biological complexity
All-seeing-I
I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
please.
Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If
an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
complexity by any standard.
I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find
parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much
the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
Eric Root
> complexity increases through evolution?
>
> I see no evidence for this anywhere.
You are blind.
(snip dishonest drivel)
wf3h
stew dean
> complexity increases through evolution?
It also simplifies as well. In industry the theory of evolution is
used to reduce mass and to refine algorithmns. A regular use is to
simplify the route for multiple point deliveries.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
> please.
In all the usual places. You know the list by now. Irredicuble
complexity was a fake idea based upon the idea that evolution only
makes things more 'complex'. And as for your 'back to the sea' idea -
you think whales are less complex than frogs? Well unless you define
what you mean by complex I'd say whales blow you views out of the
water (pun intended).
Stew Dean
wf3h
?? so when you drive on a road and you go up a hill
you can't go DOWN a hill because you can only go one way? you
creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it.
my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an
ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost
most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy
expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not
need it. and that's EXACTLY what happened. eyes take up a large amount
of energy. naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and,
as evolution predicts, it's losing them
creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
in addition, creationism has a problem because we KNOW the bible
can''t be read literally. 'all seeing' just got his ass handed to him
the other day when it was shown the book of exodus describes events
that never happened, and therefore is not literally true, as he said
it was
creationism....a wrong idea for 2000 years.
and he has the balls to come here and criticize science.
balls...he never uses 'em so perhaps he'll lose 'em
Burkhard
> complexity increases through evolution?
>
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
> please.
>
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
It is not backward evolution and has nothing to do with complexity.
There is nothing inherent in an aquatic environment that makes life
there necessarily less complex than on land.
Nor woudl it matter Evolution does not follow a plan towards more
complexity.
If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
by pretty much no standard, unless you an show us that the genetic
complexity of land living creatures is necessarily higher than aquatic
creatures. Have fun.
spintronic
> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
.
> > complexity increases through evolution?
>
> > I see no evidence for this anywhere.
>
> You are blind.
And you are the blind trying to lead him.
spintronic
> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
.
> ?? so when you drive on a road and you go up a hill
>
> you can't go DOWN a hill because you can only go one way?
As you travel down, you are only going "one way".
> you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it.
> my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an
> ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost
> most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with
all the naked people around?
> because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy
> expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not
> need it.
On a serious note: I have a question.
Deep sea bioluminescence.
According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean
so noone needs eyes.
Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
And further, bioluminescence, didn't just *spring up* fully developed.
You must have had a single bioluminescence-skin-pigment, then another,
then another.
But everybodies blind, so the first bioluminescence-pigment, would
have been selected out as expensive waste.
So why wasn't it?
And then, Those who are blind down there, would have to evolve
photoreceptive pigments, to detect, these miniscule farts of light,
millions of times duller than the dullest LED, in a *BIG*, *VERY BIG*,
- *BLACK*, *VERY BLACK* *DARK OCEAN*.
So why bother developing eyes, for these nonexistant blips of light,
when the naked rat lost his, (because it was expensive).
When in actually, the naked rat, receives more light than the they do
at the deep ocean?
Have a think about it! You might learn something.
> eyes take up a large amount of energy.
So do deep ocean marine life waste it, detecting blips of light
that even ours could not detect, in the deep oceans?
> naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and,
> as evolution predicts, it's losing them
Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
> creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
Sure we do.
God created everything.
Iain
> complexity increases through evolution?
Yes, needless complexity is to be expected from evolution.
Evolution has no foresight. Therefore the most direct solution is
often bypassed.
Variations pile up according to how much they increase the
reproductive efficiency of the organism.
From this, we should expect a variety over-complex reproduction
machines, with complex, roundabout ways of functioning.
In other words, life on Earth.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere.
> Where is the evidence for this
> please.
One way would be to look at the fossil record.
Following the fossil record further and further back in time, you find
that the families all converge, and reach an apex of simplicity right
at the earliest point (the earliest hard-bodied organisms).
Looking at the record overall, this is plain as day.
If you want to observe and verify tiny increases of compexity, you
would need a definition of complexity precise enough to describe the
events within these time scales.
- Having two folds in a strcuture rather than one.
- Having a contorted structure
The evidence for these variations is trivially easy to find.
For example, I could be more complex than you.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea,
Yes....
>then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity
Evolution is adaptation to the environment. It is not some march
toward greater complexity(although early life happens to be very
simple so obviously the actual history of fossil record does show this
-- but this is not an ongoing inclination of evolution). There is no
'backward\forwards' in evolution.
> and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome
It isn''t. The genome is a string of GCA & Ts, which, considered alone
as a data string is very irregular. 'Complex' is a misplaced concept
this context. It's just near-total complexity right from the outset.
> then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
What?? Why?
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind.
Why? It adapt to changing envornments.
>B ecause one can always find
> parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much
> the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
Truly nonsensical statement.
--Iain
wf3h
> On Nov 5, 11:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> .
>
> > you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it.
> > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an
> > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost
> > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
>
> How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with
> all the naked people around?
well that could happen...but if they'd invented beer they'd screw
anyone...
>
> > because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy
> > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not
> > need it.
>
> On a serious note: I have a question.
>
> Deep sea bioluminescence.
>
> According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean
> so noone needs eyes.
>
> Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
really? sure about that? because 't'aint true.
ONE reason for bioluminescence is that it's a by product of other
chemical reactions:
http://www.medmicro.wisc.edu/labs/mcfall_ruby_papers/pdf/2001/Timmins_Swartz_2001_MolEvol.pdf
http://en.scientificcommons.org/42619141
and THIS paper addresses your question directly:
The origin of bioluminescence is regarded as a problematic aspect of
Darwin’s theory of evolution (for recent discussions see Czyż &
Węgrzyn 2001a, Labas et al. 2001). The problem is that the function of
bioluminescence is generally believed to be directly associated with
the visual behaviour of organisms.
If this were true, there should be no benefit to organisms possessing
weakly luminescent systems, i.e. emitting low amounts of light. Quite
simply, for the development of an efficient system, there has to be
positive environmental pressure to select individuals bearing more and
more effective systems among population of organisms
Recent studies of the biological role of bacterial luminescence,
discussed in the preceding section, have shed new light on the problem
of the early evolution of luminescence systems. As described above,
bioluminescence can stimulate DNA repair by activating the
photoreactivation reaction (Czyż et al. 2000b). Moreover, this
stimulation is effective even when luminescence is several hundred
times less intense than that observed in wild-type V. harveyi, as
demonstrated in experiments with E. coli cells bearing the luxCDABE
operon and the luxR gene (Czyż et al. 2000b). Such E. coli cells
produce light invisible to the naked eye, but this luminescence is of
an intensity that is still sufficient to stimulate effective DNA
repair. Therefore, it seems plausible that stimulation of DNA repair
could have been an evolutionary drive for bacterial luminescence. When
the light emission of the early luminescent bacteria was very weak,
more luminescent cells could repair DNA more effectively. This
mechanism could have operated even when the emitted light was still
invisible to the naked eye. Thus, weakly luminescent bacteria might
prevail in competition with cells producing light less effectively in
environments endangered by mutagenic factors like UV irradiation
>
> Have a think about it! You might learn something.
i did think about it. and you're right; i learned something
evolution is a marvelous thing that explains our world much, much
better than creationism does.
you might take your own advice!!
> >
> > naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and,
> > as evolution predicts, it's losing them
>
> Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
>
> You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
hmmm...so you say.
except, of course it's not. you just made an assumption which does not
survive scrutiny. you ASSUMED bioluminscence evolved for optical
reasons.
try again, creationist. be my guest!
>
> > creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
>
> Sure we do.
>
> God created everything.
meaningless. for 2000 years that has been a meaningless statement
but, if it makes you happy and gives you a warm feeling, be my
guest.
just don't pretend it's science
VoiceOfReason
All-seeing-I wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
>
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
> please.
Look at a bacterium. Then look at an elephant.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
What is your evidence that a land animal evolving to live in the sea
is an example of "decreasing complexity?"
> If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
False assumption on your part.
"In the animal kingdom, the relationship between genome size and
evolutionary status is not clear. One of the largest genomes belongs
to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670
billion units of DNA, or base pairs. The genome of a cousin, Amoeba
proteus, has a mere 290 billion base pairs, making it 100 times larger
than the human genome."
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/02_01/Sizing_genomes.shtml
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find
> parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much
> the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
It's quite clear that your understanding of evolution is poor. Try to
educate yourself on the topic and you won't be so confused.
Friar Broccoli
>
> .
> .
>
>> ?? so when you drive on a road and you go up a hill
>
>> you can't go DOWN a hill because you can only go one way?
>
> As you travel down, you are only going "one way".
>
>> you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it.
>> my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an
>> ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost
>> most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
>
> How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with
> all the naked people around?
>
>> because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy
>> expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not
>> need it.
>
> On a serious note: I have a question.
>
> Deep sea bioluminescence.
>
> According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean
> so noone needs eyes.
>
> Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
Yes animals that evolved further up in the water column.
> And further, bioluminescence, didn't just *spring up* fully developed.
> You must have had a single bioluminescence-skin-pigment, then another,
> then another.
Most bioluminescence comes from bacteria that live symbiotically
with the creatures who need to use the light.
(I know there are exceptions but that is how it normally works)
I don't know why bacteria themselves produce light though I know
it is very common. If you run your hand through sea water late
at night you can see the agitated bacteria glowing.
> But everybodies blind, so the first bioluminescence-pigment, would
> have been selected out as expensive waste.
>
> So why wasn't it?
>
> And then, Those who are blind down there, would have to evolve
> photoreceptive pigments, to detect, these miniscule farts of light,
> millions of times duller than the dullest LED, in a *BIG*, *VERY BIG*,
> - *BLACK*, *VERY BLACK* *DARK OCEAN*.
Actually there is a very good use for eyes when there is only a
tiny amount of light. When a preditor looks up he sees a shadow
against the surface, making the prey easy to detect. Many deep
sea preditors have eyes that are designed to look only or primarily
up.
Many potential prey species use bioluminescence to mimimic the
glow from above so preditors below cannot pick out their
shadows.
> So why bother developing eyes, for these nonexistant blips of light,
> when the naked rat lost his, (because it was expensive).
>
> When in actually, the naked rat, receives more light than the they do
> at the deep ocean?
>
> Have a think about it! You might learn something.
>
>> eyes take up a large amount of energy.
>
> So do deep ocean marine life waste it, detecting blips of light
> that even ours could not detect, in the deep oceans?
>
>> naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and,
>> as evolution predicts, it's losing them
.
> Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
In most (or all) cases they would be animals that evolved higher
up in the water column and then adapted to lower light for
hunting during the night and/or at greater depths.
> You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
Your imagination only has one track.
>
>> creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
>
> Sure we do.
.
> God created everything.
using evolutionary processes.
Boikat
> complexity increases through evolution?
Not as a hard and fast rule, especially when "complexity" is a
somewhat vague term in some suystems.
>
> I see no evidence for this anywhere.
Perhaps you do not have the ability to perceive.
> Where is the evidence for this
> please.
Depending on the definition, probably all around you, but you cannot,
or will not, perceive it.
>
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
Not really. It's simply modifications and adaptations to that enabled
a more efficient exploitation of an environmental condition.
> If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
Nope. But then again, you have low standards.
>
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind.
Evolution is a process,not an entity with a mind.
> Because one can always find
> parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much
> the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
Try the new Angus Burger. I'm partial to the Bacon Cheese Angus,
myself.
Boikat
Boikat
Says the twit wearing blinders....
Boikat
John Harshman
> complexity increases through evolution?
No. Complexity can increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on
what is most advantageous to individuals and what mutations happen.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
> please.
There being no such general principle, you will find no evidence for it.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
There is no such thing as forward and backward in evolution. This is not
the paradox you imagine. Nor does going into the sea necessarily involve
decreased complexity.
> If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome
It isn't.
> then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
And that doesn't even follow from your false assumption.
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find
> parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much
> the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
You are ill-equipped to recognize conflict, since you have so little
understanding of evolution. I have a car. I can drive it north, and I
can also drive it south. Is that a conflict in the theory of automobiles?
Mark Evans
Complexity is not the "goal" of evolution. The closest thing to a
goal is survival. If complexity does it, fine. but simplicity can
also do the job. There is no forward or backward evolution, there is
just evolution. Land animals that have "returned" to the the sea are
not going backwards, they are using new tools their ancestors evolved
to exploit a niche.
Evolution has no "mind". Yes, it does produce conflict. Species
context with their environment and each other. Heck, right now
humanity is slugging it out with the latest in flu viruses. The real
conflict at issue here is your ongoing struggle with your own
ignorance and reality. A hint: Reality always wins in the long, and
short, run.
Mark Evans
All-Seeing-I
Bull.
T Rex had tiny arms that look atrophied compared to the rest of the
body and i am sure the Trex would have survived better with full arms.
According to you Trex was losing the arms.
Highly unlikely
Inez
> On Nov 5, 6:52 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 11:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > .
>
> > > you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it.
> > > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an
> > > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost
> > > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
>
> > How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with
> > all the naked people around?
>
> well that could happen...but if they'd invented beer they'd screw
> anyone...
>
>
>
> > > because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy
> > > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not
> > > need it.
>
> > On a serious note: I have a question.
>
> > Deep sea bioluminescence.
>
> > According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean
> > so noone needs eyes.
>
> > Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
>
> really? sure about that? because 't'aint true.
>
> ONE reason for bioluminescence is that it's a by product of other
> chemical reactions:
>
Huh. I always thought those fish were bioluminescene so they could
find mates in the dark sparsely populated deep sea.
> > Have a think about it! You might learn something.
>
> i did think about it. and you're right; i learned something
>
> evolution is a marvelous thing that explains our world much, much
> better than creationism does.
>
> you might take your own advice!!
>
>
>
> > > naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and,
> > > as evolution predicts, it's losing them
>
> > Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
>
> > You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
>
> hmmm...so you say.
>
> except, of course it's not. you just made an assumption which does not
> survive scrutiny. you ASSUMED bioluminscence evolved for optical
> reasons.
Actually, here he assumed that fish evolved eyes in the darkness,
rather than evolving eyes up in the light and then moving down into
the darkness.
All-Seeing-I
Gould seems to disagree. He did quite the paper on complexity.
Have you done one? I'll read it.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:b8ba8f1a-f85b-4cc9...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Bull.
Highly unlikely"
Where are the T. Rex bones mixed with human ( or any other mammal for that
matter ) bones?
.
chris thompson
>
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
> please.
Unsurprising, given the daily liberal application of Super Glue to
your eyelids.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea, then that is backward evolution
No, it is not. Why would you think that? Do you see some animal
actually reverting to a previous morphological state? No, of course
not. That's what is considered to be so unlikely as to be impossible.
And given the number of times you've been corrected on this and
similar points already, one must conclude that you continue to make
this claim out of irreparable dishonesty.
> decreasing the
> complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If
First, evolution does not always increase complexity. Second, a
dolphin is hardly more complex than it's immediate ancestor.
> If an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
Untrue. And in fact, a moment's reflection (I know, an impossible task
for you) would inform a terrestrial animal would almost have to evolve
more complex structures in order to live in water. The skin would have
to be made waterproof, the respiratory system would have to be
drastically altered (and it is, even in air-breathing aquatic
organisms like whales) and the digestive system would also need a
significant overhaul. That's just three organ systems that would need
serious revamping; I am sure there are plenty of others. But if you
can, think about it for a minute. Do you think eating and breathing
are easier to accomplish on land or under water?
Chris
Dana Tweedy
> complexity increases through evolution?
>
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
> please.
You've been shown this evidence many times. Why do you continue to ignore
it?
>
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
Evolution doesn't have a direction. Becoming aquatic is not a loss in
complexity in any case.
> If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
How so? Aquatic tetrapods are specialized for their life in the water.
It required more evolution, not less.
>
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find
> parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much
> the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
When you are building strawmen, you should at least know what straw is made
of.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy
>> expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did
>> not need it. and that's EXACTLY what happened. eyes take up a large
>> amount of energy. naked mole rats live underground so don't need
>> eyes. and, as evolution predicts, it's losing them
>>
>
> Bull.
Chicken.
Isn't naming random farm animals fun?
>
> T Rex had tiny arms that look atrophied compared to the rest of the
> body and i am sure the Trex would have survived better with full arms.
Why are you sure about that? T. rex appeared to survive quite well
without the long arms. Evolution doesn't produce the optimal situation
for the animal or plant in question, only enough to survive. In any case,
T. rex arms were reduced mostly to balance the size and weight of the head
and jaws. The arms weren't used to catch and hold prey.
>
> According to you Trex was losing the arms.
Actually, the arms were reduced in size to balance the head. They still had
function, although it's not known exactly what it used them for.
>
> Highly unlikely
Why would you consider it to be 'highly unlikely'? Do you have any actual
reasoning, or just your own ignorance?
DJT
raven1
What was the title, what journal was it published in, and can you
summarize what Gould had to say on the topic? I find it highly
unlikely that you've even read a paper by him on the topic, much less
understood it.
Dan Listermann
There is no drive toward complexity, only reproduction.
.
Dan Listermann
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:4K-dnUcCzaAUa2_X...@bresnan.com...
> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> complexity increases through evolution?
>>
>> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
>> please.
>
> You've been shown this evidence many times. Why do you continue to ignore
> it?
>
It makes making a case for a "designer" more difficult.
.
Dana Tweedy
Can you cite where Gould claimed that evolution was directional? Can you
cite anywhere that Gould claimed that returning to the sea was 'backwards'
evolution?
What paper do you imagine Gould wrote that made these claims?
This article contradicts your claim about Gould and complexity:
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=30
"Granted: in terms of biomass, surface animals are insignificant. But are
they not significantly more complex than bacteria? Does not this suggest a
trend, of sorts, in evolution - a direction?
Not at all, suggests Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. Sure, he
admits, to begin with, life randomly got complex more often then it got
simpler; there was no other direction to go. Life could not get any simpler
and still function. Eventually, however, things steadied out, and life
randomly got simpler as often as it got more complex. Bottom line:
Nowheresville for evolution.
In fact, Gould suggests with some justification, complex life actually
has a built-in disadvantage: its very complexity makes it easy prey to the
mass extinctions that periodically plague the planet. Life might get more
complex for a while, but then, whamo, a meteor or other mass extinction
snuffs out the latest prideful, oversized surface fluff, setting things
right again. Big, boastful life comes and goes. It was trilobites one time,
then dinosaurs. Now it is humans. Next time, who knows, it might be giant
cockroaches!"
Here's a quote from Gould himself:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/text_pop/l_081_06.html
" The basic theory of natural selection talks not about predictable
universal progress, or any inherent direction of evolution. It's only a
theory of adaptation to changing local environments. That's really all it
is. The parasite that becomes morphologically simplified, living inside the
body of its host, is as well adapted to its environment as the complex bird
flying through the air. That's all it is: a theory of adaptation to changing
local environments."
>
> Have you done one? I'll read it.
John has several published scientific papers. I doubt you'd be able to
read any of them.
Another one of your "arguments" has blown up in your face.
DJT
DJT
hersheyh
> complexity increases through evolution?
First, you have failed to supply us with an operational definition of
"complexity", which makes it impossible to test or confirm whatever it
is that you think you are saying. Regardless of the definition used,
neither complexity nor simplicity is the "goal" of evolution. Only
reproductive success under local conditions. If a population gets
greater reproductive success in an environment by increasing
complexity, complexity will increase. If population gets greater
reproductive success in an environment by decreasing complexity, it
will decrease.
By certain definitions of "complexity", the big event producing a net
increase in "complexity" was the generation of a multicellular
integrated organism with specialized tissues. One can also measure
"complexity" by counting the number of different tissues in an
organism over a lifetime.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
> please.
>
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
You have not provided us with a way to determine whether or not there
has been an increase or decrease in complexity in this event. Can you
provide us with the evidence you use to declare that a whale is
significantly less complex, overall, than a hippopotamus? And why you
think that, for biologists studying evolution, the *goal* of evolution
is supposed to be a a secular increase in complexity regardless of
what will lead to increased reproductive success?
But why don't you start with giving us a real testable definition of
"complexity". Then explain why evolution is expected to always
produce more "complexity" according to the theory. Then, and only
then, should you provide us with examples that conflict with
evolutionary theory *as understood by real scientists*.
Caranx latus
Gould did write about complexity in his book "Full House". From
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Full_House:_The_Spread_of_Excellence_from_Plato_to_Darwin>:
"... Gould points out that many people wrongly believe that the
process of evolution has a preferred direction—a tendency to make
organisms more complex and more sophisticated as time goes by. Those
who believe in evolution's drive towards progress often demonstrate it
with a series of organisms that appeared in different eons, with
increasing complexity, e.g., "bacteria, fern, dinosaurs, dog, man".
Gould explains how these increasingly complex organisms are just one
hand of the complexity distribution, and why looking only at them
misses the entire picture—the "full house". He explains that by any
measure, the most common organisms have always been, and still are,
the bacteria. The complexity distribution is bounded at one side (a
living organism cannot be much simpler than bacteria), so an unbiased
random walk by evolution, sometimes going in the complexity direction
and sometimes going towards simplicity (without having an intrinsic
preference to either), will create a distribution with a small, but
longer and longer tail at the high complexity end."
Mind you, what Gould actually has to say about complexity doesn't
accord with what [L]unatic thinks that Gould said about it.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>complexity increases through evolution?
Who said?
>
>I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this
>please.
Well, though your claim is basically wrong, complexity in life is all
around you.
>
>Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
>back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
>complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
Where does complexity come into it again?
>If
>an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
>its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
>complexity by any standard.
Whales are mammals, please explain where you think they are less
complex that any other mammal?
>
>I wish evolution would make up it's mind.
At least, unlike you, we have a mind.
> Because one can always find
>parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much
>the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
Rubbish.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> complexity increases through evolution?
>>
>> I see no evidence for this anywhere.
>
>You are blind.
No, just plain stupid.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
John Bode
> please.
>
What is your metric for complexity? Number of genes? Number of
moving parts? Size?
For instance, suppose a gene is duplicated. Each copy perfoms a
subset of its original function (such that both copies are needed to
perform all the original function), but in addition each copy
independently performs some *new* function. Would this not count as
an increase in complexity? There are plenty of Google hits for papers
describing exactly that process as it relates to evolution.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went
> back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
In what ways are dolphins and whales less complex than their non-
aquatic ancestors? In what ways were their non-aquatic ancestors more
complex than fish?
> If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of
> its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in
> complexity by any standard.
Why? Whales and dolphins developed new abilities that both their non-
aquatic ancestors and fish lack (such as sonar). To me, that offsets
the loss of their hind limbs.
>
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find
> parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much
> the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
The only conflict is between what evolution really is and the cartoon
version of it promoted by creationists.
spintronic
> On Nov 5, 6:52 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 11:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > .
>
> > > you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it.
> > > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an
> > > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost
> > > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
>
> > How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with
> > all the naked people around?
>
> well that could happen...but if they'd invented beer they'd screw
> anyone...
>
>
>
> > > because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy
> > > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not
> > > need it.
>
> > On a serious note: I have a question.
>
> > Deep sea bioluminescence.
>
> > According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean
> > so noone needs eyes.
>
> > Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
>
> really? sure about that? because 't'aint true.
>
> ONE reason for bioluminescence is that it's a by product of other
> chemical reactions:
>
>
> http://en.scientificcommons.org/42619141
You do realise,
1) That the bioluminescence in this paper (the one you cited)
"The Evolution of Bioluminescent Oxygen Consumption as an Ancient
Oxygen Detoxification Mechanism (2000)"
Is accredited to A DEFENCE AGAINST the build up of toxic oxygen in the
*ATMOSPHERE*.
2) You do realise that the deep ocean floor is not the *ATMOSPHERE*?
> and THIS paper addresses your question directly:
>
> http://www.biology-online.org/articles/marine_bacteria_produce_light/...
>
> The origin of bioluminescence is regarded as a problematic aspect of
> Darwin’s theory of evolution (for recent discussions see Czyż &
> Węgrzyn 2001a, Labas et al. 2001). The problem is that the function of
> bioluminescence is generally believed to be directly associated with
> the visual behaviour of organisms.
>
> If this were true, there should be no benefit to organisms possessing
> weakly luminescent systems, i.e. emitting low amounts of light. Quite
> simply, for the development of an efficient system, there has to be
> positive environmental pressure to select individuals bearing more and
> more effective systems among population of organisms
>
> Recent studies of the biological role of bacterial luminescence,
> discussed in the preceding section, have shed new light on the problem
> of the early evolution of luminescence systems. As described above,
> bioluminescence can stimulate DNA repair by activating the
> photoreactivation reaction (Czyż et al. 2000b).
You do realise that
1) A photoreactivation reaction requires an enzyme called Photolyase.
2) Photolyase protects against UV radiation & is activated by light
3) There is *NO* light on the ocean floor so;
a) Life forms down there shouldn't have the Photolyase enzyme, to be
stimulated by UV in the first place.
b) WHY OH WHY would a *SURFACE* bacteria that has Photolyase, require
faint migins of biolumiscent light
to stimulate Photolyase when there is a *BIG DOCKING* UV source in the
sky called the SUN?
Now that the evolution of your *PHOTOEMMITERS* have been *debunked*
What is your explanation for evolving eyes, in a *VERY VERY VERY VERY*
dark ocean floor?
Especially in the light of your naked surface rats theory.
> > Have a think about it! You might learn something.
>
> i did think about it. and you're right; i learned something
No you didn't.
You learned to be tricked by "SLIGHT OF HAND" once again.
> > > naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and,
> > > as evolution predicts, it's losing them
>
> > Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
>
> > You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
>
> hmmm...so you say.
So why are you ignoring my question about the eyes?
spintronic
> On Nov 5, 6:52 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
> In most (or all) cases they would be animals that evolved higher
> up in the water column and then adapted to lower light for
> hunting during the night and/or at greater depths.
>
> > You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
>
> Your imagination only has one track.
I see the big picture, you don't.
*HERE* in this thread, you claim the bacteria are surface bacteria,
that sank.
In *ANOTHER* THREAD, you claim the bacteria evolved on the sea floor,
to avoid the UV.
Yet, *HERE* in this thread, it is claimed moles lost their eyes
because it was dark. So why havent the ocean floor fish?
spintronic
In the land of the blind, the guy wearing blinkers is king.
wf3h
> On Nov 5, 12:32 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > .
>
> > > > you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it.
> > > > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an
> > > > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost
> > > > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
>
> > > How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with
> > > all the naked people around?
>
> > well that could happen...but if they'd invented beer they'd screw
> > anyone...
>
> > > > because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy
> > > > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not
> > > > need it.
>
> > > On a serious note: I have a question.
>
> > > Deep sea bioluminescence.
> >
> > chemical reactions:
>
> >http://www.medmicro.wisc.edu/labs/mcfall_ruby_papers/pdf/2001/Timmins...
>
> >http://en.scientificcommons.org/42619141
>
> You do realise,
>
> 1) That the bioluminescence in this paper (the one you cited)
> "The Evolution of Bioluminescent Oxygen Consumption as an Ancient
> Oxygen Detoxification Mechanism (2000)"
> Is accredited to A DEFENCE AGAINST the build up of toxic oxygen in the
> *ATMOSPHERE*.
IOW bioluminscence is a process that occurs for reasons OTHER than
sight...
as YOU thought it did.
thanks. i already knew that. YOU thought it was for optical reasons.
it's not.
>
> 2) You do realise that the deep ocean floor is not the *ATMOSPHERE*?
irrelevant. absolutely irrelevant.
> > > and THIS paper addresses your question directly:
>
> >http://www.biology-online.org/articles/marine_bacteria_produce_light/...
>
> > The origin of bioluminescence is regarded as a problematic aspect of
> > Darwin’s theory of evolution (for recent discussions see Czyż &
> > Węgrzyn 2001a, Labas et al. 2001). The problem is that the function of
> > bioluminescence is generally believed to be directly associated with
> > the visual behaviour of organisms.
>
> > If this were true, there should be no benefit to organisms possessing
> > weakly luminescent systems, i.e. emitting low amounts of light. Quite
> > simply, for the development of an efficient system, there has to be
> > positive environmental pressure to select individuals bearing more and
> > more effective systems among population of organisms
>
> > Recent studies of the biological role of bacterial luminescence,
> > discussed in the preceding section, have shed new light on the problem
> > of the early evolution of luminescence systems. As described above,
> > bioluminescence can stimulate DNA repair by activating the
> > photoreactivation reaction (Czyż et al. 2000b).
>
> You do realise that
>
> 1) A photoreactivation reaction requires an enzyme called Photolyase.
> 2) Photolyase protects against UV radiation & is activated by light
> 3) There is *NO* light on the ocean floor so;
again, irrelevant. the issue is, as YOU asked
WHY IS THERE BIOLUMINSCENCE WHEN ANIMALS CANT SEE IT
NOW you're moving the goalposts, aren't you?
>
> Now that the evolution of your *PHOTOEMMITERS* have been *debunked*
>
> What is your explanation for evolving eyes, in a *VERY VERY VERY VERY*
> dark ocean floor?
> Especially in the light of your naked surface rats theory.
why do you think bioluminscense has ANYTHING to do with eyes at all?
and since i have answered YOUR question, why CANT you answer mine?
WHERE IS THE CREATIONIST EXPLANATION FOR THIS?
answer: there is none.
so you made an IMPROPER assumption
you got your ass handed to you
you then moved the goalposts
AND refused to answer ANY questions about creationism at all....
typical creationist
>
> So why are you ignoring my question about the eyes?-
your question WASNT about eyes...it was about BIOLUMINSCENCE
when you got your ASS kicked on that you moved the goalposts to DODGE
having to answer questions on creatinism
no surprise. creationism has been a 2000 year old failure.
spintronic
Not in deep sea life it's not.
> as YOU thought it did.
No, I asked why develop eyes that can't see in the dark.
And since there are thousands of papers *claiming* that *DEEP SEA*
bioluminescence evolved so that potential mates could find them, and
you found 1 paper, that has *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DEEP SEA
LIFE*, my question is still unanswered.
1) If your *moles* lost their eyes because it was dark, why do deep
sea fish have eyes?
2) If your answer is to see bioluminescence, you have *NO* mechanism
to evolve bioluminescence on the ocean floor, as the enzyme that
protects against UV, isn't required down there, nore (for your other
excuse) is there toxic oxygen down there either.
So your back to square 1.
1) It's too dark to require (& or) evolve eyes. (As your mole comment
implies)
2) NONE of your suggested mechanisms for the evolution of
bioluminescence work at deep sea levels.
In short.
You know NORT 'bout though speaketh abouts!
> > 2) You do realise that the deep ocean floor is not the *ATMOSPHERE*?
>
> irrelevant. absolutely irrelevant.
Oh dear. I see you *DIDN'T* read your second paper.
TYPICAL, just TYPICAl. (the moron can't read)
CLUE: TOXIC OXYGEN ATMOSPHERE!!!!
Now, stop skimming google & quoting gibberish, and do some research,
and appologise.
> > > > and THIS paper addresses your question directly:
>
> > >http://www.biology-online.org/articles/marine_bacteria_produce_light/...
>
> > You do realise that
>
> > 1) A photoreactivation reaction requires an enzyme called Photolyase.
> > 2) Photolyase protects against UV radiation & is activated by light
> > 3) There is *NO* light on the ocean floor so;
>
> again, irrelevant.
TYPICAL, just TYPICAL. (THE MORON NEVER READ YET AGAIN).
1) UV stimulates photolyase, which repairs DNA.
2) There is *NO* UV on the ocean floor, so them critters won't have
photolyase.
3) The paper *CLAIMS* the light of bioluminescence (IN TINY TINY
QUANTITIES) stimulates photolyase.
3a) WHY WOULD YOU NEED THAT TINY LIGHT, when you have a BIG DOCKING
SUN, as a source of light?
3b) HOW COULD BIOLUMINESCENCE IN CRITTERS ON THE OCEAN FLOOR
STIMULATER AN ENZYME THEY
*******DON'T******* HAVE?
YOU UTTER SPASDICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > Now that the evolution of your *PHOTOEMMITERS* have been *debunked*
>
> > What is your explanation for evolving eyes, in a *VERY VERY VERY VERY*
> > dark ocean floor?
> > Especially in the light of your naked surface rats theory.
>
> why do you think bioluminscense has ANYTHING to do with eyes at all?
So why do critters on the seabed have eyes at all?
It's dark, they shouldn't have evolved them.
And *ACCORDING TO YOU* moles lost their eyes because it was *DARK*.
So
a) Why haven't these sea creatures on the PITCH BLACK OCEAN FLOOR lost
their eyes?
b) Why did they evolve them in the first place?
> and since i have answered YOUR question, why CANT you answer mine?
>
> WHERE IS THE CREATIONIST EXPLANATION FOR THIS?
A question is not an answer. So I'll ask again.
Why have deep sea creatures got eyes, when you claim moles lost theirs
because it was dark?
spintronic
> On Nov 5, 4:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
.
> Huh. I always thought those fish were bioluminescene so they could
> find mates in the dark sparsely populated deep sea.
Yes, evolutionists tried that fairy tail, until they realised what
people like myself had been telling them for years.
You can't see 1 pixel-diode light with a 1 pixel eye-camera.
So both would be selected out.
So *NOW* R2DTARD, *THINKS* he's found a solution.
Only the **RETARD** doesn't realise that all his solutions are
redundant.
Ergo.
1) A scientist claims that the VERY VERY VERY faint light given off by
the first bioluminescant pixel/protein, may stimulate a certain enzyme
that repairs DNA.
What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is that the UV that actually
stimulates this enzyme;
a) Gives billions of times more stimulation that the first
bioluminescent pixel/protein ever could.
so it (the protein) would be redundant.
b) DEEP SEA CRITTERS WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROTEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE AS
IT GUARDS AGAINST UV, AND THERE IS NONE DOWN THERE.
2) Another scientist claims, bioluminescence is a byproduct of
metabolising a toxic oxygen atmosphere.
What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is there is ***NO** toxic oxygen
in the deep ocean.
IN SHORT.
R2DTARDS THEORIES ARE DEBUNKED/MUTE/REDUNDANT/USELESS/
GIBBERISH!!!!!!!!!!
John Harshman
Accent on "seemed". You are not equipped to understand what Gould said.
He would not disagree with what I said. What paper on complexity are you
thinking of here? (Year, title, journal, and page numbers, please.)
> Have you done one? I'll read it.
Was that actually attempt to argue from S. J. Gould's authority? Bizarre.
wf3h
> On Nov 5, 3:08 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 4:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > Huh. I always thought those fish were bioluminescene so they could
> > find mates in the dark sparsely populated deep sea.
>
> Yes, evolutionists tried that fairy tail, until they realised what
> people like myself had been telling them for years.
uh huh. just like you've been telling us for 2000 years that
sacrificing goats stops disease and that ghosts cause the wind to blow
creationists think the world is populated by wizards
>
> You can't see 1 pixel-diode light with a 1 pixel eye-camera.
>
> So both would be selected out.
>
> So *NOW* R2DTARD, *THINKS* he's found a solution.
>
> Only the **RETARD** doesn't realise that all his solutions are
> redundant.
uh huh. 'god did it' explains everything.
spinny gets out his ouija board and consults it for the latest
advances in science
>
> Ergo.
>
> 1) A scientist claims that the VERY VERY VERY faint light given off by
> the first bioluminescant pixel/protein, may stimulate a certain enzyme
> that repairs DNA.
>
> What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is that the UV that actually
> stimulates this enzyme;
what the idiot doesnt realize is that SCIENTISTS discovered:
-DNA
-Enzymes
other proteins
creationists? still thinking that demons cause disease
notice the creationist has NO answer for how life develops? it's
proven that bioluminescence developed to reduce the presence of oxygen
in systems...
yet HE thought they developed so organisms with eyes could see them
THEN he moves the goalposts to ask how eyes develop
MORE creationist handwaving
>
> a) Gives billions of times more stimulation that the first
> bioluminescent pixel/protein ever could.
> so it (the protein) would be redundant.
> b) DEEP SEA CRITTERS WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROTEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE AS
> IT GUARDS AGAINST UV, AND THERE IS NONE DOWN THERE.
>
> 2) Another scientist claims, bioluminescence is a byproduct of
> metabolising a toxic oxygen atmosphere.
>
> What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is there is ***NO** toxic oxygen
> in the deep ocean.
what the idiot doesn't realize is that organisms evolved this
mechanism in SHALLOW waters THEN populated deeper waters...
IOW creationism flails for an explanation, requiring scientists to
answer EVERY question
while they themselves say nothing.
so go ahead, creationist, tell us how 'god did it' explains anything.
we'll wait. you've been vomiting your lies for 2000 years so we'll
give you a few more days for your wizard of oz approach to science
>
> IN SHORT.
>
> R2DTARDS THEORIES ARE DEBUNKED/MUTE/REDUNDANT/USELESS/
> GIBBERISH!!!!!!!!!!
says the guy who thinks ghosts make the wind blow
wf3h
> On Nov 5, 9:02 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > IOW bioluminscence is a process that occurs for reasons OTHER than
> > sight...
>
> Not in deep sea life it's not.
proof?
ah. none.
>
> > as YOU thought it did.
>
> No, I asked why develop eyes that can't see in the dark.
uh no...you asked why bioluminescence developed. here, i'll refresh
your memory for you, m'kay? here are YOUR words, verbatim:
"Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
And further, bioluminescence, didn't just *spring up* fully
developed.
You must have had a single bioluminescence-skin-pigment, then
another,
then another.
But everybodies blind, so the first bioluminescence-pigment, would
have been selected out as expensive waste. "
do you see YOUR words? YOU stated that all marine life was BLIND THEN
asked how bioluminescence could develop
so are you lying NOW or were you lying THEN?
and AGAIN...where is the CREATIONIST answer??
you REFUSE to address the failure of creationism to provide ANY answer
at all
>
> And since there are thousands of papers *claiming* that *DEEP SEA*
> bioluminescence evolved so that potential mates could find them, and
> you found 1 paper, that has *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DEEP SEA
> LIFE*, my question is still unanswered.
your question HAS been answered. you moved the goalposts. AND you
refused to answer HOW creationism accounts for this
>
> 1) If your *moles* lost their eyes because it was dark, why do deep
> sea fish have eyes?
uh perhaps you need a refresher course in reading. what i said was
naked mole rats are a TRANSITIONAL FORM in the PROCESS of losing their
eyes...AS EVOLUTION PREDICTS
creationism? it has NO answer as to why these rats are losing their
eyes. demons? ghosts? goblins?
> > irrelevant. absolutely irrelevant.
>
> Oh dear. I see you *DIDN'T* read your second paper.
>
> TYPICAL, just TYPICAl. (the moron can't read)
>
> CLUE: TOXIC OXYGEN ATMOSPHERE!!!!
CLUE!!!
LIFE EVOLVES...yessirre folks. life evolved in the shallow waters THEN
moved to deeper waters
EVOLUTION PREDICTS CHANGES WILL HAPPEN...
creationism? 'lets sacrifice another goat and maybe god will give us
an answer'
>
> Now, stop skimming google & quoting gibberish, and do some research,
> and appologise.
research? this is a 4 letter word to creationists. when's the last
time you did any research? when's the last time a creationist did any
research at all??
> >
> > again, irrelevant.
>
> TYPICAL, just TYPICAL. (THE MORON NEVER READ YET AGAIN).
>
> 1) UV stimulates photolyase, which repairs DNA.
>
> 2) There is *NO* UV on the ocean floor, so them critters won't have
> photolyase.
i guess he doesn't realize fish can swim...they can swim from shallow
waters...where there IS UV...to deeper waters...
yep. ANOTHER failure of creatoinism
>
> > why do you think bioluminscense has ANYTHING to do with eyes at all?
>
> So why do critters on the seabed have eyes at all?
you said they didn't. i left your words above
and how does creationism answer this question? in fact, if evolution
is true we'd EXPECT deep sea creatures to have eyes for the same
reason naked mole rats do
but creationists? no answer. no answer at all.
2000 years. no answers. that's why creationists BEG AND PLEAD with
LAWYERS rather than scientists to be admitted to the public square as
equals.
>
> It's dark, they shouldn't have evolved them.
>
> And *ACCORDING TO YOU* moles lost their eyes because it was *DARK*.
>
> So
>
> a) Why haven't these sea creatures on the PITCH BLACK OCEAN FLOOR lost
> their eyes?
gee. have the nake mole rats lost their eyes?
nope. they are EVOLVING to do so but haven't yet
> b) Why did they evolve them in the first place?
because they EVOLVED FROM CREATURES THAT HAD EYES
and creationism
betcha he doesn't even TRY to answer how creationism addresses this.
>
> > and since i have answered YOUR question, why CANT you answer mine?
>
> > WHERE IS THE CREATIONIST EXPLANATION FOR THIS?
>
> A question is not an answer. So I'll ask again.
>
> Why have deep sea creatures got eyes, when you claim moles lost theirs
> because it was dark?-
i NEVER said naked mole rats lost their eyes.
now, then. answer the question, creationist. you're a failure
Ye Old One
They had grown smaller during its evolution. Why not?
>
>Highly unlikely
And yet the same thing is happening to kangaroos for example.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
HighQ
> On Nov 5, 5:19 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
*****************
> uh huh. just like you've been telling us for 2000 years that
> sacrificing goats stops disease and that ghosts cause the wind to blow
> creationists think the world is populated by wizards
> uh huh. 'god did it' explains everything.
> spinny gets out his ouija board and consults it for the latest
> advances in science
> creationists? still thinking that demons cause disease
> yet HE thought they developed so organisms with eyes could see them
> THEN he moves the goalposts to ask how eyes develop
> MORE creationist handwaving
> says the guy who thinks ghosts make the wind blow
*********************
Now that all your lies are in one place.
You come back, when you want to discuss the science.
(Although I doub't you'd understand)
Until then, Iv'e told you why your gibberish is wrong.
When you stop foaming at the mouth and having seizures on the floor.
Give me a bell and I'll tell you why & where your gibberish doesn't
add up.
Till then, my genuine arguments as to why your *GOOGLEDCRAP* is wrong
is up there for anyone interested to read.
You on the other hand are a complete loonball, and it's pointless
talking to loonballs!.
Ye Old One
I had an idea that if Mudbrain was claiming something then the reverse
would turn out to be true.
All-seeing-I
You are rationalizing Dana
All-seeing-I
And you think evolution is responsible for ALL that you just
described....
amazing.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you are missing is the fact that the evolutionists originally
claimed evolution leads toward the more the complex. When that was
found to be incorrect the kings of evolution had to make a mad dash
with new made up stories.
Which is Gould's nonsense in "Full House".
All-seeing-I
I beg to differ. The cartoon version of evolution is, evolution itself
But thanks for the reply.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
Define "complexity," and produce a metric for it.
Oh, wait: you're a Creationist fucktard who doesn't know anything.
Well, run alaong: the adults are talking.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Dana Tweedy
Can you provide any reason why it could not?
>
> amazing.
You are easily amazed, apparently.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> What you are missing is the fact that the evolutionists originally
> claimed evolution leads toward the more the complex.
When did this happen? It's a common misconception that evolution "leads
toward the more complex", but scientists didn't claim this.
> When that was
> found to be incorrect the kings of evolution had to make a mad dash
> with new made up stories.
There was no "mad dash" and evolution doesn't have any "kings". The
mistaken notion that evolution always means "more complexity" is related to
the old "chain of being" that predated evolution.
>
> Which is Gould's nonsense in "Full House".
Are you just upset because another one of your claims blew up in your face?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
No, I'm asking you to support your claims. I note that you have entirely
failed to do so.
DJT
Caranx latus
> On Nov 5, 10:39 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 11:14 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
<snip>
> What you are missing is the fact that the evolutionists originally
> claimed evolution leads toward the more the complex. When that was
> found to be incorrect the kings of evolution had to make a mad dash
> with new made up stories.
I have no idea whether that was claimed or not. If I don't know, it's a
safe bet that you have even less idea.
In any case, in the early days of life, that had to have been the trend.
When all you have are bacteria, there isn't anywhere else to go but to
increase in complexity (however that is measured). But some of the
creatures from Cambrian times were likely as complex as some that exist
today. If you want to claim that there has been a consistent increase in
the complexity of organisms since the dawn of life (which is patently
false anyway), you would need to have some kind of metric that
identifies how complexity is measured.
I'm sorry that you still don't like the fact that science adjusts to
newly discovered facts. The option, of course, is to ignore facts and
stick with dogma... which is what... you do.
> Which is Gould's nonsense in "Full House".
I could have sworn that you were trying to use Gould to support your
argument. How quickly things change!
I doubt that you've read _Full House_.
heekster
Yeah. You and everybody else has noted that, except for the addled
one.
heekster
wrote:
He's definitely not playing with a full deck.
Boikat
Great. So you're the King of Creationists. Is that supposed to
impress anyone but you?
Boikat
wf3h
>
> What you are missing is the fact that the evolutionists originally
> claimed evolution leads toward the more the complex. When that was
> found to be incorrect the kings of evolution had to make a mad dash
> with new made up stories.
>
care to prove this? otherwise we'd think you're lying....
but, then, a creationist can't NOT lie
hersheyh
Now I *am* confused. You say that 'evolutionists' were *incorrect*
when they "originally claimed evolution leads toward the more the
complex." Then you say that Gould's argument that evolution does NOT
have complexity as a goal is "nonsense". Isn't that arguing out of
both sides of your forked tongue?
Actually I think the situation is a bit more nuanced than your poor
brain can take.
Burkhard
Who and when? Cite please
Ye Old One
Where?
> When that was
>found to be incorrect the kings of evolution had to make a mad dash
>with new made up stories.
>
>Which is Gould's nonsense in "Full House".
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Evolution is responsible for everything we see in life.
>amazing.
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Devils Advocaat
Yes adman did say of Newman "Good thing he was a Creationist" in a
thread entitled "Paul Newman RIP" (in Sep 2008), even though Newman is
on record of saying about himself that he "didn't believe in any
religion".
>
> That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
Indeed adman claimed in a thread entitled "lacks logic" on Sept 12th,
2008:
"Darwin and Hovind have made impressive discoveries"
But as far as I know, he has been unable to list since then a single
one of Hovind's "impressive discoveries".
>
> That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
> some facet of some religion...
>
> To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
>
> To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
> rock...
>
> That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
> laugh]
>
> And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
>
> That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
> East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
> and his sons rebuilt mankind.
>
> Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
>
> Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
>
> Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
> Certainly I don't.
>
> --
> Bob.
I will dig up the others eventually. :)
Dan Listermann
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:a8KdnanlJL0QGm7X...@bresnan.com...
>>
>> You are rationalizing Dana
>
> No, I'm asking you to support your claims. I note that you have entirely
> failed to do so.
>
He doesn't think he has to support his positions because he believes he
holds the default position that creation happened. He even has ancient
campfire mumblings of bronze age goat herders to support it.
.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:dbc9e687-2f1e-4dc1...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I always enjoyed the "Flintstones." As I understand it, the Creation Museum
has a saddled dinosaur on display!
.
Dan Listermann
>
> Untrue. And in fact, a moment's reflection (I know, an impossible task
> for you) would inform a terrestrial animal would almost have to evolve
> more complex structures in order to live in water. The skin would have
> to be made waterproof, the respiratory system would have to be
> drastically altered (and it is, even in air-breathing aquatic
> organisms like whales) and the digestive system would also need a
> significant overhaul. That's just three organ systems that would need
> serious revamping; I am sure there are plenty of others. But if you
> can, think about it for a minute. Do you think eating and breathing
> are easier to accomplish on land or under water?
>
> Chris
"And you think evolution is responsible for ALL that you just
described...."
Consider that seals and walruses, and maybe otters, might be undergoing this
very transformation now.
.
Dan Listermann
Evolution HAS led to more complexity, but it does not NEED to lead there
.
Kermit
> On Nov 5, 3:08 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 4:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > Huh. I always thought those fish were bioluminescene so they could
> > find mates in the dark sparsely populated deep sea.
>
> Yes, evolutionists tried that fairy tail, until they realised what
> people like myself had been telling them for years.
Can you give an example of an evolutionist being brought to the light,
so to speak?
>
> You can't see 1 pixel-diode light with a 1 pixel eye-camera.
>
> So both would be selected out.
Not if the light is brighter than that. Human eyes can see these
bioluminescent creatures; there's no reason to think that fish eyes
couldn't.
>
> So *NOW* R2DTARD, *THINKS* he's found a solution.
Ummm. We have always known that bony fish in the deep ocean are
descended from bony fish that live in higher level niches.
Speaking of which, you accidentally snipped part of Inez's post,
where she said:"Actually, here he assumed that fish evolved eyes in
the darkness, rather than evolving eyes up in the light and then
moving down into
the darkness."
>
> Only the **RETARD** doesn't realise that all his solutions are
> redundant.
Why is "descended from fish who lived elsewhere" redundant?
And why can't a solution which is redundant work?
>
> Ergo.
>
> 1) A scientist claims that the VERY VERY VERY faint light given off by
> the first bioluminescant pixel/protein, may stimulate a certain enzyme
> that repairs DNA.
Yes...
>
> What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is that the UV that actually
> stimulates this enzyme;
Really? Can you give a link to the chemistry for this?
>
> a) Gives billions of times more stimulation that the first
> bioluminescent pixel/protein ever could.
> so it (the protein) would be redundant.
Is that why green plants don't need chlorophyll? Oh, wait...
Sometimes, energy (heat, light, whatever) is needed to create chemical
A so that it, in turn, can affect or produce chemical B.
> b) DEEP SEA CRITTERS WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROTEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE AS
> IT GUARDS AGAINST UV, AND THERE IS NONE DOWN THERE.
>
Unless the ancestors of the deep sea critters came down from above.
Why does this confuse you?
> 2) Another scientist claims, bioluminescence is a byproduct of
> metabolising a toxic oxygen atmosphere.
Did he propose a chemical pathway, and if so, what's the problem with
it?
>
> What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is there is ***NO** toxic oxygen
> in the deep ocean.
There is oxygen in the ocean, even very deep down. What do you think
fish get from the water? They don't run on hydrogen fuel cells, you
know.
>
> IN SHORT.
>
> R2DTARDS THEORIES ARE DEBUNKED/MUTE/REDUNDANT/USELESS/
> GIBBERISH!!!!!!!!!!
Ah. Your usual intelligent, insightful arguments, clearly presented
and strongly supported by evidence. It's hard to argue with logic like
that, I'll admit.
Kermit
John Bode
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, to review: no definition for complexity, no explanation of why
dolphins and whales are less complex than their terrestrial ancestors,
no response to new function arising from gene duplication. Nothing to
say beyond, "oh, yeah?"
fnord
spintronic
> On Nov 5, 2:51 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
.
> > > > > > complexity increases through evolution?
>
> > > > > > I see no evidence for this anywhere.
>
> > > > > You are blind. (1)
>
> > > > And you are the blind trying to lead him. (2)
>
> > > Says the twit wearing blinders....(3)
>
> > In the land of the blind, the guy wearing blinkers is king. (4)
>
> Great. So you're the King of Creationists. Is that supposed to
> impress anyone but you?
When playing continued-retorts, you will never win against me.
Obviously, that's why you gave up.
I never said I was "king of creationists", I said the guy with
blinkers (me) is king of the blind (you).
You are no (2) above, just in case you'd forgot.
spintronic
> On Nov 5, 2:19 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 3:08 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 4:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > .
> > .
>
> > > Huh. I always thought those fish were bioluminescene so they could
> > > find mates in the dark sparsely populated deep sea.
>
> > Yes, evolutionists tried that fairy tail, until they realised what
> > people like myself had been telling them for years.
>
> Can you give an example of an evolutionist being brought to the light,
> so to speak?
I have no idea what that means.
> > You can't see 1 pixel-diode light with a 1 pixel eye-camera.
>
> > So both would be selected out.
>
> Not if the light is brighter than that.
It's just evolved, it's a single pixel/protein emitter.
With an observer with no eyes.
(AND BEFORE R2DTARD, CHIRPS UP, THIS IS DEEP OCEAN CRITTERS)
> Human eyes can see these bioluminescent creatures;
Yes, now their fully functional. But how did they get that way?
> there's no reason to think that fish eyes couldn't.
According to R2DTARD, deep sea fish shouldn't have eyes.
> > So *NOW* R2DTARD, *THINKS* he's found a solution.
>
> Ummm. We have always known that bony fish in the deep ocean are
> descended from bony fish that live in higher level niches.
Bioluminescent jellyfish are not bony fish.
> Speaking of which, you accidentally snipped part of Inez's post,
> where she said:"Actually, here he assumed that fish evolved eyes in
> the darkness, rather than evolving eyes up in the light and then
> moving down into
> the darkness."
You can't have it both ways. You can't say a mole loses it's eyes,
because it moved underground and doesn't need them, and then say "fish
moved where it's dark, but kept their eyes".
Which is it?
Further *BOTH* pathways suggested by R2DTARD, don't work on the ocean
floor.
> > Only the **RETARD** doesn't realise that all his solutions are
> > redundant.
>
> Why is "descended from fish who lived elsewhere" redundant?
> And why can't a solution which is redundant work?
Which is it?
You say life evolved on the ocean floor, in hydrothermal vent's where
there is no deadly UV.
You then say, the life on the ocean floor came from the surface fish?
You then say bioluminesenct proteins evolved to encourage DNA repair
enzymes that work off light,
Yet they *ALREADY* had a big docking UV source (The Sun), and so
making their effectiveness look like a wet match compared to a
thermonuclear blast.
You then say bioluminescence may have evolved to counteract oxygen
toxicity. But there isn't any on the ocean floor.
And *EVEN IF* your bioluminescent fish that have eyes were surface
fish that sank.
According to R2DTARD, evolution would select out the wasted energy
(EYES) and therefore noone could see the bioluminescence anyway, so
bioluminescence would be selected away as well.
So in summation.
Bioluminescence *DEFINITELY* never evolved on the ocean floor.
Even if it evolved on the ocean surface, it (and the eyes) would have
been selected away, as the fish adapted to lower depths.
Lets say, the fish is now living part way down to the ocean floor, and
has part bioluminescence.
It first adapts to the darkness, by losing it's eyesight, and then the
bioluminescence is useless so it loses that too.
>
> > Ergo.
>
> > 1) A scientist claims that the VERY VERY VERY faint light given off by
> > the first bioluminescant pixel/protein, may stimulate a certain enzyme
> > that repairs DNA.
>
> Yes...
RUBBISH. Theres a BIG WAPPING SOURCE OF LIGHT CALLED THE SUN.
That's like saying "someone evolved an enzyme that produces 2 atoms of
oxygen per day, to help him breath".
When we have a bucketload of oxygen in the atmosphere already.
It *DOESN'T MAKE SENCE*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is that the UV that actually
> > stimulates this enzyme;
>
> Really? Can you give a link to the chemistry for this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolyase
> > a) Gives billions of times more stimulation that the first
> > bioluminescent pixel/protein ever could.
> > so it (the protein) would be redundant.
>
> Is that why green plants don't need chlorophyll? Oh, wait...
>
> Sometimes, energy (heat, light, whatever) is needed to create chemical
> A so that it, in turn, can affect or produce chemical B.
What are you jabbering about?
> > b) DEEP SEA CRITTERS WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROTEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE AS
> > IT GUARDS AGAINST UV, AND THERE IS NONE DOWN THERE.
>
> Unless the ancestors of the deep sea critters came down from above.
> Why does this confuse you?
It doesn't confuse me. But even if that were true.
The Photolyase enzyme would have been selected out as redundant!
> > 2) Another scientist claims, bioluminescence is a byproduct of
> > metabolising a toxic oxygen atmosphere.
>
> Did he propose a chemical pathway, and if so, what's the problem with
> it?
There is no oxygen toxicity on the ocean floor you twit.
> > What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is there is ***NO** toxic oxygen
> > in the deep ocean.
>
> There is oxygen in the ocean, even very deep down. What do you think
> fish get from the water? They don't run on hydrogen fuel cells, you
> know.
Oxygen toxicity refers to when bacteria started to produce the first
oxygen enviroment that was toxic to surface life forms.
It doesn't apply on the ocean floor.
> > IN SHORT.
>
> > R2DTARDS THEORIES ARE DEBUNKED/MUTE/REDUNDANT/USELESS/
> > GIBBERISH!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Ah. Your usual intelligent, insightful arguments, clearly presented
> and strongly supported by evidence. It's hard to argue with logic like
> that, I'll admit.
So shut it then.
wf3h
> On Nov 5, 10:48 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 5:19 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> *****************> uh huh. just like you've been telling us for 2000 years that
> > sacrificing goats stops disease and that ghosts cause the wind to blow
> > creationists think the world is populated by wizards
> > uh huh. 'god did it' explains everything.
> > spinny gets out his ouija board and consults it for the latest
> > advances in science
> > creationists? still thinking that demons cause disease
> > yet HE thought they developed so organisms with eyes could see them
> > THEN he moves the goalposts to ask how eyes develop
> > MORE creationist handwaving
> > says the guy who thinks ghosts make the wind blow
>
> *********************
>
> Now that all your lies are in one place.
>
> You come back, when you want to discuss the science.
science? since when has a creationist been interested in science?
i've asked you for a creationist answer to ANY natural event on earth
your response? none. invocations of ghosts and goblins. demons...
for 2000 years you guys tried to invoke the supernatural as an
explanation for natural events. you've ALWAYS been wrong
so, go ahead. try again. we'll wait.
>
> Till then, my genuine arguments as to why your *GOOGLEDCRAP* is wrong
> is up there for anyone interested to read.
so which ghost did you say causes the wind to blow? because there's no
difference between THAT view and 'god did it' for the origin of
species.
none.
Friar Broccoli
> On Nov 5, 1:03 pm, FriarBroccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 6:52 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > up in the water column and then adapted to lower light for
> > hunting during the night and/or at greater depths.
>
> > > You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
>
> > Your imagination only has one track.
>
> I see the big picture, you don't.
>
> *HERE* in this thread, you claim the bacteria are surface bacteria,
> that sank.
No, that was about animals, and their use of eyes. Nothing to
do with bacteria.
>
> In *ANOTHER* THREAD, you claim the bacteria evolved on the sea floor,
> to avoid the UV.
That statement is substantially meaningless. Lots of bacteria have
evolved in a wide range of extremely varied and changing environments.
I doubt if I have ever said anything remotely like your accusation.
> Yet, *HERE* in this thread, it is claimed moles lost their eyes
> because it was dark. So why havent the ocean floor fish?
Some like Ipnopidae (deepsea tripodfishes) and
Abyssobrotula galatheae (a species of cusk eel)
are effectively blind. Others take advantage of
bioluminescence. Most deep sea creatures that use eyes
have ones that are very different from their relatives on the
surface - they are often huge for sensitivity and have
extremely low resolution.
wf3h
> On Nov 6, 3:36 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can you give an example of an evolutionist being brought to the light,
> > so to speak?
>
> I have no idea what that means.
> >
>
> (AND BEFORE R2DTARD, CHIRPS UP, THIS IS DEEP OCEAN CRITTERS)
guess the idiot doesn't realize evolution happens. deep sea critter
evolved from shallow ocean critters that had eyes
BUT...where is the CREATIONIST answer to this?
notice he doesn't answer?
>
> You can't have it both ways. You can't say a mole loses it's eyes,
> because it moved underground and doesn't need them, and then say "fish
> moved where it's dark, but kept their eyes".
sure you can. because the naked mole rat didn't LOSE its eyes...it has
VESTIGIAL eyes...being lost due to evolution
and the creationist answer is?
oh. there isn't one
>
> Which is it?
>
> Further *BOTH* pathways suggested by R2DTARD, don't work on the ocean
> floor.
that's because they didn't evolve ON THE OCEAN FLOOR
and the creationist answer is?
oh. there isn't one
>
> Even if it evolved on the ocean surface, it (and the eyes) would have
> been selected away, as the fish adapted to lower depths.]]
proof?
and where is the CREATIONIST answer?
oh. there is none.
the creationist thinks ghosts caused fish to become bioluminescent.
he thinks demons haunt the deep. he thinks evil spirits cause these
things to happen
just like people thought 2000 years ago.
spintronic
> On Nov 5, 6:05 pm, HighQ <einstein...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.
> science? since when has <snip> Yawn.
jon
there".
Interesting comment. And you are quite right - Darwin argued that
evolution is about about ensuring reproductive success, and earlier
points argue that evolution is not directed towards more "complex"
organisms. So why does evolution produce more complex organisations?
It is not because they make more babies, single cell organisms have
got us on that one - and it is not because we are evolving towards
something. So why bother? What is the "force" that is driving this
complexity? What has turned single cell organisms into people and
elephants. Something is missing here. If i leave a bucket of mud alone
for a million years am i really going to get people or something
similar - if so what is causing this to occur? Evolution is the
mechanism, the "how" - but it is not even close to the "why". Even if
it simply a function of "matter" to create life, and for live to
become more complex - there must be some force behind this.
I think this is where creationists like to put God into the picture
(and that's not really getting us anywhere!!)- and scientists are so
caught up in their Darwinian dogma that no one is willing to really
consider what is driving this complexity - and where it may be taking
us.
Garamond Lethe
> "Evolution HAS led to more complexity, but it does not NEED to lead
> there".
>
> Interesting comment. And you are quite right - Darwin argued that
> evolution is about about ensuring reproductive success, and earlier
> points argue that evolution is not directed towards more "complex"
> organisms. So why does evolution produce more complex organisations?
> It is not because they make more babies,
It's exactly that reason. It's one of the least intuitive areas of
science, and without simulations I would find it very difficult to
get my head around it.
> single cell organisms have
> got us on that one -
Single-celled organisms also occupy more environmental niches that
we ever will. In a few of those niches, though, multicellularity
is an advantage, and things took off from there.
> and it is not because we are evolving towards
> something.
We haven't found any evidence of this yet.
> So why bother? What is the "force" that is driving this
> complexity? What has turned single cell organisms into people and
> elephants.
I think the word you're looking for is "chemistry".
If you understand C well enough to compile programs, grab "nanopond"
and let it run for a while. I think you'll be surprised at the
compexity that falls out give a few simple rules plus time.
> Something is missing here. If i leave a bucket of mud alone
> for a million years am i really going to get people or something
> similar
No. But a planet-sized bucket of mud and a couple of billion years
might do the trick.
hersheyh
wrote:
> On 2009-11-08, jon <jonre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Evolution HAS led to more complexity, but it does not NEED to lead
> > there".
>
> > Interesting comment. And you are quite right - Darwin argued that
> > evolution is about about ensuring reproductive success, and earlier
> > points argue that evolution is not directed towards more "complex"
> > organisms. So why does evolution produce more complex organisations?
> > It is not because they make more babies,
>
> It's exactly that reason. It's one of the least intuitive areas of
> science, and without simulations I would find it very difficult to
> get my head around it.
>
> > single cell organisms have
> > got us on that one -
>
> Single-celled organisms also occupy more environmental niches that
> we ever will. In a few of those niches, though, multicellularity
> is an advantage, and things took off from there.
Sometimes being bigger and more complex has advantages (greater
motility, fewer predators, etc.). But, as we know, being big and
complex has disadvantages as well. Parasites love big and complex
organisms.
> > and it is not because we are evolving towards
> > something.
>
> We haven't found any evidence of this yet.
>
> > So why bother? What is the "force" that is driving this
> > complexity? What has turned single cell organisms into people and
> > elephants.
>
> I think the word you're looking for is "chemistry".
>
> If you understand C well enough to compile programs, grab "nanopond"
> and let it run for a while. I think you'll be surprised at the
> compexity that falls out give a few simple rules plus time.
>
> > Something is missing here. If i leave a bucket of mud alone
> > for a million years am i really going to get people or something
> > similar
>
> No. But a planet-sized bucket of mud and a couple of billion years
> might do the trick.
Only if it is organic mud. Ordinary inorganic clay lacks the right
chemistry.
Hatunen
<jonr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think this is where creationists like to put God into the picture
>(and that's not really getting us anywhere!!)- and scientists are so
>caught up in their Darwinian dogma that no one is willing to really
>consider what is driving this complexity - and where it may be taking
>us.
You're begging the question: Why does the complexity have to be
"driven"?
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Ernest Major
<676b16c8-6289-4afd...@r3g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
<wf...@vsswireless.net> writes
>> Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
>>
>> You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
>
>
>
>except, of course it's not. you just made an assumption which does not
>survive scrutiny. you ASSUMED bioluminscence evolved for optical
>reasons.
>
>try again, creationist. be my guest!
He made another assumption which is rather more glaringly unsafe. He
assumed that deep sea fish evolved eyes while living in that habitat,
rather than inherited them from fish living in better lit habitats.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
>>What you are missing is the fact that the evolutionists originally
>>claimed evolution leads toward the more the complex.
>
>Where?
Lamarck. It's remarkable how often creationists continue to argue
against Lamarck's views. Can we expect them to widen their scope and
attack geocentrism, neptunism and phlogiston.
--
alias Ernest Major
raven1
Not to mention the luminiscifent aether!
hersheyh
> In message
> <676b16c8-6289-4afd-951e-2a4887fa8...@r3g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
> <w...@vsswireless.net> writes
>
> >> Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
>
> >> You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
>
> >hmmm...so you say.
>
> >except, of course it's not. you just made an assumption which does not
> >survive scrutiny. you ASSUMED bioluminscence evolved for optical
> >reasons.
>
> >try again, creationist. be my guest!
>
> He made another assumption which is rather more glaringly unsafe. He
> assumed that deep sea fish evolved eyes while living in that habitat,
> rather than inherited them from fish living in better lit habitats.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
He *also* (in addition to assuming that eyes evolved in the blackness)
assumes that deep sea fish live in total blackness. Actually there
are sources of light (phosphorescent bacteria) that are used for some
rather crucial biological purposes, like finding mates. Reproductive
success, last I looked, was regarded as a rather important biological
function. And, naturally, there is also the risk that they will
attract predators. Same thing happens with flashy coloration (mostly
in males) in the better lit areas of the ocean. And some deep sea
organisms do not always remain in the unlit section, but occasionally
travel up and down as well as sideways.
Desertphile
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Many "free energy" believers (peers of Creationists, all) still
insist there is an "ether" that fills the universe.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
heekster
Luminiscifent?
That is absitively magniferous.
John Wilkins
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Erasmus Darwin. They are arguing against paleo-Darwinism.
jon
well i get where you are coming from on this but that's where things
get a bit funky for me.....so what you are saying is that it is a
property of the elements themselves (C, H, O, etc) which causes them
to form molecules which evolve into people, elephants, etc. It's just
atoms and the environment that form life?
I struggle to see how elements can operate at a level beyond
electrostatic bonding etc (H's and O's forming H2O etc) - or form
something that has an "awareness" beyond this level. And if this
property to interact with the environment and evolve as a result of it
does not come from the elements, the "chemistry" as you say - then
where does it come from? What natural force (as all things in the
universe are driven by forces of some kind - right?) is pushing this
to happen.
Or...if as you say it does come from "chemistry" and chemistry alone
(and i'm happy to go along with that) then what we are saying is that
forming life is just what it does? It is just a byproduct of the way
atoms etc relate and interact. And as all the elements have originally
come from hydrogen - is the property of forming life contained within
a hydrogen atom? and before hydrogen is it contained in strings,
quarks and all that subatomic stuff? If so does that mean all matter
is really just on some pathway towards forming life? given the right
conditions, etc? Is it just "what it does"?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>ok so the word i'm looking for is "chemistry".....?
>
>well i get where you are coming from on this but that's where things
>get a bit funky for me.....so what you are saying is that it is a
>property of the elements themselves (C, H, O, etc) which causes them
>to form molecules which evolve into people, elephants, etc. It's just
>atoms and the environment that form life?
>
>I struggle to see how elements can operate at a level beyond
>electrostatic bonding etc (H's and O's forming H2O etc) - or form
>something that has an "awareness" beyond this level. And if this
>property to interact with the environment and evolve as a result of it
>does not come from the elements, the "chemistry" as you say - then
>where does it come from? What natural force (as all things in the
>universe are driven by forces of some kind - right?) is pushing this
>to happen.
What properties are observed in living organisms that are not results of
the chemical reactions?
>Or...if as you say it does come from "chemistry" and chemistry alone
>(and i'm happy to go along with that) then what we are saying is that
>forming life is just what it does? It is just a byproduct of the way
>atoms etc relate and interact. And as all the elements have originally
>come from hydrogen - is the property of forming life contained within
>a hydrogen atom? and before hydrogen is it contained in strings,
>quarks and all that subatomic stuff? If so does that mean all matter
>is really just on some pathway towards forming life? given the right
>conditions, etc? Is it just "what it does"?
It's a side effect. Don't assume there is any purpose. The earth was
much different before life polluted it.
hersheyh
> ok so the word i'm looking for is "chemistry".....?
>
> well i get where you are coming from on this but that's where things
> get a bit funky for me.....so what you are saying is that it is a
> property of the elements themselves (C, H, O, etc) which causes them
> to form molecules which evolve into people, elephants, etc.
Whether developmentally or evolutionarily the answer has to be yes.
If the formation of biochemicals were NOT the property of those
elements under certain conditions (chemically, this would be the
conditions of reaction), then there couldn't be people or elephants.
> It's just
> atoms and the environment that form life?
Initially "Yes," if one looks only for a scientific explanation (one
that does not unnecessarily add explanation), since that is what life
is formed from today -- atoms interacting in an environment. If you
accept non-science answers, then you can add other meanings beyond the
word "just". Religion, after all, as a methodology, and in contrast
to science, does not adhere to the ideas of Occam. After we have
something that had the properties of "life" (however defined), life
arises from pre-existing life (one property of life is imperfect
replication; another is the ability to extract energy and materials
from the local environment to do the imperfect replication). The
different *forms* of *modern* life arose by long chains of descent
with modification.
>
> I struggle to see how elements can operate at a level beyond
> electrostatic bonding etc (H's and O's forming H2O etc) - or form
> something that has an "awareness" beyond this level.
Emergent properties of systems. Life is chemistry. But living
systems have emergent properties that can be examined at the level of
biology without having to look at the level of chemistry.
> And if this
> property to interact with the environment and evolve as a result of it
> does not come from the elements, the "chemistry" as you say - then
> where does it come from? What natural force (as all things in the
> universe are driven by forces of some kind - right?) is pushing this
> to happen.
One of the properties that emerged with living systems was genetics.
Which led to natural selection that modified the genetic systems to
adapt them to local conditions.
>
> Or...if as you say it does come from "chemistry" and chemistry alone
> (and i'm happy to go along with that) then what we are saying is that
> forming life is just what it does? It is just a byproduct of the way
> atoms etc relate and interact.
As indeed it has to.
> And as all the elements have originally
> come from hydrogen - is the property of forming life contained within
> a hydrogen atom? and before hydrogen is it contained in strings,
> quarks and all that subatomic stuff? If so does that mean all matter
> is really just on some pathway towards forming life? given the right
> conditions, etc? Is it just "what it does"?
The *capacity* to form all the other elements from H2 obviously
exists. Does that mean that life, given the right conditions (such as
the prior formation of those elements and their concentrations on some
planet, etc.) is "inevitable". That certainly is one possibility.
But the best we can say now is that it is "probable" because we have
at least one case where it happened.
jon
really just “chemistry” – let’s break it down further and ask what is
chemistry. All that is really going on here is positive and negative
particles right? If we dig down into chemistry until we start getting
all atomic and sub-atomic all that is really going on here is
positively and negatively charged particles and the interaction
between them. From this we get differently sized particles and
therefore different elements, and the different elements interact to
form different chemicals, which form life…etc.
And if the particles themselves are really just little packets of
energy vibrating or whatever – then forming life is a property of
these little packets of energy. And all life is an expression of this
energy in different forms?
Ok so now in biology we say “form is function” right. All functions in
biology are related to form, all designs are related to a purpose. So
these particles which have the ability to form life must exist in the
form they do for this purpose?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
[it's handy for you to quote the items you are responding to]
Teleology is not a biological or chemical concept. Nothing we know of
those or of physics implies teleology.
jon
ok so you misunderstand me here - i am not talking about direction
towards a final result or "purpose" within this context. I am talking
about the dogma, which certainly exists in biology, that form is
related to function. This is one of the main concepts of biology and
evoution - that the form a biological organism takes it related to the
function it fulfils - long beaks for digging out worms, long necks for
reaching tall branches. Atomic particles having positive and negative
charges...to form life?
Kent Paul Dolan
> Free Lunch wrote:
>> Teleology is not a biological or chemical
>> concept. Nothing we know of those or of physics
>> implies teleology.-
> ok so you misunderstand me here
It's more the case that you misunderstand yourself.
Assigning purpose at any level, and most especially
at the lowest levels _is_ teleology.
Subatomic particles to organisms and all steps in
between lack purpose. Features of organisms may
well have been the result of random mutation,
inheritance of variation, and culling of less
successful reproducers, but all of that is just
mathematics, not "purpose".
> i am not talking about direction towards a final
> result or "purpose" within this context. I am
> talking about the dogma, which certainly exists in
> biology, that form is related to function. This is
> one of the main concepts of biology and evoution -
> that the form a biological organism takes it
> related to the function it fulfils - long beaks
> for digging out worms, long necks for reaching
> tall branches.
Function is not purpose. Function is itself, full
stop.
> Atomic particles having positive and negative
> charges...
And again you go charging off a cliff and splatter
yourself on the abyss of illogic:
> to form life?
Well, no.
And yet it is not a _purpose_ of atomic particles
having positive and negative particles to form life.
Abiogenesis, by any rational viewpoint, is an
accident.
Like collisions in traffic on a busy highway, it may
or may not be statistically inevitable, but it is an
accident either way.
xanthian.