middle east again...

**Barjor** · 05-03-2002

Forgete it

**seditee** · 05-03-2002

speaking of evolution, hence...time; some of these images were real during the dinosaur era. it takes the image's light millions of years to get here...whoa...looking back in time...you know, if we had better telescopes, we could send them far away from the earth...& watch our past...well, our future past; oxymoron? that is, if we could find a way to send the images of our past to us faster than the speed of light. impossibibble. i kind of think anything is possible. we might be able to solve crimes easier...with a record like that...

http://sites.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/20...pr-photos.html

mind-altering.

**Clyde** · 05-03-2002

"if we had better telescopes, we could send them far away from the earth...& watch our past...well, our future past"

Our future past?? The telescopes would just see our past, our regular past.

EDIT: I get it, you mean in the future when they had these magic telescopes, they could look into their past, which would be our "future past".

**fyodor** · 05-03-2002

I'm kinda busy, so I'll try to make it short.

I am not going to show the mountains of proof supporting evolution, the radiometric dating, the gazzillions of fossils

Interesting sentence there, Clyde, about the fossil evidence supporting evolution, more specifically the subset gradualism. I have heard different

Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless...In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

I have a lot to say, but I'll just ask you (Clyde) to explain some things to me.
1. Give me some ideas regarding the origin of the wing
2. Give me some ideas regarding the evolution of the eye in its immnese complexity.
3. Tell me why so many species have remained unchanged for scores of millions of years.

**Clyde** · 05-03-2002

"Interesting sentence there, Clyde, about the fossil evidence supporting evolution, more specifically the subset gradualism. I have heard different "

..... you may well of heard different, probably from a creationist site. Scientists on the other hand are fairly clear on the subject.

"I have a lot to say, but I'll just ask you (Clyde) to explain some things to me.
1. Give me some ideas regarding the origin of the wing
2. Give me some ideas regarding the evolution of the eye in its immnese complexity.
3. Tell me why so many species have remained unchanged for scores of millions of years."

Ok, ill do my best, but you to get proper answers you should probably find yourself a biologist.

1) The wing, starts of as a flap of skin which grows, gains muscle, and bone, and voila a wing.

2) The eye has been mapped out in huge detail, infact computer simulations programmed with evolutionary algorithms show that the eye evolved much faster than was expected.

Like everything in evolution the eye evolves gradually, starting off very simplistically. Whether or not it starts of in localised area or not i don't know, but you get a molecule that is broken down by light (some precursor to redopsin) then you get crude detection of that molecule, voila you have an organism than can detect light and dark. A crude eye if you will, then it gradually it is able to refer more and more information to the organism.

There are some very good articles on the evolution of the eye here:

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawk...es/peepers.htm

and here:

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html

and a nice illustrated example here:

http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Mi...es-Design.html

3) So many? Evolution does NOT require that all species evolve at the same rate. If there is no selective pressure on new traits basically "evolution" will not occur, though 99% of the time there is selective pressure. Only in very specific (and reasonably rare too) environments do you get zero selective pressure.

**lightatdawn** · 05-03-2002

fydor, regarding a comment you made a while back:

just read this gem...
quote:
At what point do you stop saying: "Thats not a different species, its just a different version of the same thing." Technically we're all just a collection of cells with different traits.

ummm...species are differentiated by not being able to breed with one another, I believe...Perhaps you should learn some elementaries before you argue about something as complex as evolution...

I believe you took me out of context. Try reading that post and the ones before it again. I was commenting on an earlier comment, not being serious.

>>3. Tell me why so many species have remained unchanged for scores of millions of years

Now, not to be really obnoxious or anything but... "Perhaps you should learn some elementaries before you argue about something as complex as evolution"... *ahem*

You're missing the point. Why would all species change. If it ain't broke, dont fix it. Obviously there are certain creatures who have had no pressing need to adapt. This could be due to any number of things. Either their enviroment has changed very little (as in the case of many turtles) or perhaps they are simply well suited to changing conditions. Or perhaps they merely moved to a more favorable enviroment instead of themselves adapting (as in the case of a certain swallow whos name currently escapes me).

/* Edit: I see Clyde beat me to this point. I should refresh my screen before i post.

*/

**-KEN-** · 05-03-2002

::adds one to the tally of threads that've become meaningless religous wars::

**lightatdawn** · 05-03-2002

>>::adds one to the tally of threads that've become meaningless religous wars::

Heh, yes, but they all have such pleasnetly different flavours. Besides, it keeps the mind sharp... And this isnt _technically_ a religious flame war. Its an evolution vs. creation war.

**Malcar Morab** · 05-03-2002

Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

These are only a few of the questions that I have come up with that evolution cannot explain.

<1) The wing, starts of as a flap of skin which grows, gains muscle, and bone, and voila a wing. >

This has never been documated, nor has it ever been found in geological digs, no proof of this theory exsists.

**Sentaku senshi** · 05-03-2002

>When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

First life did not come from dead matter, it came from non living matter. Life was created during a giant science experment done by earth in witch there was lots of heat, and stuff mixing this way and that. A few millania later life.

Free will vc All knowing god: Cylde your complete thought that since god knows what you are going to do you don't have free will has a slight problem. Someone that is all knowing would now all the paths. In your example of picking fruit from a tree they would know the result of picking the fruit and not picking fruit.

**salvelinus** · 05-03-2002

Originally posted by Malcar Morab
Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

These are only a few of the questions that I have come up with that evolution cannot explain.

As opposed to the question "Where did God come from", which is voluminously, if not consistently, explained in the Bible, Koran, etc.

<1) The wing, starts of as a flap of skin which grows, gains muscle, and bone, and voila a wing. >

This has never been documated, nor has it ever been found in geological digs, no proof of this theory exsists.

Wrong.

**fyodor** · 05-03-2002

..... you may well of heard different, probably from a creationist site. Scientists on the other hand are fairly clear on the subject.

For your information, Clyde, the quoted excerpt is from a scientist named Steven Jay Gould. A fairly eminent one, I believe

You're missing the point. Why would all species change. If it ain't broke, dont fix it.

If it aint broke dont fix it? What is "broke" supposed to mean? Are you telling me that, for example, Drosophila has reached an endpoint in its evolutionary process? Organisms can always improve.

1) The wing, starts of as a flap of skin which grows, gains muscle, and bone, and voila a wing.

What perhaps you dont realize (unless you left it out) is that the original flap of skin, the result of a random mutation, does not confer any advantage whatsoever on its bearer. To be functional, a wing has to relatively fully developed. A wing consists of more than just an appendage. The mechanics governing it are extraordinarily complex, as is its structure. To be propagated, each change has to have a reason for it to be kept. The simple sentence of yours would take many generation.

I had a look at the websites you posted. While the experiment described by Dawkin is certainly interesting, it is, at best, inconclusive

Dawkins continues, “The transparent layer was allowed to undergo localized random mutations of its refractive index. They then let the model deform itself at random, constrained only by the requirement that any change must be small and must be an improvement on what went before

Take a good look at the last sentence. Basically, the experiment is set up so that harmful mutations cannot occur, but it is well known that most mutations are deleterious! The validity of the experiment is null, because the model cannot be allowed to fail.

**lightatdawn** · 05-04-2002

>>Organisms can always improve.

Of course they can. Yet again, however, you're only taking a small portion of the whole and examining it. If there is no pressing need for the organism to improve, then the natural selection which would cause the "good" mutation to become predominant would not exist. Therefor, said mutation would not become widespread. A creatures evolution is based on changing circumstances requiring the mutation or by possible random selection or based on other circumstances.

>>The validity of the experiment is null, because the model cannot be allowed to fail.

No, take a look at the sentance: "an improvement on what went before". The concept is that undesirable mutations do not survive and thus, do not become widespread. I thought we covered this?

**fyodor** · 05-04-2002

Apparently you do not understand, lightatdawn. I am looking at that sentence and I am seeing the same thing as before. The experiment is set up so that the only mutations are positive, which is absurdly unrealistic.

The concept is that undesirable mutations do not survive and thus, do not become widespread.

So they do not become widespread. Big deal. They still happen. By dictating that each mutation results in a superior phenotype, the time needed is shortened dramatically.

Of course they can. Yet again, however, you're only taking a small portion of the whole and examining it. If there is no pressing need for the organism to improve then the natural selection which would cause the "good" mutation to become predominant would not exist. Therefor, said mutation would not become widespread. A creatures evolution is based on changing circumstances requiring the mutation or by possible random selection or based on other circumstances.

What is this concept of "need"? Organisms do not "need" to improve. And there are no circumstances where organisms do the equivalent of telling their genes "Alright, boys. You can stop mutating now. I'm adapted to my environment!" Are you trying to tell me that the common fruit fly is perfectly adapted? That there have been no possible positive mutations in the last 200 or so million years?

**Malcar Morab** · 05-04-2002

<First life did not come from dead matter, it came from non living matter.>

NONliving matter is dead matter. When something isn't living, it is dead.

<1) The wing, starts of as a flap of skin which grows, gains muscle, and bone, and voila a wing. >

This has never been documated, nor has it ever been found in geological digs, no proof of this theory exsists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong.>

And..........?

<As opposed to the question "Where did God come from", which is voluminously, if not consistently, explained in the Bible, Koran, etc. >

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

The "He" is Jesus, also the "word," and the "light" For those of you who are confused. Took me awhile to understand this until it was explained to me in bible study.

God was in the beggining, he always was, is, and always will be. Our minds, so small and narrowminded, cannot understand this. To us everything has a begining and end. Things live, things die. I don't understand it, no one can, and that is how it will be until death.