Why Did an "Intelligent" Designer Forget to Give the Platypus a Stomach?
Budikka666
here:
alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
Carl Zimmer discusses just this here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/05/15/a-genetic-gastric-bypass/
Budikka
Pax
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
What the platypus shows is *de*volution, as far as not having a stomach
goes, and that is in line with ID.
However, I've discovered another possible reason for the atrophied stomach:
the prehistoric ancestor of the platypus was *MUCH, MUCH* bigger, so its
digestive processes were so slow it didn't need a fully functioning stomach.
See below to read about the startling discovery:
http://hubpages.com/hub/GIANTANTIC-SEA-GOING-PREHISTORIC-PLATYPUS-DISCOVERED
The Web is a limitless source of information and wonder, don't you think?
<grin>
> Budikka
Jesus is Lord,
Pax
Larry
f9abdb...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Just a guess.....Was the near quitting time or on Friday afternoon close to
4?
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> Budikka
Further proof of evolution is that God forgot to create the
Octopussy...
Wouldn't it be nice to eat?
Smiler
Not if it had eight tentacles ;-)
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
TheTibetanMonkey
You forget about the octo and go for for the pussy...
http://www.thai-blogs.com/media/users/betti/krabi%20tiger%20cave1.jpg
Masked Avenger
>
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> As Jerry Coyne points out in "Why Evolution is true" (his blog is
>> here:
>> alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
>> the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
>> stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
>> creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
>> swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
>> conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
>> useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
>> positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
>> It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
>> not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
>> rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
>>
>> Carl Zimmer discusses just this here:
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/05/15/a-genetic-gastric-bypass/
>>
>
> What the platypus shows is *de*volution, as far as not having a stomach
> goes, and that is in line with ID.
WTF ??
How is this devolution ......?? there is no such thing anyway .....
evolution is not a one way street ..... it can go in any direction
depending on the environmental influences .....
please explain how this is a) devolution and b) evidence for ID ???
while we're at it ...... what IS the Scientific Theory of ID and how is
it falsifiable ????
you do realise the Platypus is an EXCELLENT example of evidence for
Evolution ..... it is an egg laying mammal ..... or Monotreme ..... it
is a living example of a transitional species ........ half way between
reptile and mammal ...... and we have at least one or two living in a
creek not far from where I live ...... along with a few Echidnas in the
bush nearby .... another Monotreme .......
>
> However, I've discovered another possible reason for the atrophied
> stomach: the prehistoric ancestor of the platypus was *MUCH, MUCH*
> bigger, so its digestive processes were so slow it didn't need a fully
> functioning stomach. See below to read about the startling discovery:
>
> http://hubpages.com/hub/GIANTANTIC-SEA-GOING-PREHISTORIC-PLATYPUS-DISCOVERED
>
>
> The Web is a limitless source of information and wonder, don't you
> think? <grin>
I hope that grin is because you understood the joke of that web page
..... and not because you thought it was a serious article ......it's
hard to tell with some of the religious nutters we get around here
...... Illbebaucked is notorious for quoting 'spoof' websites as if they
were fact ..... he is THAT stupid ...... religion does that to you
....... distorts your sense of reality .....
Jesus probably never existed
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Devils Advocaat
>
> Budikka
In a vain attempt to offer a humerus response to your subject line:
"Because the Designer didn't have the guts for it". :P
Smiler
Very handy, very handy indeed.
It must take him all day to trim his nails.
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > As Jerry Coyne points out in "Why Evolution is true" (his blog is
> > here:
> > alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
> > the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
> > stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
> > creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
> > swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
> > conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
> > useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
> > positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
> > It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
> > not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
> > rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
>
> > Carl Zimmer discusses just this here:
>
> What the platypus shows is *de*volution, as far as not having a stomach
> goes, and that is in line with ID.
Since there's no such thing a "*de*volution" you've just excused
yourself as a candidate for an intelligent exchange.
When you get your brain fixed so that it's functional again, please do
let us know.
[Rest of your juvie horseshit flushed where it belongs unread].
Budikka
Lorentz
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > As Jerry Coyne points out in "Why Evolution is true" (his blog is
> > here:
> > alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
> > the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
> > stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
> > creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
> > swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
> > conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
> > useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
> > positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
> > It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
> > not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
> > rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
>
> > Carl Zimmer discusses just this here:
>
> What the platypus shows is *de*volution, as far as not having a stomach
> goes, and that is in line with ID.
mutation "broke" the genes, it is still a random inheritable
variation. If the mutation prospered, then it was still natural
selection.
>
> However, I've discovered another possible reason for the atrophied stomach:
> the prehistoric ancestor of the platypus was *MUCH, MUCH* bigger, so its
> digestive processes were so slow it didn't need a fully functioning stomach.
TOE. In fact, the large platypus is a clearly a "transitional animal."
Clearly, according to your model, it is transitional between a species
with a stomach and a species without a stomach. A stomach, after all,
is only a widening of the intestinal tract. If an animal can lose its
stomach by a mutation, and still live, then an animal can develop a
stomach by a random mutation, and still live.
In fact, the present day platypus can be considered as an example
of a transitional species in this sense. Yes, an animal can live
without a stomach. A mammal can live without a stomach. So it
shouldn't be too hard to think of one of our preCambrian ancestors
swimming around without a stomach, and developing one.
Given the assumptions of many Creationists, It is amazing that the
first stomachless platypus didn't die before reproducing. I mean, it
had this perfectly tuned life style that used a stomach. The sudden
loss of a stomach, with no corresponding change in lifestyle, should
have killed it right away. Here is a large platypus in the forest
living with a stomach, and its child is born very large in the same
forest but without a stomach. The large child should have died soon
after it was weaned.
Maybe the change was slow, over many generations? Maybe
corresponding generations lived closer and closer to the river? Sounds
like TOE.
> See below to read about the startling discovery:
corresponds to a the development of a new species. The difference
between platypii (?) with and without stomachs is comparable to the
difference between apes with and without hair. Or the difference
between apes with or without speech.
>
> http://hubpages.com/hub/GIANTANTIC-SEA-GOING-PREHISTORIC-PLATYPUS-DIS...
>
> Pax
One can fit the ID model to any fact at all. I will not attack
the ID model directly. I just point out that this example is
consistent with TOE. It shows that huge changes in animals can occur
by the accumulation of random mutation. Thus, one can not
automatically assume that every large change is "designed." By your
own admission, the loss of the platypus stomach is best explained as
the result of the accumulation of random variation.
The change of a platypus from having a stomach and not having a
stomach is inconsistent with a young earth (YE) creationism. If you
believe this "devolution" occurred, then you can't believe in a
universe only 5500 years old. If you believe that this "devolution"
occurred, then you can't believe that random mutations can't
accumulate to create new species.
If the universe is as young as YE's believe, then where are the
living examples of large platypuses with stomachs? Were they all
killed in Noah's flood? If so, then there was a mixture of animals
with and without stomachs before the flood. The stomachless animal
would have to evolve in less than 2000 years.
The development of the platypus from a large animal with a
stomach to a small animal without a stomach is inconsistent with a
literal interpretation of Genesis, and inconsistent with a universe
that is less than 6000 years old.
Can a mammal live with half a stomach? Apparently. It can live
with no stomach.
Budikka666
> On Jan 26, 9:00 am, "Pax" <p...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
>
> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > As Jerry Coyne points out in "Why Evolution is true" (his blog is
> > > here:
> > > alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
> > > the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
> > > stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
> > > creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
> > > swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
> > > conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
> > > useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
> > > positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
> > > It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
> > > not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
> > > rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
>
> > > Carl Zimmer discusses just this here:
> > >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/05/15/a-genetic-gastric-b...
>
> > What the platypus shows is *de*volution, as far as not having a stomach
> > goes, and that is in line with ID.
>
> There is no difference between evolution and devolution.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! When you get a decent education, be sure to
let us know.
> If a
> mutation "broke" the genes, it is still a random inheritable
> variation. If the mutation prospered, then it was still natural
> selection.
Then it's evolution, dimwit. There's no such thing as devolution in
biology except in the laughably tiny and abysmally warped minds of
creation snits.
[rest flushed where it belongs]
Budikka
Darwin123
> On Jan 28, 10:10 am, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:00 am, "Pax" <p...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > If a
> > mutation "broke" the genes, it is still a random inheritable
> > variation. If the mutation prospered, then it was still natural
> > selection.
>
> Then it's evolution, dimwit. There's no such thing as devolution in
> biology except in the laughably tiny and abysmally warped minds of
> creation snits.
> [rest flushed where it belongs]
>
> Budikka
Hey, I am on your side! I know Pax's "devolution" was
indistinguishable from "evolution." That is my point. Given his
agreement that the stomachless platypus arose from natural selection,
he agrees with evolution.
Evolution = Natural selection + random variation
Note that I didn't use the usual word, "mutation."
I avoid the word "mutation." I use the phrase "inheritable
variation" instead. Variation is the word Darwin used, and it is
still good today.
I find that some people use rather specific definitions of
mutation that exclude most variations of interest. Some people use the
word "mutation" to refer only to saltation (large changes). I found a
doctor who referred to the word mutation to refer only to small
changes in phenotype. A congenital change is sometimes called a
"mutation." Apparently, the word "mutation" is now used ambiguously.
The word "variation" is more general, but for some reason is less
ambiguous.
When I use the phrase "inheritable variation," they understand
that I am talking about almost any change that can be inherited.
"Variation: can even include epigenetic changes, which may be an
important part of evolution even though they aren't true "mutations."
The word "variation" has historical respectability that Darwin
used it. If anyone wants an example of a variation, I describe a
specific mutation.
I haven't come up with a substitute for the word "random." Many
people have a really poor idea of what the word "random" means.
Darwin123
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:00 am, "Pax" <p...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Then it's evolution, dimwit. There's no such thing as devolution in
> biology except in the laughably tiny and abysmally warped minds of
> creation snits.
> [rest flushed where it belongs]
>
> Budikka
I suggest you use the word "dimwit" less often on everybody.
However, this was particularly unfair to me.
The Google software sometimes calls me "Lorentz" and sometimes
calls me "Darwin123." I have no idea why both names appear in the same
"Discussion Group." I am not even sure right now which name is going
to appear as a header.
I originally provided different names to different discussion
groups. I wasn't hiding anything. I do not know how to fix it, or
whether I need to fix it.
I am not a sock puppet. Sometimes, people get the idea that
"Lorentz" and "Darwin123" are fighting each other. This is not
intended on my part.
It is interesting that you associated me with a Creationist when
my heading was "Lorentz," yet recognized me as an "evolutionist" under
my "Darwin123" nomer. In fact, H. A. Lorentz did not like Darwin's
theory of evolution. Well, even the greatest minds slip
occasionally.
It is possible that you unconsciously associated me with the
original "H. A. Lorentz." I have a great admiration for both C. Darwin
and H. A. Lorentz. However, my biases have always been with secular
science. I admire the work on physics of H. A. Lorentz, but do not
believe his bias against evolution.
Please understand that Darwin123 and Lorentz are the same. I
have great interest in biological evolution and in physics. The two
subjects are not as far apart, to me, as they appear to other people.
I was not attacking you or any biologist.
However, I have greatly reduced the amount of name calling in my
posts. I suggest you do the same.
Monicker
news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> As Jerry Coyne points out in "Why Evolution is true" (his blog is
> here:
> alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
> the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
> stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
> creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
> swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
> conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
> useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
> positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
> It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
> not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
> rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
This doesn't disprove intelligent design - or at least, one of its variants.
The genes are still there just in case the platypus changes its mind about
having a stomach. If *that* isn't intelligent design, I don't know what is.
Monicker
Darwin123
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> This doesn't disprove intelligent design - or at least, one of its variants.
> The genes are still there just in case the platypus changes its mind about
> having a stomach. If *that* isn't intelligent design, I don't know what is.
>
Two rebuttals.
1) The genes are broken, and so can't be used to bring back the
playpuses stomach.
2) Genes don't repair themselves when an animal changes its mind.
Since the genes don't serve a purpose, and can't be brought back
by natural processes, then they seem to be an example of "stupid
design."
You may be assuming that the great designer will find it easier
to reconstruct genes that have been broken than by inserting new
genes. In other words, the great designer finds it difficult to insert
new genes from scratch. This implies some interesting limitations on
the great designer. However, speculation of limitations on the part of
the great designer reduces him/her to the level of an extraterrestrial
alien.
I am surprised we don't hear more from the "extraterrestrial alien
ID" crowd. A lot of ID models assume a rather limited intelligent
designer that putters around, makes lots of mistakes, and doesn't
really know what suffering it causes to its creations. "Broken genes"
are consistent with this type of quasi-religious model.
In this type of quasi-religion, the broken genes could actually
have been broken. As in "Oops," broken. I don't believe it. However,
it is logically consistent with the evil we see in the universe.
Some of the pagan Gods fit with this type of model. I would love
to see what would happen if a pagan follower were to teach his
religion in a public classroom in Kansas. Imagine a class of Wicca in
a public school in Kansas. I think the result would would be to the
Scopes Monkey trial as King Kong is to monkeys.
However, I don't think Pax would be comfortable with this type
of God. His ID theory implies a God who does not make mistakes, who is
working in the long range interests of his creations. Most "ID"
practitioners really have a loving, personal God in mind. They may
have more luck if they promote UFO Alien Worship.
I suspect a lot of noncoding genes serve as "spacers" on the
chromosome to allow other genes to experess themselves at the right
time. If that is so, then the function of these "nonworking genes"
should have nothing to do with the "stomach" genes of other animals.
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > As Jerry Coyne points out in "Why Evolution is true" (his blog is
> > here:
> > alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
> > the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
> > stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
> > creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
> > swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
> > conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
> > useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
> > positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
> > It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
> > not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
> > rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
>
> This doesn't disprove intelligent design - or at least, one of its variants.
> The genes are still there just in case the platypus changes its mind about
> having a stomach. If *that* isn't intelligent design, I don't know what is.
I'm going with your last clause: you don't know what is.
Budikka
Monicker
news:4b602c6a$0$32748$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
If you see evolution as going in the direction of more complexity, you could
call the opposite devolution, I suppose.
>
> while we're at it ...... what IS the Scientific Theory of ID and how is it
> falsifiable ????
>
> you do realise the Platypus is an EXCELLENT example of evidence for
> Evolution ..... it is an egg laying mammal ..... or Monotreme ..... it is
> a living example of a transitional species ........ half way between
> reptile and mammal ...... and we have at least one or two living in a
> creek not far from where I live ...... along with a few Echidnas in the
> bush nearby .... another Monotreme .......
The platypus seems more something between avians and mammals to me.
It's duck bill doesn't look very reptilian.
I know there were some saurians who had some kind of duck bills, but they
have all been extinct for tens of millions of years, while the platypus is
living right now. It has even acquired hair, which isn't that different from
bird's feathers, but no reptile ever had anything like it.
Monicker
Monicker
news:9472c96b-9027-46c0...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Darwin123, are you sure those stomach genes can't be used at all ?
When I wrote "changes its mind" I didn't mean that literally, of course.
Only someone with superficial, literal understanding could have understood
it this way. In practice, that would mean "when evolution demands it". And
if really those genes are just a remains of once working genes without any
other value, that's not 'stupid design' either. Evolution should get rid of
them in due course.
There's much more you wrote in your reply which could be debated, but maybe
that's more stuff for some other ng.
Monicker
Monicker
Budikka
Do you ?
Monicker
Chris
> Pax wrote:
>
> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >> As Jerry Coyne points out in "Why Evolution is true" (his blog is
> >> here:
> >> alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
> >> the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
> >> stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
> >> creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
> >> swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
> >> conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
> >> useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
> >> positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
> >> It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
> >> not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
> >> rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
>
> >> Carl Zimmer discusses just this here:
>
> > What the platypus shows is *de*volution, as far as not having a stomach
> > goes, and that is in line with ID.
>
> WTF ??
>
> How is this devolution ......?? there is no such thing anyway .....
> evolution is not a one way street ..... it can go in any direction
> depending on the environmental influences .....
In one sense, evolution IS a one-way street. Once you evolve, you can
not go back to the thing from which you evolved.
> please explain how this is a) devolution and b) evidence for ID ???
There's no such thing as devolution. It's a make-believe thing.
>
> while we're at it ...... what IS the Scientific Theory of ID and how is
> it falsifiable ????
There isn't one.
>
> you do realise the Platypus is an EXCELLENT example of evidence for
> Evolution ..... it is an egg laying mammal ..... or Monotreme ..... it
> is a living example of a transitional species ........ half way between
> reptile and mammal ...... and we have at least one or two living in a
> creek not far from where I live ...... along with a few Echidnas in the
> bush nearby .... another Monotreme .......
Well, no, the platypus is not the transition between mammals and
reptiles. It possesses some ancestral traits, but the transitional
species between reptiles and mammals all lived at least 250 million
years ago.
Chris
>
>
>
> > However, I've discovered another possible reason for the atrophied
> > stomach: the prehistoric ancestor of the platypus was *MUCH, MUCH*
> > bigger, so its digestive processes were so slow it didn't need a fully
> > functioning stomach. See below to read about the startling discovery:
>
> >http://hubpages.com/hub/GIANTANTIC-SEA-GOING-PREHISTORIC-PLATYPUS-DIS...
>
> > The Web is a limitless source of information and wonder, don't you
> > think? <grin>
>
> I hope that grin is because you understood the joke of that web page
> ..... and not because you thought it was a serious article ......it's
> hard to tell with some of the religious nutters we get around here
> ...... Illbebaucked is notorious for quoting 'spoof' websites as if they
> were fact ..... he is THAT stupid ...... religion does that to you
> ....... distorts your sense of reality .....
>
> Jesus probably never existed
>
> --
> MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
>
> Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
> ............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
> - A. Einstein
>
> Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Chris
> On Jan 28, 6:13 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 10:10 am, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 26, 9:00 am, "Pax" <p...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Then it's evolution, dimwit. There's no such thing as devolution in
> > biology except in the laughably tiny and abysmally warped minds of
> > creation snits.
> > [rest flushed where it belongs]
>
> > Budikka
>
> I suggest you use the word "dimwit" less often on everybody.
> However, this was particularly unfair to me.
Yeah he shot from the hip on that one. It was pretty obvious you were
disagreeing with Pax.
Chris
Chris
wrote:
Ha! I'll see your Tibetan statue and raise you one Japanese woodcut:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_Wife
Chris
Devils Advocaat
> "Masked Avenger" <coote...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b602c6a$0$32748$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pax wrote:
>
> >> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >>news:571b8329-6194-44de...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >>> As Jerry Coyne points out in "Why Evolution is true" (his blog is
> >>> here:
> >>> alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.atheism
> >>> the platypus has no stomach, yet it still has the genes for making
> >>> stomach enzymes. "Oh but the genes have other uses!" knee-jerks the
> >>> creationist. Nope, the genes are *broken*. They're part of the huge
> >>> swath of the genome which is junk DNA: genetic material which isn't
> >>> conserved, so we know it's not used, and which consists of endless,
> >>> useless repeated DNA, broken genes, and retroviral segments. This is
> >>> positive evidence for evolution and *against* intelligent design.
> >>> It's not myth. It's not legend. It's not Biblical fairy tales. It's
> >>> not faith. It's hard scientific fact that supports evolution and
> >>> rejects intelligent design creation. Purely and simply.
>
> >>> Carl Zimmer discusses just this here:
>
> >> What the platypus shows is *de*volution, as far as not having a stomach
> >> goes, and that is in line with ID.
>
> > WTF ??
>
> > How is this devolution ......?? there is no such thing anyway .....
> > evolution is not a one way street ..... it can go in any direction
> > depending on the environmental influences .....
>
> > please explain how this is a) devolution and b) evidence for ID ???
>
> If you see evolution as going in the direction of more complexity, you could
> call the opposite devolution, I suppose.
>
organism to return to a previous form for "devolution" to be the
opposite of evolution.
>
> > while we're at it ...... what IS the Scientific Theory of ID and how is it
> > falsifiable ????
>
> > you do realise the Platypus is an EXCELLENT example of evidence for
> > Evolution ..... it is an egg laying mammal ..... or Monotreme ..... it is
> > a living example of a transitional species ........ half way between
> > reptile and mammal ...... and we have at least one or two living in a
> > creek not far from where I live ...... along with a few Echidnas in the
> > bush nearby .... another Monotreme .......
>
> The platypus seems more something between avians and mammals to me.
> It's duck bill doesn't look very reptilian.
The bill of the platypus is nothing like that of a bird.
A bird's bill is made of keratin.
The bill of the platypus is bone covered in skin.
That a big difference.
> I know there were some saurians who had some kind of duck bills, but they
> have all been extinct for tens of millions of years, while the platypus is
> living right now. It has even acquired hair, which isn't that different from
> bird's feathers, but no reptile ever had anything like it.
>
> Monicker
>
You really think hair isn't that much different to feathers?
Perhaps you should take a look at the structure of both, and how they
grow.
Again there is a big difference between the two.
>
>
>
> >> However, I've discovered another possible reason for the atrophied
> >> stomach: the prehistoric ancestor of the platypus was *MUCH, MUCH*
> >> bigger, so its digestive processes were so slow it didn't need a fully
> >> functioning stomach. See below to read about the startling discovery:
>
> >>http://hubpages.com/hub/GIANTANTIC-SEA-GOING-PREHISTORIC-PLATYPUS-DIS...
> >> The Web is a limitless source of information and wonder, don't you think?
> >> <grin>
>
> > I hope that grin is because you understood the joke of that web page .....
> > and not because you thought it was a serious article ......it's hard to
> > tell with some of the religious nutters we get around here ......
> > Illbebaucked is notorious for quoting 'spoof' websites as if they were
> > fact ..... he is THAT stupid ...... religion does that to you .......
> > distorts your sense of reality .....
>
> > Jesus probably never existed
>
> > --
> > MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
>
> > Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
> > ............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
> > - A. Einstein
>
> > Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Free Lunch
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
The only time I've seen it used is in the context of governance where
the central government gives power to a state, province, city, county or
other subsidiary government. In discussion of biology, it's evidence
that the person using the word is either ignorant of what evolution is
or intentionally misleading folks in the discussion.
>> > Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Darwin123
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
the stomach. If they are noncoding, as was stated, they probably still
have a use as a "spacer." The expression of some genes vary with their
space from other genes. If they coded for some protein, then it is
likely that they have more than one function. The protein being coded
for can be involved in more than one important function. Often, the
other functions depend on the when the gene is turned on.
I had difficulty understanding how he knew these were specifically
stomach genes in the animals where this gene was intact. All this
being said:
The fact that the "broken" gene (i.e., noncoding) has a similar
structure to a "functioning gene" in another animal seems to be
evidence against an omniscient designer. This is because the function
of a noncoding gene is fungible. The structure of the gene is not
critical to its function.
Suppose the gene was acting as a spacer. Basically, it is acting
like a blank. The omniscient designer is most likely to put in a gene
which is completely different.
I am adding the qualifier "omniscient" not to change the topic but
to comply with what I think was the spirit of the original post (OP).
The rebuttals Buddikka666 often posts are aimed primarily at literal
Creationists, who take the creation story in their scriptures
literally (or close to literal). Usually the people who reply here are
referring to the Bible, although we have had Hindu's and other
Creation stories presented. What all these stories have is an
omniscient diety, who reacts to events in real time and is concerned
with us as individuals. You may argue that this is an atheist straw
man.
Maybe you believe in a Great Designer who has a slow response
rate (his nervous system responds in million year increments), has
course sensors (he reads the minds of people in groups, not as
individuals), and difficulty anticipating the consequences of his
actions. This Creator is forced to tinker. He can't do anything
efficiently, because he just doesn't have the resources to do it. He
can at best enforce a "statistical justice." If you believe in this
limited designer, then I think you will find all of Budikka666's
arguments irrelevant. And mine.
Distinguishing between TOE and the "Limited Designer" hypothesis
is an interesting metaphysical problem. However, belief in the
"Limited Designer" doesn't do much for one morally. It also isn't too
helpful scientifically.
The idea of random leads to testable predictions, sometimes
quantitative. I took statistics. I know what "random" means. I know
what random doesn't mean. I don't know what a Limited Designer can do
or not do. In fact, the actions of a Limited Designer can be construed
to be somewhat "random." So there is a redundancy here.
>
> When I wrote "changes its mind" I didn't mean that literally, of course.
> Only someone with superficial, literal understanding could have understood
> it this way. In practice, that would mean "when evolution demands it".
Maybe I am too superficial. I had difficulty understanding your
statement. I have difficulty understanding what you mean now. What do
you mean by "when evolution demands it." Is that supposed to be my
superficial literal belief or yours?
I think the implication is that a Designer would find it easier
to "repair" a noncoding gene then to simply splice a new gene in. I
have never heard of a mutation where the noncoding gene suddenly
starts to code again. This doesn't mean it never happens, but I have
difficulty imagining how. On the other hand, maybe that is something
you believe a Designer would prefer to do.
Ever hear of Dollo's Law? When an animal goes back to an ancestral
environment, it very often develops an ancestral function for an
organ. However, function is usually on a different organ or
developmental process. Evolution seldom reverses its steps on a
macroscopic level, and so far as I know never on a microscopic level.
It would help if you could find any example of a noncoding gene
becoming a coding gene. Give me an idea of what this Designer is
doing. Prove that noncoding genes can be spare tires.
Are you suggesting once no animal had stomachs, and that the genes
for the stomach were turned on in all the other animals? Only the
platypus kept its stomachless condition. I have to say, I would be
hard pressed to find a plausible explanation for this in TOE. The
problem I would have is the reversal of a gene is currently impossible
technologically and terribly unlikely in nature.
> And
> if really those genes are just a remains of once working genes without any
> other value, that's not 'stupid design' either. Evolution should get rid of
> them in due course.
has. If the designer knew the all the details he was putting in on a
very short time scale, and if his responses were implemented instantly
to the system he was working on, then the designer would need to put
in genes that would be useless later.
Despite what people say, the only handle we have on what an
Intelligent Designer can do is by using the analogy with human beings.
A human being who knows what he is doing wouldn't put something in
that would have to be removed later.