Attacking me doesn't provide answers to your bankrupt theory of existence.
In case you missed it, there was a little more of substance going on than you bothered to respond to. Perhaps when you've overcome the extreme shock of those terrible onslaughts against you that you did quote and respond to, you'll manage to address some of the actual substance.
But it's easier to play poor, offended victim instead.
Quote:
You have more questions for me---but no answers? Look, this isn't a high-school biology class--it's not a National Geographic special. Attacking me doesn't provide answers to your bankrupt theory of existence.
You've gotten more than a few answers. Are you just going to play the game of demanding complete satisfaction for every single question of your own before you deign to answer anything yourself?
Quote:
You have no answers.
Show us the way then, by showing us how giving answers is done, won't you?
In case you missed it, there was a little more of substance going on than you bothered to respond to. Perhaps when you've overcome the extreme shock of those terrible onslaughts against you that you did quote and respond to, you'll manage to address some of the actual substance.
But it's easier to play poor, offended victim instead.
You've gotten more than a few answers. Are you just going to play the game of demanding complete satisfaction for every single question of your own before you deign to answer anything yourself?
Show us the way then, by showing us how giving answers is done, won't you?
He can't. He won't. Give up, it's a useless battle... he simply refuses to act rationally, intelligently or even civilly. It's the usual fundie tactic - dodge, dodge, dodge. Never actually offer up an actual answer to a question, just toss out inanities and then play the martyr when cornered and asked for anything other than a religious tract as proof, or heck, even evidence.
Just walk away. He's not worth your energy or time.
fighting among creationists, id'ists, evolutionists, etc. is futile. each person, on their journey from womb to dust, encounters certain specific and/or general pieces of evidence, which explain the wonders to them. religious types read the bible, and hold credence to its text. science types read eachothers journals. either text presents some evidence, sometimes with something believable behind it. the bible has the all powerful force of god behind it. to a religious believer that is the ultimate in evidence. a science journal often has experiments which can be reproduced, so a new scientist can look over similar evidence and arrive at similar results, thereby resonating the originator's hypothesis; to the scientific, that is the ultimate in evidence. but, at the core, there are very different methods of looking at the world. a scientist, as i extrapolate, believes that everything of the world can be observed, and that what is observed is true, often to the end of disbelieving other evidences; a posteriori. a person of faith looks to a higher power, or alternately available source of answers, where observable evidence doesn't convince him.
fundamentally, religious and scientific types won't believe each other evidence (of course, people are rarely very stringent about which side they are on, but on mattesr of evolution they often seem to polarize). religers don't believe, on all the levels, scientific evidence; and sciencites similarly don't believe the religious evidence. its not worth the effort to even try and convince the other side. its like trying to convince a non-intelligent object of the simpler wonders of the universe. a flower can't comprehend a combustion engine; it doesn't exist on that level. [other side's team] is just a bunch of obtuse idiots.
a scientist, as i extrapolate, believes that everything of the world can be observed, and that what is observed is true, often to the end of disbelieving other evidences; a posteriori.
There is plenty in science that goes beyond what is directly observable. Observable data are primary sources, of course, but creating testable theories -- tests which may, by necessity, be quite indirect and removed from the theorized phenomena -- helps extend the reach of science beyond the directly observable.
Quote:
a person of faith looks to a higher power, or alternately available source of answers, where observable
Creationism wants to pretend to be something that is derivable both from faith and from the types of evidence that scientists rely upon. Creationism wants very badly to claim both ways of believing fall under its umbrella.
Quote:
religers don't believe, on all the levels, scientific evidence;
Creationists are quite willing to accept scientific evidence... as long as it agrees with what they want it to say. They want to claim that they have, or will find, scientific evidence that proves them right in scientific terms.
You can't boil the problem down to different viewpoints on different turf when one group is trying to claim it can cover all turf. Evolutionists aren't trying to deny the religiosity of creationism. Creationists are, however, trying to deny the scientific credentials of evolution.
Quote:
and sciencites similarly don't believe the religious evidence. its not worth the effort to even try and convince the other side.
I'm not sure you can truly speak of religious "evidence".
Religious viewpoints tend to spring from the private and internal world of the individual. Some believers in some faiths will even go out of their way to say that faith is a matter of "grace" -- you get it or you don't by God's will. It's not found outside, it comes to you from within.
Evidence, and evidentiary processes, are, however, public in nature. Something that you can only know internally, and aren't empowered to share at will with someone else, like "revelation", does not have this public quality. As compelling to the individual as faith and revelation may prove to be, they aren't forms of "evidence" in any truly meaningful sense of the word.
As for "not worth the effort to even try", usually true, but I've seen occasional inroads made, although much more often in live, spoken conversations, not on message boards.
Also, the thing you're saying isn't worth the effort is a scientific person trying to change a religious viewpoint, or vice versa. The most important thing that's going on here is somewhat different, and that's people with scientific viewpoints arguing against people with religious viewpoints who are trying to tell the scientists what is and isn't science.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
It's a question which demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. The whales didn't just hang around waiting for their baleen to develop. You can't compare a whale to Apple waiting for IBM to suppy them with 90nm 970 FX's. Whales are dynamic organisms living in an environment perpetually subject to change. Ancestral whales were still most likely eating what whales eat today -- most likely vertebrates and plankton. Mechanisms such as natural selection and character displacement allowed for baleen whales to better exploit krill as a resource.
A quick google search got these links pertaining to whale evolution and transitional fossils.
....you have no other answers to offer than "it just developed", "it just evolved", "it just did". You have NO ideas on what sort of sustanable sytems could have existed between the systems we know of, and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
Again, you misunderstand evolutionary biology. What sort of ideas on "sustainable systems" did you have in mind? Evolution by natural selection gives us a framework for building a model for the development of complex nervous systems. I'm not a neurobiologist (nor am I a specialist in mammalian evolution -- the program I'm is grounded in ecology), but here are some links to help you out.
There is plenty in science that goes beyond what is directly observable. Observable data are primary sources, of course, but creating testable theories -- tests which may, by necessity, be quite indirect and removed from the theorized phenomena -- helps extend the reach of science beyond the directly observable.
As a scientist, you are wrong here. everything that science predicts is by its very nature observable (even directly), otherwise it isn't science. String theory isn't science because it makes no predictions of observable events, yet relativity is... etc etc...
As a scientist, you are wrong here. everything that science predicts is by its very nature observable (even directly), otherwise it isn't science. String theory isn't science because it makes no predictions of observable events, yet relativity is... etc etc...
I'm talking about "observable" in the sense that you should know many a creationist will play upon. You want me to believe a reptile can become a bird? Show me it happening! You've never seen it happen!
The data that support the link between birds and reptiles is of course directly observable. Concrete, real, physical evidence in the form of fossils, in the form of the DNA contained in the modern descendants of ancient creatures, etc.
But when you "see" that the data show a relationship between reptiles and birds, you are fitting data into a model and looking for consistency within that model, then determining what else should be true if that link is true, and going out and finding new data or re-examining old data to see if your predictions hold up, etc.
This isn't the same thing as watching millions of years of certified videotape showing the entire sequence of evolutionary events, nor is it the same as recreating a laboratory experiment where you turn a bunch of lizards into parrots. If you don't realize these impossible things are essentially what many creationists are talking about when they use the word "observe", and when they demand "observable" data, you'll entirely miss the place they're coming from.
PS: You sure do have a bug up your ass about string theory!
As a scientist, you are wrong here. everything that science predicts is by its very nature observable (even directly), otherwise it isn't science. String theory isn't science because it makes no predictions of observable events, yet relativity is... etc etc...
I think the point was that we can't always observe every thing yet we know certain particles theoretically exist. Take the not so lowely neutron for instance. In most instances we don't see neutrons--we infer their presence because of there interaction with other particles. We can detect the presence of a neutron when it interacts with B. We can say "A neutor interacted with B to produce a Li, and an alpha" but we never observed the neutron itself. The argument being made is that we can't always "see" but we can theorize and test our theories.
Leptons, how many have you seen? I've never seen one yet theoretically they certainly do exist. We have built chemistry and physics on their existance yet we can't "see" electrons, muons... We can only infer their presence. Millikan never saw an electron but he was able to infer a charge based on how an oil drop moved around in a capacitor.
The point is creationists hold a "I can't see evolution occuring thus it doesn't exist!" This show me attitude is their so they can debunk difficult concepts at face value. Well you can't see a lot of things but that doesn't reduce them to flights of fancy spewed by Feynmann and the like.
I think the point was that we can't always observe every thing yet we know certain particles theoretically exist. Take the not so lowely neutron for instance. In most instances we don't see neutrons--we infer their presence because of there interaction with other particles. We can detect the presence of a neutron when it interacts with B. We can say "A neutor interacted with B to produce a Li, and an alpha" but we never observed the neutron itself. The argument being made is that we can't always "see" but we can theorize and test our theories.
Leptons, how many have you seen? I've never seen one yet theoretically they certainly do exist. We have built chemistry and physics on their existance yet we can't "see" electrons, muons... We can only infer their presence. Millikan never saw an electron but he was able to infer a charge based on how an oil drop moved around in a capacitor.
The point is creationists hold a "I can't see evolution occuring thus it doesn't exist!" This show me attitude is their so they can debunk difficult concepts at face value. Well you can't see a lot of things but that doesn't reduce them to flights of fancy spewed by Feynmann and the like.
My 2 cents.
Not to belabor this point, but seeing and observing are often far different things...
It's a question which demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
Look, either the feeding systems developed at the exact same time, and in concert with all other dependent systems---or they didn't. The question is nearly rehtorical---and still unaswerable. If any of you were willing to be objective, you would realize your only real option is punctuated equilibrium. Ufortunatly PE is an even more far-fetched concept. Face it, you are out of ideas! Theorizing how many self directing ammino acids can dance on the head of a statistic is all you have got.
And shetline, if you retreat into another 5000-word dissertation on evolutionary doctrine, I'm going to barf on my trackball.
Look, either the feeding systems developed at the exact same time, and in concert with all other dependent systems---or they didn't. The question is nearly rehtorical---and still unaswerable. If any of you were willing to be objective, you would realize your only real option is punctuated equilibrium. Ufortunatly PE is an even more far-fetched concept. Face it, you are out of ideas! Theorizing how many self directing ammino acids can dance on the head of a statistic is all you have got.
And shetline, if you retreat into another 5000-word dissertation on evolutionary doctrine, I'm going to barf on my trackball.
I gotta get out of here.
What systems exactly are dependent solely on the baleen of a whale? Baleen whales can probably still be fed fish if their baleen has been removed, so what is your point? What creationist fail to understand is that there is a great deal of redundancy in all of our systems. The baleen is more or less only necessary if the whale can survive only on plankton. The thing is that as humans can live without teeth, albeit not well, so too can most animals that have teeth to begin with. THe same goes for the development of the eye etc etc etc. Redundancy is a definitive part of any working progessive model be it evolution or engineering...
What systems exactly are dependent solely on the baleen of a whale? Baleen whales can probably still be fed fish if their baleen has been removed, so what is your point? What creationist fail to understand is that there is a great deal of redundancy in all of our systems. The baleen is more or less only necessary if the whale can survive only on plankton. The thing is that as humans can live without teeth, albeit not well, so too can most animals that have teeth to begin with. THe same goes for the development of the eye etc etc etc. Redundancy is a definitive part of any working progessive model be it evolution or engineering...
Thanks for keeping this short and sweet. We wouldn't want dmz to soil his trackball.
An experiment which forced E. coli bacteria to adapt or perish showed that, in a pinch, they were capable of improvising a novel molecular tool to save their skins....
...This big step also turns out to be a new way of making molecular bolts called disulfide bonds, which are of particular interest to the biotechnology industry. Disulfide bonds are stiffening struts in proteins that also help the proteins fold into their proper, functional, three-dimensional shapes.
In a paper published Feb. 20 in the journal Science, a joint research team at the University of Michigan and the University of Texas describes how a resourceful bacterium was able to develop an entirely new way to make disulfide bonds. This restarted its motor and enabled it to move toward food before it starved to death.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Quote:
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)
Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:
"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
Attacking me doesn't provide answers to your bankrupt theory of existence.
In case you missed it, there was a little more of substance going on than you bothered to respond to. Perhaps when you've overcome the extreme shock of those terrible onslaughts against you that you did quote and respond to, you'll manage to address some of the actual substance.
But it's easier to play poor, offended victim instead.
You have more questions for me---but no answers? Look, this isn't a high-school biology class--it's not a National Geographic special. Attacking me doesn't provide answers to your bankrupt theory of existence.
You've gotten more than a few answers. Are you just going to play the game of demanding complete satisfaction for every single question of your own before you deign to answer anything yourself?
You have no answers.
Show us the way then, by showing us how giving answers is done, won't you?
Originally posted by dmz
Uh oh---I've never been called a putz before.
Uh oh---I've never been called a clueless, ignorant, and ill informed by choice before.
Uh oh---I've never been called someone who doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) how science works before.
Uh oh---I've never been called clueless about the very thing you're railing against before.
I'd wager you've never been likened to the evil wall boss from the sealed cave in Final Fantasy 2(4) before
Originally posted by shetline
In case you missed it, there was a little more of substance going on than you bothered to respond to. Perhaps when you've overcome the extreme shock of those terrible onslaughts against you that you did quote and respond to, you'll manage to address some of the actual substance.
But it's easier to play poor, offended victim instead.
You've gotten more than a few answers. Are you just going to play the game of demanding complete satisfaction for every single question of your own before you deign to answer anything yourself?
Show us the way then, by showing us how giving answers is done, won't you?
He can't. He won't. Give up, it's a useless battle... he simply refuses to act rationally, intelligently or even civilly. It's the usual fundie tactic - dodge, dodge, dodge. Never actually offer up an actual answer to a question, just toss out inanities and then play the martyr when cornered and asked for anything other than a religious tract as proof, or heck, even evidence.
Just walk away. He's not worth your energy or time.
Or mine, for that matter.
fundamentally, religious and scientific types won't believe each other evidence (of course, people are rarely very stringent about which side they are on, but on mattesr of evolution they often seem to polarize). religers don't believe, on all the levels, scientific evidence; and sciencites similarly don't believe the religious evidence. its not worth the effort to even try and convince the other side. its like trying to convince a non-intelligent object of the simpler wonders of the universe. a flower can't comprehend a combustion engine; it doesn't exist on that level. [other side's team] is just a bunch of obtuse idiots.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
a scientist, as i extrapolate, believes that everything of the world can be observed, and that what is observed is true, often to the end of disbelieving other evidences; a posteriori.
There is plenty in science that goes beyond what is directly observable. Observable data are primary sources, of course, but creating testable theories -- tests which may, by necessity, be quite indirect and removed from the theorized phenomena -- helps extend the reach of science beyond the directly observable.
a person of faith looks to a higher power, or alternately available source of answers, where observable
Creationism wants to pretend to be something that is derivable both from faith and from the types of evidence that scientists rely upon. Creationism wants very badly to claim both ways of believing fall under its umbrella.
religers don't believe, on all the levels, scientific evidence;
Creationists are quite willing to accept scientific evidence... as long as it agrees with what they want it to say. They want to claim that they have, or will find, scientific evidence that proves them right in scientific terms.
You can't boil the problem down to different viewpoints on different turf when one group is trying to claim it can cover all turf. Evolutionists aren't trying to deny the religiosity of creationism. Creationists are, however, trying to deny the scientific credentials of evolution.
and sciencites similarly don't believe the religious evidence. its not worth the effort to even try and convince the other side.
I'm not sure you can truly speak of religious "evidence".
Religious viewpoints tend to spring from the private and internal world of the individual. Some believers in some faiths will even go out of their way to say that faith is a matter of "grace" -- you get it or you don't by God's will. It's not found outside, it comes to you from within.
Evidence, and evidentiary processes, are, however, public in nature. Something that you can only know internally, and aren't empowered to share at will with someone else, like "revelation", does not have this public quality. As compelling to the individual as faith and revelation may prove to be, they aren't forms of "evidence" in any truly meaningful sense of the word.
As for "not worth the effort to even try", usually true, but I've seen occasional inroads made, although much more often in live, spoken conversations, not on message boards.
Also, the thing you're saying isn't worth the effort is a scientific person trying to change a religious viewpoint, or vice versa. The most important thing that's going on here is somewhat different, and that's people with scientific viewpoints arguing against people with religious viewpoints who are trying to tell the scientists what is and isn't science.
Originally posted by dmz
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
It's a question which demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. The whales didn't just hang around waiting for their baleen to develop. You can't compare a whale to Apple waiting for IBM to suppy them with 90nm 970 FX's. Whales are dynamic organisms living in an environment perpetually subject to change. Ancestral whales were still most likely eating what whales eat today -- most likely vertebrates and plankton. Mechanisms such as natural selection and character displacement allowed for baleen whales to better exploit krill as a resource.
A quick google search got these links pertaining to whale evolution and transitional fossils.
A Whale of a Fossil: ABC News
Transitional Vertebrates Fossils FAQ: Talk.Origins FAQ
....you have no other answers to offer than "it just developed", "it just evolved", "it just did". You have NO ideas on what sort of sustanable sytems could have existed between the systems we know of, and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
Again, you misunderstand evolutionary biology. What sort of ideas on "sustainable systems" did you have in mind? Evolution by natural selection gives us a framework for building a model for the development of complex nervous systems. I'm not a neurobiologist (nor am I a specialist in mammalian evolution -- the program I'm is grounded in ecology), but here are some links to help you out.
Talk.Origins: Nervous System Evolution Bibliography
Talk.Origins: Evolution of Colour Vision
Brain too complex to be evolved?
Originally posted by shetline
There is plenty in science that goes beyond what is directly observable. Observable data are primary sources, of course, but creating testable theories -- tests which may, by necessity, be quite indirect and removed from the theorized phenomena -- helps extend the reach of science beyond the directly observable.
As a scientist, you are wrong here. everything that science predicts is by its very nature observable (even directly), otherwise it isn't science. String theory isn't science because it makes no predictions of observable events, yet relativity is... etc etc...
Originally posted by billybobsky
As a scientist, you are wrong here. everything that science predicts is by its very nature observable (even directly), otherwise it isn't science. String theory isn't science because it makes no predictions of observable events, yet relativity is... etc etc...
I'm talking about "observable" in the sense that you should know many a creationist will play upon. You want me to believe a reptile can become a bird? Show me it happening! You've never seen it happen!
The data that support the link between birds and reptiles is of course directly observable. Concrete, real, physical evidence in the form of fossils, in the form of the DNA contained in the modern descendants of ancient creatures, etc.
But when you "see" that the data show a relationship between reptiles and birds, you are fitting data into a model and looking for consistency within that model, then determining what else should be true if that link is true, and going out and finding new data or re-examining old data to see if your predictions hold up, etc.
This isn't the same thing as watching millions of years of certified videotape showing the entire sequence of evolutionary events, nor is it the same as recreating a laboratory experiment where you turn a bunch of lizards into parrots. If you don't realize these impossible things are essentially what many creationists are talking about when they use the word "observe", and when they demand "observable" data, you'll entirely miss the place they're coming from.
PS: You sure do have a bug up your ass about string theory!
Originally posted by billybobsky
As a scientist, you are wrong here. everything that science predicts is by its very nature observable (even directly), otherwise it isn't science. String theory isn't science because it makes no predictions of observable events, yet relativity is... etc etc...
I think the point was that we can't always observe every thing yet we know certain particles theoretically exist. Take the not so lowely neutron for instance. In most instances we don't see neutrons--we infer their presence because of there interaction with other particles. We can detect the presence of a neutron when it interacts with B. We can say "A neutor interacted with B to produce a Li, and an alpha" but we never observed the neutron itself. The argument being made is that we can't always "see" but we can theorize and test our theories.
Leptons, how many have you seen? I've never seen one yet theoretically they certainly do exist. We have built chemistry and physics on their existance yet we can't "see" electrons, muons... We can only infer their presence. Millikan never saw an electron but he was able to infer a charge based on how an oil drop moved around in a capacitor.
The point is creationists hold a "I can't see evolution occuring thus it doesn't exist!" This show me attitude is their so they can debunk difficult concepts at face value. Well you can't see a lot of things but that doesn't reduce them to flights of fancy spewed by Feynmann and the like.
My 2 cents.
Originally posted by faust9
I think the point was that we can't always observe every thing yet we know certain particles theoretically exist. Take the not so lowely neutron for instance. In most instances we don't see neutrons--we infer their presence because of there interaction with other particles. We can detect the presence of a neutron when it interacts with B. We can say "A neutor interacted with B to produce a Li, and an alpha" but we never observed the neutron itself. The argument being made is that we can't always "see" but we can theorize and test our theories.
Leptons, how many have you seen? I've never seen one yet theoretically they certainly do exist. We have built chemistry and physics on their existance yet we can't "see" electrons, muons... We can only infer their presence. Millikan never saw an electron but he was able to infer a charge based on how an oil drop moved around in a capacitor.
The point is creationists hold a "I can't see evolution occuring thus it doesn't exist!" This show me attitude is their so they can debunk difficult concepts at face value. Well you can't see a lot of things but that doesn't reduce them to flights of fancy spewed by Feynmann and the like.
My 2 cents.
Not to belabor this point, but seeing and observing are often far different things...
point made however...
Originally posted by rampancy
It's a question which demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
Look, either the feeding systems developed at the exact same time, and in concert with all other dependent systems---or they didn't. The question is nearly rehtorical---and still unaswerable. If any of you were willing to be objective, you would realize your only real option is punctuated equilibrium. Ufortunatly PE is an even more far-fetched concept. Face it, you are out of ideas! Theorizing how many self directing ammino acids can dance on the head of a statistic is all you have got.
And shetline, if you retreat into another 5000-word dissertation on evolutionary doctrine, I'm going to barf on my trackball.
I gotta get out of here.
Originally posted by dmz
Look, either the feeding systems developed at the exact same time, and in concert with all other dependent systems---or they didn't. The question is nearly rehtorical---and still unaswerable. If any of you were willing to be objective, you would realize your only real option is punctuated equilibrium. Ufortunatly PE is an even more far-fetched concept. Face it, you are out of ideas! Theorizing how many self directing ammino acids can dance on the head of a statistic is all you have got.
And shetline, if you retreat into another 5000-word dissertation on evolutionary doctrine, I'm going to barf on my trackball.
I gotta get out of here.
What systems exactly are dependent solely on the baleen of a whale? Baleen whales can probably still be fed fish if their baleen has been removed, so what is your point? What creationist fail to understand is that there is a great deal of redundancy in all of our systems. The baleen is more or less only necessary if the whale can survive only on plankton. The thing is that as humans can live without teeth, albeit not well, so too can most animals that have teeth to begin with. THe same goes for the development of the eye etc etc etc. Redundancy is a definitive part of any working progessive model be it evolution or engineering...
Originally posted by billybobsky
What systems exactly are dependent solely on the baleen of a whale? Baleen whales can probably still be fed fish if their baleen has been removed, so what is your point? What creationist fail to understand is that there is a great deal of redundancy in all of our systems. The baleen is more or less only necessary if the whale can survive only on plankton. The thing is that as humans can live without teeth, albeit not well, so too can most animals that have teeth to begin with. THe same goes for the development of the eye etc etc etc. Redundancy is a definitive part of any working progessive model be it evolution or engineering...
Thanks for keeping this short and sweet. We wouldn't want dmz to soil his trackball.
Originally posted by dmz
I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.
A two to three minute google search taught me that infant baleen whales have teeth and fossils have shown that there were baleen whales with teeth.
So your theory is based not only on ignorance of the facts, but also your neglegence of informing your beliefs.
A two to three minute google search taught me that infant baleen whales have teeth and fossils have shown that there were baleen whales with teeth.
HA! so the whales were eating teeth!?! I think not!
Evolution is the suxxors.
And here's some Evolution caught in the act.
An experiment which forced E. coli bacteria to adapt or perish showed that, in a pinch, they were capable of improvising a novel molecular tool to save their skins....
...This big step also turns out to be a new way of making molecular bolts called disulfide bonds, which are of particular interest to the biotechnology industry. Disulfide bonds are stiffening struts in proteins that also help the proteins fold into their proper, functional, three-dimensional shapes.
In a paper published Feb. 20 in the journal Science, a joint research team at the University of Michigan and the University of Texas describes how a resourceful bacterium was able to develop an entirely new way to make disulfide bonds. This restarted its motor and enabled it to move toward food before it starved to death.
Observed Instances of Speciation
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)
Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:
"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."
Originally posted by DiscoCow
[B]While we're on the subject of whales, here's the remains of an atavistic hind limb chopped of a living whale (by whalers) in 1919.
DiscoCow,
whale legs, chicken teeth, horses toes, antibiotic resistance, psuedogenes, nipples on men, viable knockouts, orthologous functions, 98% genetic similarity between apes and man, identical codon use, vestigial stomata in underwater plants, panda's thumbs, plate tectonics and fossil divergence, horse fossils, etc... etc... etc...
The evidence is overwhelming, but you are still talking yourself blue in the face until dmz answers this one, simple question...
dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
Trust me, I've talked myself blue in the face before. This is the third time I've asked the question and I would wager I still will not get an answer.
Is anyone else interested in the answer before we continue?