Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Taphophilia]

Antlerman,

They already have a similar idea floating around!

"John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.

 

Not midgets, but infants!

 

The Bible says Noah gathered the animals. It doesn't say anything about God bringing them to him. What is the point of Woodmorappe attempting to prove the flood story as being literal, if he is not doing a literal interpretation of it in the first place?

 

Antlerman,

 

I could not even imagine how big those boobs would have to be to feed all those animals. Even an elephant is going to have to have freaking huge ones.

[Grandpa Harley]

OK, now I'm stuck with the image Lolo Ferrari now...

 

[Taphophilia]

The kids and I carved pumpkins just like that one for Halloween last year. My daughter was a she-devil and my son was a crazed serial killer. We like freaking out the neighbors.

[Grandpa Harley]

This year, to really scare the neighbours, try a Richard Dawkins costume

[Taphophilia]

This year, to really scare the neighbours, try a Richard Dawkins costume

 

The neighbor lady across the street asked me what "estrogen" was. Seems her Doctor put her on replacement therapy for it. I doubt they'd even know who Richard Dawkins is. I live in the American South.

[Grandpa Harley]

Ah...

[Dhampir]

The neighbor lady across the street asked me what "estrogen" was. Seems her Doctor put her on replacement therapy for it. I doubt they'd even know who Richard Dawkins is. I live in the American South.

That is fuckin' scary.

[BuddyFerris]

Freeman,

 

A valid point. Mutation is a function of environmental stress on an organism - over population, alien incomer, temperature change by more than 3C av., ambient light change, lack or change of food plants/prey... and the fossil record show this.

 

Right, and an egg is a function of environmental stress on a chicken.

 

Shall we believe everything we read because it supports our preferred conclusion? Or does the math actually work out as claimed.

 

Of course environmental stress produces adaptation (not to be confused with significant change). When you're close to extinction, who can afford to be picky. Any viability improvement selects naturally. In the absence of stress, the same mutations are non-selected alternatives; that which is adapted need not adapt further, as the zebra whose coloration so naturally blends with the environment or the malarial parasite who so effectively dies in the presence of the single-sickle cell trait and which hasn't managed to adapt to temperature variation even though it's had more individuals and generations than all the mammals combined.

 

Environmental stress does produce adaptation; the process is much like optimization models with which we are familiar. Examine the following reference offered to us earlier (a PBS article, verbatim) on the evolution of the eye:

 

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

 

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

 

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Notice any leaps of faith?

- a light sensitive spot? What? It sunburned easily?

- a depression in the light sensitive patch? That's an auto-select if you ask me. Of course it gets deeper and narrower so that 'vision' improves. Pardon my stunned incredulity.

- eventually the light sensitive patch becomes a retina? No big change there, right. There's hardly any difference between a skin cell and a cone cell, and the rod cells are just gap fillers anyway.

- a lens formed at the front, over time of course. Fortunately, convex.

- the requisite 360K years pass and viola! You sit here reading this post.

 

That's the 'reasonable' solution and they're sticking with it! Let's give ourselves credit for being a bit beyond PBS specials, please.

 

Grandpa Harley, forgive me for dumping this on you; it's just that yours was the first reply button that came to hand this morning.

 

Too early; need coffee.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

... Buddy,

 

This section of the board is our idea of a playground. Christians have a hard time figuring this out, but toying with Christians is our idea of fun and games....

 

No problem, pal. Quid pro quo, if you're up to it and if I can keep up.

 

Where do these names come from? How the heck did you settle on Taphophilia? Is that a personal philosophy statement, or a random mutation of your real name naturally selected for it's survival quotient under current environmental stress.

 

Buddy

 

Not easily provoked, doesn't carry a grudge, looks for the best, probably due to poor memory and failing eyesight.

[freeman]

Over time, adaptation leads to evolution. This is not a leap of faith! A leap of faith is to say that humans where placed on this earth by some mythical sky daddy! (Insert FSM as creator of all!)

 

So Buddy, time you told us exactly what you are! You say that you are an ex-christian, but carry the ID philosophy. I have yet to meet someone who has faith in intelligent design and is not a christian! Who believes in angels, but is not a christian. I know that Muslims believe in angels, are you muslim?

 

Please let us know where you are coming from!? I for one am confused!

[freeman]

Buddy,

What is the purpose for human embros to have gill slits and a 3 chambered heart?

Why would your sky daddy do this?

Inquiring minds which to know!

[Grandpa Harley]

No buddy, you moron, an egg is the product of ovulation... technically eating farm eggs is a bit like sucking a tampon, but I'm robust about where my food comes from... Avians are descendent of the great saurians... thus oviparious....

 

What the embryo looks like, however is dependent on environmental stress, since it was exposed to the chemical balance of the mother prior to getting a shell and being ejected from the bird's cloacla... Stress changes body chem, and has a direct effect on foetal development... but then I'd not expect you to be able to understand that off the bat...

 

If that's the best you can come up with you're not really as clever as you think you are... in fact, stultifyingly and loudly ignorant springs to mind...

 

and I spend most of my life forgiving people I know for having shit for brains... I don't know you...

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW, the eye is NOT camera like... the camera is EYE LIKE... muppet...

 

and most early eye development occurred in short generational organisms.... organisms that have several thousand generations in a year.... and there are two major types... the main difference being in the orientation of the light sensitive layer

 

1) Mammalian type - occurs in most land animals save the arachnids, and nearly all bony fish. The light senstitive layer points away from the lens and iris (in eyes that have those - insects don't have a flexing lens) and thus we look through a network of veins and have a blind spot

 

2) Cephlapod type - Octopus, squid, arachnids, cartilaginous fishes, and molluscs and bivalves that have eyes have this sort of eye. The retina has the light sensitive cells pointing toward the aperture of the eye... works better at low light without having a reflective layer (present in all mammals but most obvious in the nocturnal mammals), have a higher resolution than mammalian eyes, and no blind spot.

 

Insect eyes are more primitive than ours, arachnids generally more sophisticated... but then you're the 'eye' expert...

[Vigile]

Why do laymen who read books on psuedo science insist on coming here and arguing against the actual science of ToE with other laymen?

 

You think ya got something Buddy then submit what ya got to a biological journal of your choice. Ain't got what it takes to make that submission then stop embarrasing yourself by brazenly opposing the collective body of biological scientists with slackjawed logic.

 

This starting with a conclussion just gets tiring.

[Grandpa Harley]

Testify Brother Vigile! GLORY! I FEEL THE SPIRT UPON ME!!!!

 

oh.... no... it was wind... sorry... bit of a sloppy joe that one...

[Ouroboros]

Why do laymen who read books on psuedo science insist on coming here and arguing against the actual science of ToE with other laymen?

Yeah. That is truly strange...

[alanh]

I think there are a lot of engineers out there that just don't like the theory of evolution. I imagine they probably aren't fans of cosmology or quantum mechanics either. Engineering, especially mechanical engineering, tends to involve things that are quantifiable, relatively well-understood and deterministic; when such a person looks at the theory of evolution they are faced with the fact that they owe their very existence to probabilistic natural processes, so its somewhat understandable that they might want to embrace a deterministic philosophy.

 

I mentioned Henry Morris in a response to Buddy; Buddy appears to be following his lead. Morris was an accomplished hydraulic engineer and a young Earth creationist, he wrote a number of creationist papers including The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution. "Disproving" the ToE on mathematical grounds seems to be a popular tactic, and its always done by someone outside of the field of biology, Dembski being a good example. Its unfortunate that someone can be an expert in their field and yet happy to be a snake oil customer when they venture beyond their area of expertise, maybe its that when you are trained to be a "hammer," everything looks like a nail.

[Ouroboros]

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

 

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

 

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Notice any leaps of faith?

But did YOU notice: "In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species".

 

And some have been found in fossils too, just read one of your other quotes: "The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago." Regardless of the dating, these ideas are based on found evidence, and not guesses. Animals did exist and does exist with these functions.

 

I guess the only problem you might have is the time line of 360,000 years, but remember that is a theoretical number that could have been, but in reality we're talking about at least 550 million years for the eye to evolve.

 

 

- a light sensitive spot? What? It sunburned easily?

So animals (or other living organisms) with a light sensitive spot today have it because they sunburn easily? What about gastropods? Too much sunlight in the underwater caves?

 

Being sarcastic is fine, because I do it a lot too - I tend to tease people using sarcasm or irony - but... in this case, did you even read your own quote? Listen, your quote says, there are currently animals with a light sensitive spot.

 

For the rest of your list, I'm sure if you do some research you'll find animals with those eye functions too. So the ground work is done, we do know these kinds of eyes exist, the question is if they're genetically related, which I don't know if anyone has tested yet.

 

Besides stating facts and being sarcastic, what's your point and what is the criticism in your post?

 

 

Good points Alanh.

[Grandpa Harley]

Why do laymen who read books on psuedo science insist on coming here and arguing against the actual science of ToE with other laymen?

Yeah. That is truly strange...

 

It's not that strange... it's called 'being a bit of a twat' where I come from...

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW, notice most animals that have a retina that faces away from the light are land dwelling... a logical adaptation for something living in very shallow water or on land and not being wholly nocturnal....

[Antlerman]

maybe its that when you are trained to be a "hammer," everything looks like a nail.

Here's what I think is really key to this. It comes back to how certain minds think. He probably became an engineer because his mind is suited for this, not the other way around. This point is where I tend to make a big deal of our language systems shaping how our minds think: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200407222...trunc_sys.shtml I love how various tribes of the Hopi have far less difficulty with concepts of Quantum Mechanics because their language doesn't hamper this type of thinking like ours does.

 

So I think what you have with people like this is that they choose jobs that their minds are suited for, then when they have to conceptualize in non-linear fashion, they are faced with a portrait of reality that their minds can't process easily, and hence it is "nonsense" (but only to them). The rest of apologetics is fitful attempts to make reality fit within their brains, rather than the other way around.

 

Perhaps as our knowledge increases, so will language to describe it, then so will our minds abilities to think this way? That's my singular hope.

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps as our knowledge increases, so will language to describe it, then so will our minds abilities to think this way? That's my singular hope.

Or maybe it should be said that there could be hope in the future Bionic Singularity, and we'll communicate with thought (artificial telepathy) instead of words. Talking in three dimensions and in images will transfer more data, faster, and hopefully more acccurate.

[BuddyFerris]

... in this case, did you even read your own quote? Listen, your quote says, there are currently animals with a light sensitive spot.

 

Yes, HanS, I read the article; it was a short one offered (not by me, lest we misunderstand further) in defense of eye-emergence through random chance. The fact that the proposed intermediate steps from non-eye to eye can be described and found representationally is as persuasive as an auto-parts store being proof that automobiles self-assemble from random piles of raw materials. It is interesting, but it isn't suggestive of much nor substantive proof of anything. It's just PBS.

 

It has been proposed that we are divided into 'repeaters' and 'thinkers'. Are we destined to repeat what other people say, or may we actually think for ourselves? Shall we throw other people's words at each other because we lack thought of our own? Isn't that the old and tiresome game we used to call 'let's you and him fight!'? Is the scholarly journal exempt from critique by laymen? Must we join the ranks of those who speak more loudly than we because they seem to be leading the way; shall we fall in behind the ones who are most verbose and emphatic in their argument; shall we agree without understanding that to which we have subscribed.

 

We hope for better in ourselves.

 

And for whomever asked the thousand to one question, no.

The human genome is around 3 billion base pairs and around 20-25K unique genes. I mentioned the 1/1000 illustration just to open the question.

The magic bullet for filling one slot is around 1 in 6x10^12; two slots sequentially, around 1 in 10^20 or so depending on a variety of factors. Show me the money math.

 

I'm sure that sounds much more confrontational than necessary; I'm not actually trying to pick a fight. I'm more interested in the philosophical underpinnings involved. I don't have any particular need to prove anyone wrong or myself right, as none of us will change based on argument or persuasion found here. The most we'll accomplish along those lines will be a polarization over interpretations.

 

I would like to understand the why of your participation here; if it's just recreational, that's fine. I enjoy people and particularly enjoy folks who are different in any or all respects. My daughter expressed it well when we lived in Japan; as the only white girl in a racially and culturally mixed classroom of kids from all over the world, she complained at being so plain. Both she and I love the interplay of a larger world. We're both Christians, although she has a bit of a different take on things theologically.

 

 

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Yes, HanS, I read the article; it was a short one offered (not by me, lest we misunderstand further) in defense of eye-emergence through random chance. The fact that the proposed intermediate steps from non-eye to eye can be described and found representationally is as persuasive as an auto-parts store being proof that automobiles self-assemble from random piles of raw materials. It is interesting, but it isn't suggestive of much nor substantive proof of anything. It's just PBS.

If I make the statement that a car is made out of car parts, and I find a pile of car parts, and I find a car made out of car parts... what's missing here?

 

The article were not talking about raw material.

 

It said there are animals, right now, in this physical world, currently, in this reality, that have those features. And yet, you make an ironic comment about what does those features do good for an animal. My interpretation of your sarcasm was that you believe there are no animals that have a light sensitive spot, but you're wrong. It's like finding the car parts, and not the raw material. Raw material is more like finding a pile of dirt. Your comment made you look rather ignorant of your own quote.

 

 

It has been proposed that we are divided into 'repeaters' and 'thinkers'. Are we destined to repeat what other people say, or may we actually think for ourselves? Shall we throw other people's words at each other because we lack thought of our own? Isn't that the old and tiresome game we used to call 'let's you and him fight!'? Is the scholarly journal exempt from critique by laymen? Must we join the ranks of those who speak more loudly than we because they seem to be leading the way; shall we fall in behind the ones who are most verbose and emphatic in their argument; shall we agree without understanding that to which we have subscribed.

So far I haven't quoted one single thing, but used my own mind and knowledge only while you have quoted other sources several times. Ergo, I'm more thinker than repeater, and you are more repeater than thinker.

 

We hope for better in ourselves.

Of course. Always.

 

And for whomever asked the thousand to one question, no.

The human genome is around 3 billion base pairs and around 20-25K unique genes. I mentioned the 1/1000 illustration just to open the question.

The magic bullet for filling one slot is around 1 in 6x10^12; two slots sequentially, around 1 in 10^20 or so depending on a variety of factors. Show me the money math.

It's not sequential, but an intercorrelated network of events that results in the human genome. So I do not agree to your numbers. It is still not "two slots sequentially".

 

I'm sure that sounds much more confrontational than necessary; I'm not actually trying to pick a fight. I'm more interested in the philosophical underpinnings involved. I don't have any particular need to prove anyone wrong or myself right, as none of us will change based on argument or persuasion found here. The most we'll accomplish along those lines will be a polarization over interpretations.

That's good, but so far you're just repeating yourself and won't prove that the probability behind these calculations must be sequential and not parallel. We're talking about events in a chain of processes that each and individually will have different probabilities, based on survival and other external influences. Basically my criticism to any kind statistical calculation of mutations is that they're based on a lot of assumptions. You can't base your religious faith on that.

 

I would like to understand the why of your participation here; if it's just recreational, that's fine. I enjoy people and particularly enjoy folks who are different in any or all respects. My daughter expressed it well when we lived in Japan; as the only white girl in a racially and culturally mixed classroom of kids from all over the world, she complained at being so plain. Both she and I love the interplay of a larger world. We're both Christians, although she has a bit of a different take on things theologically.

Why my participation of this debate? Because I love the topic.

My participation on this website? Because this a gathering spot for people who don't believe in Christianity any more.

Your participation on this website or debate? Only you can answer that.

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy,

What is the purpose for human embros to have gill slits and a 3 chambered heart?

Why would your sky daddy do this?

Inquiring minds which to know!

 

Freeman,

You might revisit the gill slit issue; it was debunked some time ago and continues to embarrass the proponents thereof. First proposed more than a hundred years ago, it's based on simple physical similarities; the idea fell apart with the emergence of modern embryology, maybe several decades ago. It still finds its' way into secondary and undergraduate textbooks but evaporates upon any inquiry. Although the theory proved to be nonsensical, it had a powerful impact on social issues. For awhile, the scientists offered us an educational philosophy based on the theoretical assumption that children would pass through the various evolutionary stages during their years of development. I guess that included the embryonic/fishy stage, the newborn/amphibian stage, the toddler/monkey stage, etc. Nonsense, of course, and only minimally harmful.

 

There have been attempts to rescue the concepts, but alas, the tissue just isn't gill.

 

Inquiring minds should know better.

 

Buddy