 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 04:47 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: I mentioned telepathy. Not you.
Good. Now that we've established that, I'll bow out and let Dec, Hype and others try to have an intelligent discussion on evolution.
Stig, of course, will continue to flaunt his ignorance on the subject.
-- A2SG, but it is fun to watch Full Of It be picked apart like a gazelle when the lions are hungry....
Last edited on Thu Aug 13th, 2009 09:23 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 07:07 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:Nonsense. Inherent in what EVO-(not DEVO-)lution purports is a belief that more adaptable (i.e higher scale) species result from "natural selection." There's no way around this. Take a walk in the woods. Observe the fauna. Compare this with biologists' speculations on what life was like thousands of billions of years ago. Microscopic, no prehensile, non-rational, non-erect.
I don't see how you can even pretend that you don't recognize a hierarchy with some collective overall scale of ascending value, be it in physiological or mental strength.
What you still can't seem to grasp is that "adaptable" does not mean, imply, or suggest "physically or mentally strong." Sure, in some niches, strength and intelligence can be an asset. In others, they can be a hindrance.
Evolution wouldn't, for example, necessarily favor stronger ants. Often, the more successful ants will be the ones that are smaller, require less food, and can breed faster. Every adaptation comes with a caloric cost, and often the best adaptation is simply to be more thrifty with those calories.
Regardless of how individual ant speciations may adapt to the altering environment, it is simply undeniable that evolutionary theory teaches an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher. That fact is overwhelmingly obvious when we compare the the complexity of the fauna today (giraffes, possums, even fruit flies) with the exclusively microscopic life-forms that supposedly (and probably) existed thousand of millions of years ago.
Many of those early microscopic life forms are still around; they became perfectly adapted to their environment, and their environment hasn't changed enough to drive them to extinction (or even diminish their numbers).
Yes, as speciation occurs, you do tend to also see more complex fauna. That's because speciation itself opens up new biological niches. When life first establishes itself on a planet, there are only about two things to eat: sunlight, and the chemicals spewing out of deep-sea volcanic vents.
When life establishes itself in those niches, a new niche opens up: the ability to feed on that life. And when that niche is filled, two new niches open up: a niche for something to feed on the predators themselves, and a niche for phototrophes/chemotrophes who can more easily dissuade those predators.
Which, of course, branches out more niches in an almost binary tree, causing an almost geographic progression of new niches.
So, yes, you're going to see more complexity, because soon you've got to have an herbivore who could evade the predator who was eating the herbivore before who was evading the predator before, ad infinitum. It's the "biological arms race" we hear so much about, except on a macro scale.
But that doesn't imply any kind of "lower to higher" value judgment. Some species may solve the problem of predation simply by increasing their reproductive rate - producing so many offspring that the predators can't possibly eat them all - and that's just as successful a reproductive strategy as, say, developing brains that can figure out how to build tools that will keep the predators at bay. Neither species is "more evolved" than the other; they've just filled their respective niches.
That's what you don't seem to understand. Sponges and ants aren't "evolutionary leftovers" - they're every bit as evolved, every bit as adapted, as our own species.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 08:16 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: Regardless of how individual ant speciations may adapt to the altering environment, it is simply undeniable that evolutionary theory teaches an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher.
Utter, complete nonsense. Go and find a textbook on evolutionary biology and show us where it teaches "an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher.
How, exactly, are ants today "higher" than ant-analogues 100 million years ago.
That fact is overwhelmingly obvious when we compare the the complexity of the fauna today (giraffes, possums, even fruit flies) with the exclusively microscopic life-forms that supposedly (and probably) existed thousand of millions of years ago.
You think a fruit-fly is more complex than a Stegosaurus? Oh, wait...you're not talking about lilfe-forms 100 million years ago, but ones further back, right? Apparently, you don't think that "evolutionary theory" teaches that "evolution" has occurred in the last 100 million years or so. Why do I think this? Well, because I'm trying to figure out how all these species now are so much "higher" than species 100 million years ago.
It's kind of funny, because the most predominate life-forms on Earth are still microscopic, single-celled organisms. I wonder if that's because they're well adapted?
See, I'm wondering how evolution "teaches" that "higher" forms evolve from "lower" forms when it also teaches that canaries probably evolved from therapod dinosaurs like Utahraptor.
The only place evolution "teaches" that populations go from "lower" to "higher" forms, Stiggy, is in your mind and the minds of your fellow creationists who don't understand evolution.
Wow...this is even tops Daniel's claim that leukaemia is always "present" but needs to be "activated" by ionising radiation.
How utterly completely asinine your argument is. I strongly suggest that you consult someone who actually knows what they are talking about...like...an evolutionary scientist.
Ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs. If he doesn't just laugh in your face, maybe he'll take the time to explain the postulated results of "natural selection" to you.
I already have "consulted" evolutionary scientists - in the sense of reading their work.
You can't ask a question of an author whom you are reading unless he's there. So call one up and ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs.
He may assume it's a crank call and hang up.
Arguing that evolution is not a fact because speciation has been observed in fruit-flies and bacteria but not in humans is like arguing that gravity is not a fact because it has been observed on Earth and not (let's say now) a particular star near the centre of the Andromeda Galaxy.
Amazing that you will not let go of the worst analogy in the history of AARM. Not only can we observe the FACT that all mass attracts all other mass, we can even measure the mathematical relationship in a PRECISE calculaation for every particle of matter in order to verify the universality of the relationship. Obviously we can do nothing at all remotely similar to verify the speculations of evolutionary theory in regard to the origin of man.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: I mentioned telepathy. Not you.
Good. Now that we've established that,
Yes, now that we've established that you were wrong again, Wrong-Way....
I'll bow out
Good idea. May as well quit on a wrong note, Wrong-Way.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 08:24 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:
You can't ask a question of an author whom you are reading unless he's there. So call one up and ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs.
He may assume it's a crank call and hang up.
If he's anything like the biologists I work with, he'd say "What's a 'lower species?' Define the term, and I'll see if I can give you an answer."
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 08:41 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
You can't ask a question of an author whom you are reading unless he's there. So call one up and ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs.
He may assume it's a crank call and hang up.
If he's anything like the biologists I work with, he'd say "What's a 'lower species?' Define the term, and I'll see if I can give you an answer."
Look, if you find an adult who is unable to recognize that he himself is a higher organism than a heterotroph, I think maybe he should be stripped of his degree whether it is in evolutionary science or accounting or phys-ed.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 08:55 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
You can't ask a question of an author whom you are reading unless he's there. So call one up and ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs.
He may assume it's a crank call and hang up.
If he's anything like the biologists I work with, he'd say "What's a 'lower species?' Define the term, and I'll see if I can give you an answer."
Look, if you find an adult who is unable to recognize that he himself is a higher organism than a heterotroph, I think maybe he should be stripped of his degree whether it is in evolutionary science or accounting or phys-ed.
An evolutionary biologist should be stripped of his degree for not agreeing that humans fall into an undefined category with a title that has no meaning in biology? Um, okay.
Actually, I'm curious just how that definition works, even in your own mind. Would you do me the favor of ranking these organisms from "lowest" to "highest"?
* Starfish
* Oak tree
* H1N1 virus
* Gopher
* Sparrow
* Pygmy Marmoset
* Housecat
* Honeybee
* Octopus
Appreciate it.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 12:02 am |
|
Amazing that you will not let go of the worst analogy in the history of AARM. Not only can we observe the FACT that all mass attracts all other mass, we can even measure the mathematical relationship in a PRECISE calculaation for every particle of matter in order to verify the universality of the relationship. Obviously we can do nothing at all remotely similar to verify the speculations of evolutionary theory in regard to the origin of man.
Almost as amazing as the fact that, after all this time, you still don't get the difference between "analogous" and "equivalence".
The analogy is that we can observe "X" HERE and see what evidence "X" leaves behind, and then we can observe that evidence THERE and reason that "X" is also occuring THERE.
I don't really expect you to get it, because you're still going on about "higher" life forms, completely discounting the reams of evidence we're giving you from real evolutionary biologists that your definition of evolution is not the one used by those evolutionary biologists.
Keep going, though, Stiggy. It's always kind of amusing to watch someone be so ignorant on a subject that they're just making a fool of themselves with every post.
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 03:26 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
You can't ask a question of an author whom you are reading unless he's there. So call one up and ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs.
He may assume it's a crank call and hang up.
If he's anything like the biologists I work with, he'd say "What's a 'lower species?' Define the term, and I'll see if I can give you an answer."
Look, if you find an adult who is unable to recognize that he himself is a higher organism than a heterotroph, I think maybe he should be stripped of his degree whether it is in evolutionary science or accounting or phys-ed.
An evolutionary biologist should be stripped of his degree for not agreeing that humans fall into an undefined category with a title that has no meaning in biology? Um, okay.
Actually, I'm curious just how that definition works, even in your own mind. Would you do me the favor of ranking these organisms from "lowest" to "highest"?
* Starfish
* Oak tree
* H1N1 virus
* Gopher
* Sparrow
* Pygmy Marmoset
* Housecat
* Honeybee
* Octopus
Appreciate it.
Glad you asked. In fact, it allows me to attempt to explain the absurdity of your position in a new light.
Most pro-choicers go to great pains to justify their beliefs based upon the higher stage of development of a human being at a particular point in time versus its lower stage, when a "mere cellular growth of tissue" (as I've heard first-trimester babies called). There is a belief in the contunity in growth from lower to higher stages that is implicit in this belief.
Surely evolutionary scientists claim to see a similar continuity in the growth of man as species from heterotroph to homo sapien.
Now let's look at the NFL today. Every current player is an individual who is now at a higher stage of life than at the moment when he was born. His entire life has been a physiological evolution from fetus to adult. Even his skills on the gridiron improve concomitant with this growth. He is better equipped as an athlete in high school than he was in grade school. He is better as a collegiate athlete than as a high school athlete. And he is better as a pro than he was in the NCAA.
So your question about zoological hierarchies above, however answered, would be as irrelevant and useless toward refuting the idea that evolution does not imply transformation from lower to higher states, as the following question would be toward refuting the fact that all football players are individually evolved from a lower state, from a time when their skill levels were less developed.
Would you do me the favor of ranking these football players from "lowest" to "highest:"
*Peyton Manning
*Julius Peppers
*Roddy White
*Eli Manning
I could as subjectively answer that, as I could your animal question above, but it would hardly refute the continuity from lower to higher state that was a part of each player's life.
But to cut to the chase, here is your better survey for the evolutionary scientist:
Rank the following from "lowest" to "highest:"
*Albert Einstein
*The heterotrophic micro-organism of thousands of million years ago from whom Einstein's ancestors allegedly sprung
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 03:30 am |
|
Apparently Stiggy equates "more complexity" with "more advanced"...or something like that.
Tell me which is "more advanced", Stiggy?
A paramecium, or a Diplodocus.
ETA: Oh, and of course, he's still confusing individuals with populations, it would seem.
Last edited on Fri Aug 14th, 2009 03:31 am by Aldaron
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 03:35 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Amazing that you will not let go of the worst analogy in the history of AARM. Not only can we observe the FACT that all mass attracts all other mass, we can even measure the mathematical relationship in a PRECISE calculaation for every particle of matter in order to verify the universality of the relationship. Obviously we can do nothing at all remotely similar to verify the speculations of evolutionary theory in regard to the origin of man.
Almost as amazing as the fact that, after all this time, you still don't get the difference between "analogous" and "equivalence".
The analogy is that we can observe "X" HERE and see what evidence "X" leaves behind, and then we can observe that evidence THERE and reason that "X" is also occuring THERE.
That's your whole problem in a nutshell. Both you and I can observe X's here or there or everywhere, but I don't REASON that these observations must THEREFORE also apply to Y. You do.
We have no such problem with gravity. We can both OBSERVE how mass attracts mass TODAY, and we can even quantify that relationship mathematically. We don't have to worry about someone's subjective reasoning from point A to point B. Observations obviate the need for such speculations. We can do nothing remotely similar in determining the origin of man.
I don't really expect you to get it, because you're still going on about "higher" life forms, completely discounting the reams of evidence we're giving you from real evolutionary biologists that your definition of evolution is not the one used by those evolutionary biologists.
Speaking of evolutionary scientists, you never dealt with this:
Call one up and ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 03:57 am |
|
That's your whole problem in a nutshell. Both you and I can observe X's here or there or everywhere, but I don't REASON that these observations must THEREFORE also apply to Y. You do.
Of course I do. To not do so would be to do what Josh Regan always does and toss out concepts of consistency in nature. From there, we may as well replace gravity with Intelligent Falling.
Extrapolation is the essence of scientific theory. Of course, you're making the (incorrect) assumption that I'm stopping at extrapolation. I'm not, and again, I've repeatedly explained this; to no avail, it would seem.
You are ignoring the fact that I'm reasoning that the observations also apply to "Y" isn't "just because", it's because there is also evidence that this is so. We observe speciation in fruit-flies, and see the results. We see genetic and morphological changes, for example. When we observe consistent genetic and morphological changes in humans over time (which we can, from the fossil record), we can compare these with known changes from observed evolutionary processes.
But of course, none of this affects your initial incorrect claim: that evolution has not been observed.
It has. It hasn't been observed directly in humans, but it has most certainly been observed.
Just as I have never observed directly in me what would occur if I shoved a blowtorch to my balls, but it has been observed in others, so I'm not doing it any time soon...
We have no such problem with gravity. We can both OBSERVE how mass attracts mass TODAY, and we can even quantify that relationship mathematically. We don't have to worry about someone's subjective reasoning from point A to point B. Observations obviate the need for such speculations. We can do nothing remotely similar in determining the origin of man.
You don't think we can, but we've already seen that you really don't understand the concepts of evolution, Stiggy. You don't know the definition of it, you don't know what it constitutes, and you certainly don't notice it when it's shoved under your nose.
Fruit-fly populations, when OBSERVED to speciate, undergo certain changes. There are genetic changes, morphological changes, etc. Humans have changes consistent with this in them as we go back through the fossil record.
Speaking of evolutionary scientists, you never dealt with this:
Call one up and ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs.
1) I don't need to. I've read Futuyama's definition of evolution. It says nothing of "higher" or "lower" species. Why on Earth would I want to (even if I conceivably could do so) call him and ask him to clarify what he has already quite clearly stated? Should I insist on you calling the Pope and asking him if he really thinks that Jesus rose from the dead?
2) Besides, Hype has already told you what the answer would be from the biologists he works with every day.
But while we're on the subject of not dealing with stuff, I'm still waiting for all those "scores" of websites refuting the TalkOrigins articles...
____________________
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 06:41 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Most pro-choicers go to great pains to justify their beliefs based upon the higher stage of development of a human being at a particular point in time versus its lower stage, when a "mere cellular growth of tissue" (as I've heard first-trimester babies called). There is a belief in the contunity in growth from lower to higher stages that is implicit in this belief.
Surely evolutionary scientists claim to see a similar continuity in the growth of man as species from heterotroph to homo sapien.
They absolutely do not. The development of an organism is hard-wired into its genes. It's programmed. Evolution is driven by selection and chance. The two couldn't be more different.
There may be some philosophical movements that equate human development with evolution, but those movements are entirely unscientific.
I could as subjectively answer that, as I could your animal question above, but it would hardly refute the continuity from lower to higher state that was a part of each player's life.
Are you seriously trying to argue that it's an evolutionary principle that, as a species reproduces, it necessarily becomes qualitatively "higher"?
If so, how do you explain that, for any given Drosophila fly, it's the product of millions and millions of breedings - far more than any of us - and yet it's a fly?
Speciation is driven by selection, and selection is driven by the necessity to adapt. It's not driven by some crazy Lamarckan desire to become "better," as a human being might subjectively define the term.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 10:00 am |
|
Are you seriously trying to argue that it's an evolutionary principle that, as a species reproduces, it necessarily becomes qualitatively "higher"?
The scary part is that I think this is exactly what he's arguing.
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 15th, 2009 05:16 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Most pro-choicers go to great pains to justify their beliefs based upon the higher stage of development of a human being at a particular point in time versus its lower stage, when a "mere cellular growth of tissue" (as I've heard first-trimester babies called). There is a belief in the contunity in growth from lower to higher stages that is implicit in this belief.
Surely evolutionary scientists claim to see a similar continuity in the growth of man as species from heterotroph to homo sapien.
They absolutely do not.
They absolutely do. In fact, that is central to evolutionary theory. The very label the theory is given should be a dead giveaway, even if the presence of a collie in comparison with speculations of a heterotrophic celluar organsim were not.
The development of an organism is hard-wired into its genes. It's programmed. Evolution is driven by selection and chance.
Precisely. And it is that selection and chance, called "natural selection" which evolutionists speculate is the process whereby creatures evolve from one species to the other. And the results of this postulated (and empirically unverified) process are clear to see: life forms which are far more advanced physiologically and mentally than their postulated ancestors.
I could as subjectively answer that, as I could your animal question above, but it would hardly refute the continuity from lower to higher state that was a part of each player's life.
Are you seriously trying to argue that it's an evolutionary principle that, as a species reproduces, it necessarily becomes qualitatively "higher"?
Well, damn. Look around. Take a stroll in the forest. If what you believe is correct, in the long run for the history of species as a whole, that is obviously what happened.
Last edited on Sat Aug 15th, 2009 05:17 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16th, 2009 10:34 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Most pro-choicers go to great pains to justify their beliefs based upon the higher stage of development of a human being at a particular point in time versus its lower stage, when a "mere cellular growth of tissue" (as I've heard first-trimester babies called). There is a belief in the contunity in growth from lower to higher stages that is implicit in this belief.
Surely evolutionary scientists claim to see a similar continuity in the growth of man as species from heterotroph to homo sapien.
They absolutely do not.
They absolutely do. In fact, that is central to evolutionary theory.
You clearly don't know very much about evolutionary theory. You're proposing some kind of principle like "Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny." The converse has proven interesting, if not exactly accurate. But what you're saying is wacky sci-fi nonsense. Evolution is not governed by the same principles as development; if you tell an evolutionary biologist that it is, he'll either laugh at you or quickly show you the door.
I've already explained why you tend to see more complex forms on a long timescale; it's because speciation itself opens up new biological niches.
But evolution doesn't always favor complexity. Take, for example, the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous. Most of the larger species, which you would probably call qualitatively "higher" or "physiologically and mentally superior," went away. The simpler ones were largely unaffected; insect and microbial life just kept on plugging along. Complexity is excellent for dealing with slightly less complex life; it also has a tendency to be less stable in the face of environmental change.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 02:47 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Most pro-choicers go to great pains to justify their beliefs based upon the higher stage of development of a human being at a particular point in time versus its lower stage, when a "mere cellular growth of tissue" (as I've heard first-trimester babies called). There is a belief in the contunity in growth from lower to higher stages that is implicit in this belief.
Surely evolutionary scientists claim to see a similar continuity in the growth of man as species from heterotroph to homo sapien.
They absolutely do not.
They absolutely do. In fact, that is central to evolutionary theory.
You clearly don't know very much about evolutionary theory. You're proposing some kind of principle like "Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny." The converse has proven interesting, if not exactly accurate. But what you're saying is wacky sci-fi nonsense. Evolution is not governed by the same principles as development; if you tell an evolutionary biologist that it is, he'll either laugh at you or quickly show you the door.
I've already explained why you tend to see more complex forms on a long timescale; it's because speciation itself opens up new biological niches.
But evolution doesn't always favor complexity. Take, for example, the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous. Most of the larger species, which you would probably call qualitatively "higher" or "physiologically and mentally superior," went away. The simpler ones were largely unaffected; insect and microbial life just kept on plugging along. Complexity is excellent for dealing with slightly less complex life; it also has a tendency to be less stable in the face of environmental change.
I don't know any more or less about evolutionary theory than you do. However, I do have enough common sense to know that it's bogus. I can't help it that you don't. I guess that you will have to continue accepting the talking points of idiots like Richard Dawkins, and his idiot sheeple, Aldaron.
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 04:15 am |
|
manonfire wrote: I don't know any more or less about evolutionary theory than you do. However, I do have enough common sense to know that it's bogus.
Wow. Hiram's "common sense" on one side, tons and tons of evidence supporting evolutionary theory on the other.
Which way to go...which way to go....
-- A2SG, so hard to choose!
Last edited on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 04:15 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 04:57 pm |
|
manonfire wrote: I don't know any more or less about evolutionary theory than you do.
I'm quite sure I know more about evolutionary theory than you do. I'm not an expert by any means, but I've had several classes on the subject, and I work at a biology lab where part of my job is reading scientific publications.
Your education on the subject seems to consist of a handful of talking points that circulate via e-mail forward.
However, I do have enough common sense to know that it's bogus. I can't help it that you don't. I guess that you will have to continue accepting the talking points of idiots like Richard Dawkins, and his idiot sheeple, Aldaron.
The phrase "common sense" is basically just code for "what my mom and dad taught me." And sometimes mom and dad are wrong.
There are other "common sense" versions of the origin of species. In classical Greece and Rome, it was considered "common sense" that all the non-human species were fallen human forms - humans who had been transformed into something lesser by the gods out of anger or pity.
Science uncovers a lot of new truths that aren't "common sense" - if it didn't, it wouldn't be useful. You can't design a car or send a man to the moon with common sense.
Often, science helps us refute bad "common sense." It used to be considered common sense that animals would be created by their own food - that maggots would be created by a pile of rotting meat, or that mice would be created by a pile of grain. That's what mom and dad taught everyone, and that's what everyone had just accepted since the time of Aristotle. It wasn't until Louis Pasteur applied the scientific method to the question that the world discovered that two millennia of "common sense" was really just utter bullshit.
|
Faith in Evolution
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Jul 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 06:39 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
Often, science helps us refute bad "common sense." It used to be considered common sense that animals would be created by their own food - that maggots would be created by a pile of rotting meat, or that mice would be created by a pile of grain. That's what mom and dad taught everyone, and that's what everyone had just accepted since the time of Aristotle. It wasn't until Louis Pasteur applied the scientific method to the question that the world discovered that two millennia of "common sense" was really just utter bullshit.
What?!?! That isn't true? I'VE BEEN HAD! Does that mean that these thousands of bowls of puppy food sitting in my backyard will not eventually cause a new puppy to materialize?
Well Damn science then! I will go find else to believe... It will have to be something that will make me feel warm and squishy and happy since I won't be getting that puppy any time soon.
fiE
|
Current time is 04:45 pm | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|
|
|
|
