> Not only new but the MOTHER OF ALL INTRODUCTIONS as well.
>
> It's FIFTY pages long.
>
> Mon Dieu.
>
> Wait! Something wrong here!
>
> What? No. It can't be.
>
> Darwin a creationist?
>
> Aaaarrrrrrgggggg!!!
>
> http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...
The Theory of Evolution on Earth = Last Century's Dogmatic Religion
Here is a traditional British recipe:
Dramatic music, one piece.
1 Fully grown BBC employee.
5 minute sized - subtle ridicule
5 minute sized - unsubstantiated assumptions
5 minute sized - fossil footage.
20 minutes of flash animations.
Directions:
Take BBC employee and make
sure you scoop out the brain if he came with any!
Finely chop the subtle ridicule and unsubstantiated
assumptions. Stir well! Now stuff the BBC employee
and place on a large tray. Take fossil footage and
sprinkle on top. This would probably leave you with
huge gaps on your tray...but don't worry! - Simply
get the flash animations, chop some more unsubstantiated
assumptions. Mix well and fill in the gaps.
Now place the tray in the oven - medium heat.
Grub a cigar, play the music and wait 30 minutes
to get a delicious, half-baked Evolution program.
VoiceOfReason
Ken
> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
With their little closed off minds, Fundy Fuckwits don't need facts to
futher confuse the issue
Tiglath
Even the smartest of them are self-defeating. If you watch the
debates between the New Atheists and the usual opponents, like Rabbi
Boteach and Dinesh DeSouza -- the best they can offer -- you can see
the theists' argumentation is full of bad science, gratuitous
assertions, and fallacies. They consistently misrepresent the
atheistic view, and try to steal from science in a childish way.
To see what I mean watch this. It is quite long but go to the bits by
the two speakers I mention and see. There are so outgunned, it's a
slaughter.
AgitProp
> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
Absolutely! - Lets' sacrifice a few chickens to it.
AgitProp
The "Debate" has never been about the truth.
That's why both sides look and sound ridiculous.
"Common elements in DNA confirm Evolution" = "Anthropomorphic God
created Humans"
PS
My Toyota has common DNA with the first bike! - I've checked.:)
Peter Jason
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still
> a fact.
But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
could not have survived because some of their links were
missing!
Matt Giwer
Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing common
ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few which are in fact
still missing.
--
In 2009 there were more memorials over the death of John Lennon
than Pearl Harbor. WWII is finally over!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4208
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Fri Dec 18 08:10:23 EST 2009
Devils Advocaat
I vote we use the penguins, they are much better for sacrificing. :)
Peter Jason
"Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>
>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is
>>> still a fact.
>
>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
>> could not have
>> survived because some of their links were missing!
>
> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing
> common
> ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few
> which are in fact
> still missing.
>
I meant the intermediate forms that could not function. eg a
part bird could not fly. And what could have been the link
between the structures of an anphibian and a reptile egg?
Bob T.
> "Matt Giwer" <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>
> >>news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is
> >>> still a fact.
>
> >> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
> >> could not have
> >> survived because some of their links were missing!
>
> > Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing
> > common
> > ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few
> > which are in fact
> > still missing.
>
> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function. eg a
> part bird could not fly.
Apparently you have never heard of the flying squirrel or other
gliding animals. True flight has evolved several times in the animal
kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_and_gliding_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_flight
- Bob T.
> And what could have been the link between the structures of an anphibian and a reptile egg?
>
>
>
> > --
> > In 2009 there were more memorials over the death of John
> > Lennon
> > than Pearl Harbor. WWII is finally over!
> > -- The Iron Webmaster, 4208
> > http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtmla15
> > Fri Dec 18 08:10:23 EST 2009- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul J Gans
>"Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>
>>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is
>>>> still a fact.
>>
>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
>>> could not have
>>> survived because some of their links were missing!
>>
>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing
>> common
>> ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few
>> which are in fact
>> still missing.
>>
>I meant the intermediate forms that could not function. eg a
>part bird could not fly. And what could have been the link
>between the structures of an anphibian and a reptile egg?
Take it to talk.origins, the place to discuss evolution.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Peter Jason
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hghe7b$ola$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I thought *that* ng was full of trolls and similar
argumentative people.
Cory Albrecht
> "Matt Giwer"<ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>
>>> "VoiceOfReason"<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is
>>>> still a fact.
>>
>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
>>> could not have
>>> survived because some of their links were missing!
>>
>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing
>> common
>> ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few
>> which are in fact
>> still missing.
>>
>
>
> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function. eg a
Intermediates being "non-functional" is a creationist strawman because
they can never seem to get beyond their "hopeful monster" fallacy.
Some how they always seem to run away when flying squirrels are pointed
out to them.
> part bird could not fly. And what could have been the link
> between the structures of an anphibian and a reptile egg?
A leathery skin, how about that as a possibility? Do you have no
imagination?
Cory Albrecht
Yes, there are a lot of creationist trolls there, but there are also
many highly knowledgeable science-philes and even a few actual
scientists who refute those creationist trolls every day.
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:hghe7b$ola$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> Take it to talk.origins, the place to discuss evolution.
>I thought *that* ng was full of trolls and similar
>argumentative people.
Actually, if you leave out the crazy creationists, it
is filled with many folks who know the field quite well.
One example, they rode DSH out of town on a rail when he
came in trying to pull his usual cuteness.
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who could not have
>>> survived because some of their links were missing!
>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing common ancestors
>> are the subject of evolution. There are very few which are in fact still
>> missing.
> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function.
There are no intermediate forms. Every species is always changing.
> eg a part bird could not fly.
That is the invention of creationists. It has nothing to do with
evolution. The subject is only common ancestor.
> And what could have been the link between the structures of an anphibian
> and a reptile egg?
Assuming you know the difference between an amphibian and a reptile,
the absence of a variety of amphibian which did not require living in water
as part of its life cycle. Over millions of generation one branch of
amphibians needs less and less contact with water until it changes into one
that needs water only for drinking and not for reproduction.
Hundreds of millions of years after that a species with a penchant
for naming things comes along and gives them different names and then
concludes they are uniquely different because of the different names. Giving
a name to a thing is not the same as knowing about the thing.
--
Hodie decimo quarto Kalendas Ianuarias MMX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Sat Dec 19 17:02:34 EST 2009
J Antero
Well, did that take a Nobel?
Dave Oldridge
Hey! Long time no see!
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.co
>>>> m...
>>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
>>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who could not
>>>> have survived because some of their links were missing!
>>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing common
>>> ancestors
>>> are the subject of evolution. There are very few which are in fact
>>> still missing.
>
>> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function.
>
> There are no intermediate forms. Every species is always
> changing.
Perhaps another way to put this would be to say that EVERY organism not
at the end of an extinct lineage is an intermediate form. And they are
all fully functional organisms. Nobody is positing anything like a bird
with one wing. Instead, we are seeing feathered theropods, some with
longer feathers on their limbs.
--
Dave Oldridge+
JTEM
Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> Matt Giwer <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote
>
> Hey! Long time no see!
You're happy to see a Holocaust-denying Nazi
cunt?
Why?
And, oh, before some nimrod tries to invoke
Godwin's Law: Check out the cunt's website!
The URL is in his frigging sig, for crying out
loud. The person posting as Matt Giwer really
__IS__ a Holocaust denying Nazi cunt.
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:hgj1eb$97k$5...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In soc.history.medieval Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hghe7b$ola$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>>>> Take it to talk.origins, the place to discuss evolution.
>>
>>>I thought *that* ng was full of trolls and similar
>>>argumentative people.
>>
>> Actually, if you leave out the crazy creationists, it
>> is filled with many folks who know the field quite well.
>>
>> One example, they rode DSH out of town on a rail when he
>> came in trying to pull his usual cuteness.
>Well, did that take a Nobel?
I know of no other newsgroup that successfully rid itself
of that loon in so short a time. Sadly, he who shall not
be named, P**** N***** followed him back to soc.history.medieval
and remained his staunch ally until the affair of the posted
e-mail.
Peter Jason
How did he disappear so quickly? Much has been left unsaid.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c:
> Hey! Long time no see!
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com
...
>>>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
>>>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who could not
>>>>> have survived because some of their links were missing!
>>>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing common ancestors
>>>> are the subject of evolution. There are very few which are in fact
>>>> still missing.
>>> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function.
>> There are no intermediate forms. Every species is always changing.
> Perhaps another way to put this would be to say that EVERY organism not at
> the end of an extinct lineage is an intermediate form. And they are all
> fully functional organisms. Nobody is positing anything like a bird with
> one wing. Instead, we are seeing feathered theropods, some with longer
> feathers on their limbs.
Even with extinction there is evolution so to speak. Less suited for
ghee whiz special effects about meteor impacts is the likely more common
cause. A species changes to become better at eating some other species. The
other species evolves to better avoid being eaten as similarly happens to
the food of that other species. Every species in the entire food change is
constantly adapting to the changes of every other species. There are also
climatic and geological changes over these tens of millions of years.
It is hardly surprising there are casualties in this constant
adaptation.
--
If a man criticizes Israel he will be condemned as anstisemitic.
What does a comdemned man gain from restraint?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4213
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Dec 21 16:09:40 EST 2009
Peter Jason
Casualties yes in existing species, but this is not
tolerable in developing attributes. From Darwin: "If it
could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break
down."
As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air
system, completely different from the reptiles, insects,
mammals and the amphibia, and which exhibits the efficient
"counter-current" contact of blood & air. How could this
have evolved in discrete steps? It's like being half dead
or half married - not possible.
Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains much;
yet we wait for a better all-encompassing explanation (which
will not involve creationism) even if it is panspermia.
Dave Oldridge
4e728b...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote
>>
>> Hey! Long time no see!
>
>You're happy to see a Holocaust-denying Nazi
>cunt?
>
>Why?
Did I say I was happy to see him?
>
>And, oh, before some nimrod tries to invoke
>Godwin's Law: Check out the cunt's website!
>The URL is in his frigging sig, for crying out
>loud. The person posting as Matt Giwer really
> __IS__ a Holocaust denying Nazi cunt.
I've been running into him since the 1980's.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Matt Giwer
Why do you insist upon saying things about Darwin's THEORY which are
simply not true? That is a serious question. Are we to conclude you do not
know any better?
> From Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed
> which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight
> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
First, that is an IF. Second, it applies only to HIS THEORY. Third,
evolution would remain a fact although in need of a better explanation.
> As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air system, completely
> different from the reptiles, insects, mammals and the amphibia, and which
> exhibits the efficient "counter-current" contact of blood & air. How
> could this have evolved in discrete steps? It's like being half dead or
> half married - not possible.
The fact is that it did. Its evolution is a fact. Your problem is to
first *understand* Darwin's theory and then describe an impossible problem.
As a reasonable person would observe insects are also entirely
different from mammals and reptiles. Upon what fossil record do you suggest
there is an insuperable obstacle when it comes to birds?
As to efficiency, that is a variable measure. Are you proposing it
could not have been less efficient in the past? If so, upon what fossils do
you base this proposition?
If you really think you can jump directly to birds could not fly
without this efficiency then you will need to show this structure is not
present in ostriches, emu and other flightless birds. As they have the same
structure you cannot show that.
> Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains much; yet we wait
> for a better all-encompassing explanation (which will not involve
> creationism) even if it is panspermia.
That is an amusing condescension but as you clearly have a minimal
grasp of the fossil record, present day physiology, and Darwin's theory
pardom me if I dismiss your baseless assertions.
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Tue Dec 22 16:17:08 EST 2009
Peter Jason
>
>> Casualties yes in existing species, but this is not
>> tolerable in
>> developing attributes.
>
> Why do you insist upon saying things about Darwin's
> THEORY which are
> simply not true? That is a serious question. Are we to
> conclude you do not
> know any better?
>
>> From Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any
>> complex organ existed
>> which could not possibly have been formed by numerous
>> successive, slight
>> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
>
> First, that is an IF. Second, it applies only to HIS
> THEORY. Third,
> evolution would remain a fact although in need of a better
> explanation.
*** I do not deny evolution is a fact. I say it is not the
whole story. ***
>> As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air
>> system, completely
>> different from the reptiles, insects, mammals and the
>> amphibia, and which
>> exhibits the efficient "counter-current" contact of blood
>> & air. How
>> could this have evolved in discrete steps? It's like
>> being half dead or
>> half married - not possible.
>
> The fact is that it did. Its evolution is a fact. Your
> problem is to
> first *understand* Darwin's theory and then describe an
> impossible problem.
*** Obviously it did because there are birds fluttering
about everywhere. How did the avian lung evolve? Can
anyone postulate a primitive avian lung? ***
> As a reasonable person would observe insects are also
> entirely
> different from mammals and reptiles. Upon what fossil
> record do you suggest
> there is an insuperable obstacle when it comes to birds?
*** Two wrongs don't make a right. Why not explain the
avian lung first. ***
> As to efficiency, that is a variable measure. Are you
> proposing it
> could not have been less efficient in the past? If so,
> upon what fossils do
> you base this proposition?
*** Reptiles I guess, who had normal lungs and not a trace
of the avian variety. ****
>
> If you really think you can jump directly to birds could
> not fly
> without this efficiency then you will need to show this
> structure is not
> present in ostriches, emu and other flightless birds. As
> they have the same
> structure you cannot show that.
*** I was thinking of sparrows and pigeons; we can leave
BigBird 'till later. ***
>
>> Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains
>> much; yet we wait
>> for a better all-encompassing explanation (which will not
>> involve
>> creationism) even if it is panspermia.
>
> That is an amusing condescension but as you clearly have
> a minimal
> grasp of the fossil record, present day physiology, and
> Darwin's theory
> pardom me if I dismiss your baseless assertions.
*** Christ! Has Darwin been deified? He has become the
Lord High Paradigm of biology. That role was once occupied
by the bible. Let's not make the same mistake. ***
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4710 (20091222) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4710 (20091222) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Paul J Gans
You might start at:
Browsing around there will answer many of your questions.
But still, why not take it to talk.origins and get Folks Who Know
to answer your questions. I'm serious. It is a PhD dense group
of mostly friendly folks.
Matt Giwer
>>> Casualties yes in existing species, but this is not tolerable in
>>> developing attributes.
>> Why do you insist upon saying things about Darwin's THEORY which are
>> simply not true? That is a serious question. Are we to conclude you do
>> not know any better?
>>> From Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed
>>> which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight
>>> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
>> First, that is an IF. Second, it applies only to HIS THEORY. Third,
>> evolution would remain a fact although in need of a better explanation.
> *** I do not deny evolution is a fact. I say it is not the
> whole story. ***
Upon what physical evidence do you claim Darwin's theory is
deficient?
>>> As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air system,
>>> completely different from the reptiles, insects, mammals and the
>>> amphibia, and which exhibits the efficient "counter-current" contact of
>>> blood & air. How could this have evolved in discrete steps? It's like
>>> being half dead or half married - not possible.
>> The fact is that it did. Its evolution is a fact. Your problem is to
>> first *understand* Darwin's theory and then describe an impossible
>> problem.
> *** Obviously it did because there are birds fluttering about everywhere.
> How did the avian lung evolve? Can anyone postulate a primitive avian
> lung? ***
Hypotesizing a method has nothing to do with the theory. As we have
no physical remains of dinosaur lungs there is no way to know what bird
lungs were like back then. Without knowing where they started you are saying
they cannot be as they are. That is not logical.
>> As a reasonable person would observe insects are also entirely different
>> from mammals and reptiles. Upon what fossil record do you suggest there
>> is an insuperable obstacle when it comes to birds?
> *** Two wrongs don't make a right. Why not explain the avian lung first. ***
What EXACTLY, in phsiological detail, do you think needs explaining?
In your own words, please explain exactly the problem as you see it.
I do not mean giving it a name as you did to start this. I mean explain what
that word means and what the unexplainable part is. Show how adaptation to
the needs of flight is not possible.
>> As to efficiency, that is a variable measure. Are you proposing it could
>> not have been less efficient in the past? If so, upon what fossils do you
>> base this proposition?
> *** Reptiles I guess, who had normal lungs and not a trace of the avian
> variety. ****
What FOSSILS do you base this on?
>> If you really think you can jump directly to birds could not fly without
>> this efficiency then you will need to show this structure is not present
>> in ostriches, emu and other flightless birds. As they have the same
>> structure you cannot show that.
> *** I was thinking of sparrows and pigeons; we can leave BigBird 'till
> later. ***
Not to later. Birds are birds, flying or flightless or half and half
like chickens. What applies to one species applies to all. If the same
feature is in all birds then it is not reasonable to find a particular
problem only for those that fly.
>>> Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains much; yet we wait
>>> for a better all-encompassing explanation (which will not involve
>>> creationism) even if it is panspermia.
>> That is an amusing condescension but as you clearly have a minimal grasp
>> of the fossil record, present day physiology, and Darwin's theory pardom
>> me if I dismiss your baseless assertions.
> *** Christ! Has Darwin been deified? He has become the Lord High
> Paradigm of biology. That role was once occupied by the bible. Let's not
> make the same mistake. ***
Neither Darwin nor Newton nor Einstein have been deified however
that does not mean people who do not understand the subject can necessarily
find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you know about bird
lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while pretending to
actually understand the issue.
--
On April 15, 1987 more than seven million American children vanished.
This is a well known fact but few talk about it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4209
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Wed Dec 23 18:02:54 EST 2009
ADR
> Casualties yes in existing species, but this is not
> tolerable in developing attributes. From Darwin: "If it
> could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
> could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive,
> slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break
> down."
>
> As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air
> system, completely different from the reptiles, insects,
> mammals and the amphibia, and which exhibits the efficient
> "counter-current" contact of blood & air. How could this
> have evolved in discrete steps? It's like being half dead
> or half married - not possible.
Well, you chose a bad example. The birds evolved from dinosaurs, not
reptiles. Before you jump to the proposition that the dinosaurs were
reptiles, let me tell you that modern finds clearly illustrate that
dinosaurs have a very different physiology than reptiles, which helped
them survive the great Permian extinction, which eradicate a lot of
reptiles. The reason that this happened is because they developed
highly efficient lungs that became great survival tools, as the
earth's atmosphere lost 50% of the oxygen at the Permian boundary. In
fact, throughout the period of dinosaur dominance, oxygen content was
substantially lower than today's. Mammals, which were contemporary
with the dinosaurs at the end of the Permian, had difficult adjusting
and this pressure forced the progressive evolution of the diaphragm.
Although of course, we possess the fossils of feathered dinosaurs,
proto-birds and birds in the dinosaur era, the soft organs have not
survived to allow us to track the evolution of the lungs in these
animals. However, we have cases in which impressions of the soft
tissue in dinosaurs have survived that allow us to make some informed
guesses.
> Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains much;
> yet we wait for a better all-encompassing explanation (which
> will not involve creationism) even if it is panspermia.
Panspermia has nothing to do with evolution. It is a theory that
assumes that basic elements of the genetic code are interspersed in
the universe and manage to kick-start life in habitable planets.
After billions of years and with complex forms having already evolved,
some genetic material on asteroids will not transform the avian
lung.
There are proposed modifications of the Darwinian theory such as
punctuated equilibria which have been developed to explain spurts of
speciation but in my mind, they are lame. The darwinian proposition
of geographical fragmentation, bottleneck events, genetic drift and
evolving fitness (in the darwinian sense: more offspring) fully
explains speciation radiation from a pre-existing common genetic pool.
It is a pity that the Darwinian theory of the evolution of species was
mistakenly named "theory of evolution". Evolution is an observed fact
established by many non-controversial tests. Its mechanism is the
theoretical realm (although the Darwinian process is very solid), not
its very existence.
Javi
grisha
amphibians?
On Dec 18, 3:41 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>
> >> "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
Paul J Gans
and put it where it belongs.
ADR
> And what could have been the link between the structures of fish and
> amphibians?
This guy is obviously a joker!!!
Peter Jason
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b944ff35-111c-4bae...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4716 (20091225) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4716 (20091225) __________
Peter Jason
Counter-current absorption is the most efficient way of
extracting the oxygen from an O2 depleted atmosphere, but
this begs the question a bit, because if it is the "most
efficient" why did not this become the breathing method of
contemporaneous creatures such as primitive mammals, bats,
snakes et al.?
Also, the driving force compelling fishes to leave the water
and become amphibians was the O2-depleted waters in inland
streams and swamps. Why did not these creatures develop
desirable counter-current breathing? Do lung fishes and
mud-skippers have avian lungs?
Even without soft tissue to analyse I can ask these
questions which beg an answer. Darwin can't answer them.
Peter Jason
>
> Neither Darwin nor Newton nor Einstein have been deified
> however
> that does not mean people who do not understand the
> subject can necessarily
> find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you
> know about bird
> lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while
> pretending to
> actually understand the issue.
I am not a creationist at all. And it was the little boy
who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
Explain if you will the origin and persistence of the
Pentadactyl Limb. This present in all creatures from fishes
to man. Can Darwin explain why pentadactyl was chosen? Why
not a tetradactyl or hexadactyl limb? Somewhere in the
evolution of fishes the 5-fingered paw and foot became
predominant and consistent - a very curious fact.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4716 (20091225) __________
ADR
> Counter-current absorption is the most efficient way of
> extracting the oxygen from an O2 depleted atmosphere, but
> this begs the question a bit, because if it is the "most
> efficient" why did not this become the breathing method of
> contemporaneous creatures such as primitive mammals, bats,
> snakes et al.?
Although this solution evolved in certain species, it does not mean
that it should have evolved in all. It is possible that you do not
understand how this works. The genes that made it happen for
dinosaurs were already in the dinosaur gene pool. The conditions at
the end of the Permian (increased temperatures, decreased oxygen
concentration) forced the selection of specific traits within the
population that possessed these traits. If you put under
environmental pressure a population that does not possess these genes
in the gene pool, you are not going to get them, however severe the
pressure is. You just kill off the population. Selection works on
existing traits, it does not invent them. Mammals progressively
developed the diaphragm that allowed more air intake, as the genes for
this were already present prior to the Permian extinction event.
In order to really understand how biological systems respond, you
should read the classical book by Jacques Monot, "Chance and
Necessity". If you comprehend the basic principle there, you would
have no further questions on this.
> Also, the driving force compelling fishes to leave the water
> and become amphibians was the O2-depleted waters in inland
> streams and swamps. Why did not these creatures develop
> desirable counter-current breathing? Do lung fishes and
> mud-skippers have avian lungs?
>
> Even without soft tissue to analyse I can ask these
> questions which beg an answer. Darwin can't answer them.
First of all, you are wrong about what drove the "fish to leave the
water". This happened tens of millions of years prior to the Permian
extinction event and we have an excellent understanding of how the
transition worked simply because we do have these (or similar)
organisms living here today among us. As for the fish, the Permian
extinction affected them profoundly with most species disappearing.
Survivors had physiology that allowed them to survive in seas with
poorer oxygen content, very much as you have today. There are fish
today that can live in marginal niches; when the "margin" expands, so
do the species that live in them. It is as simple as that. Fish do
not evolve as a cohesive, collective unit. When the environment
changes, most of the fish die off and only the species that lived in
niches with conditions similar to the new environment get to survive,
multiply, expand to new niches and progressively speciate into a
variety of new species. This is how evolution works.
ADR
> > Neither Darwin nor Newton nor Einstein have been deified
> > however
> > that does not mean people who do not understand the
> > subject can necessarily
> > find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you
> > know about bird
> > lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while
> > pretending to
> > actually understand the issue.
>
> I am not a creationist at all. And it was the little boy
> who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
>
> Explain if you will the origin and persistence of the
> Pentadactyl Limb. This present in all creatures from fishes
> to man. Can Darwin explain why pentadactyl was chosen? Why
> not a tetradactyl or hexadactyl limb? Somewhere in the
> evolution of fishes the 5-fingered paw and foot became
> predominant and consistent - a very curious fact.
In fact, you have answered your own question. There is no reason why
five fingers or toes is good and six is not. But genomes are very
conservative beasts. From the moment on solution became dominant, it
remained a constant because no evolutionary pressure was acting on
it. Certain mutations in specific individuals within a single species
may have led to the appearance of four or six limbs (this is not
uncommon even today) but in the absence of any evolutionary pressure
otherwise, these mutations are lost through genetic drift (see your
dictionary for the definition of "genetic drift"). You can also ask
as to why we have the specific four bases in DNA, although others
exist as well. The point is that in order to change a biological
system you need to apply a strong environmental pressure in a diverse
population. In the absence of either the environmental pressure or
the genetic diversity, you cannot get evolution.
ADR
> > however
> > that does not mean people who do not understand the
> > subject can necessarily
> > find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you
> > know about bird
> > lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while
> > pretending to
> > actually understand the issue.
>
> I am not a creationist at all. And it was the little boy
> who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
Listen, I do not want to make you feel bad, but so far the only thing
that you have pointed out here is that ***you*** have no clothes.
Admittingly, **population genetics** (the science that deals with the
evolution of populations) is not an easy discipline to understand.
Here is a reference that you need to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics
In many ways, population genetics is the equivalent of theoretical
physics for the biological sciences and the mathematics of it may make
it difficult to understand for non-scientists. I would suggest that
you should try to understand the work of some of remarkable scientists
in the field such as John Haldane and Richard Lewontin. I know that
neither of them are as well known as Albrecht Einstein, but their
treatises on population genetics and mechanism of evolution are a
cornerstone of today's biological disciplines. In terms of
evolutionary (population) biology, Charles Darwin is what Isaac Newton
was in theoretical physics. He was just a remarkable man at the
beginning of the discipline, not the final word on it.
Matt Giwer
>> Neither Darwin nor Newton nor Einstein have been deified
>> however
>> that does not mean people who do not understand the
>> subject can necessarily
>> find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you
>> know about bird
>> lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while
>> pretending to
>> actually understand the issue.
> I am not a creationist at all. And it was the little boy
> who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
You do not appear to realize that is just a story. It didn't really happen.
> Explain if you will the origin and persistence of the
> Pentadactyl Limb. This present in all creatures from fishes
> to man. Can Darwin explain why pentadactyl was chosen? Why
> not a tetradactyl or hexadactyl limb? Somewhere in the
> evolution of fishes the 5-fingered paw and foot became
> predominant and consistent - a very curious fact.
What does chosen mean in this context? What was five in competition with?
With insects there were at least three distinct families that moved from the
ocean to the land. An insect specialist will probably tell me it was more than
that as with cente/millepedes. It is worth noting there was no "selection" of
only one insect type.
With vertebrates it appears to have happened only once. Six and eight legged
vertebrates didn't make the transition to land. Similarly the number of toes
at the ends of those legs did not vary either.
BTW: Who are you trying to impress with greek names for number? Who impressed
you with it?
Do you really expect me to think you made up the names and researched the
Greek names for the numbers? As I said ...
"In this case all you know about bird lungs is what you read from some
creationist tract while pretending to actually understand the issue."
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Sat Dec 26 18:48:52 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Counter-current absorption is the most efficient way of
> extracting the oxygen from an O2 depleted atmosphere, but
> this begs the question a bit, because if it is the "most
> efficient" why did not this become the breathing method of
> contemporaneous creatures such as primitive mammals, bats,
> snakes et al.?
That response makes it clear you do not understand the subject at all. Why do
you continue instead of learning about evolution first? Anything you get from
creationist sources is ignorant by definition.
It is not possible that anyone who understands the allele variation mechanism
has any objective or that a direction can be conveyed.
> Also, the driving force compelling fishes to leave the water
> and become amphibians was the O2-depleted waters in inland
> streams and swamps. Why did not these creatures develop
> desirable counter-current breathing? Do lung fishes and
> mud-skippers have avian lungs?
What magic "compelling" force are you talking about? Which creationist filled
your head with that nonsense?
> Even without soft tissue to analyse I can ask these
> questions which beg an answer. Darwin can't answer them.
That fact that English permits the formulation of questions does not mean all
questions are rational. Why is there air? is an example. There are an
uncountable number of nonsense questions. You are formulating them.
The mechanism of evolution is the same as the reason the children of the same
parents are not identical. You are formulating questions that have nothing
whatsoever to do with the mechanism Darwin proposed for evolution.
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sat Dec 26 19:09:55 EST 2009