Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8161 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2014 9:55 AM
67 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NAME OF THE ROSE
Post Volume:
Total: 741,765 Year: 27,606/28,606 Month: 2,663/2,244 Week: 67/710 Day: 10/57 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   The power of accumulation in evolution is common sense!
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 31 of 53 (542241)
01-08-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Sky-Writing
01-08-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Bunched up Panties
Coragyps writes:

You are Making Shit Up, Sky. Post a link to this "plausible public theory" or shut up.

Don't get your panties all in a bunch if somebody disagrees
with your specific point of view.
Do your own research.
Draw your own conclusions from the data.
Everybody else is doing it.

"The modern Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon in the last few million years," Dr. Elston said. "The canyon was already there."

You are making the claim, therefore it is you who have to show the evidence not us, having to go on a "wild goose chase ."


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 12:15 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 32 of 53 (542243)
01-08-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Sky-Writing
01-08-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Bunched up Panties
You do know what quote mining is, don't you? You don't really think that Dr. Elston supports your opinion, do you? Let's see what his hypothesis is:

Dr. Elston writes:

When dinosaurs roamed the earth, the southwestern landscape was about 1,000 feet above sea level and very wet, Dr. Elston explained.

Then the region experienced three periods of uplift followed by erosion. In the first uplift, about 100 million years ago, mountains grew across northern and central Arizona and later eroded so that a blanket of gravel a few hundred feet thick poured out to the north. These older gravels can be found today on both sides of the Grand Canyon, he said.

A second uplift occurred 60 million to 75 million years ago, producing huge rivers that eventually flowed to the west and collected in enormous inland lakes. It was during this period that the Grand Canyon was carved out, Dr. Elston said. Then the uplift ceased, erosion continued and this early Grand Canyon filled up completely with gravel.

A third uplift took place five million years ago to form the Rocky Mountains and again changed regional drainage patterns, Dr. Elston said. The land in the north rose while the southwest, relatively speaking, fell.

As a result, streams began flowing westward down from the Rockies, and found the earlier drainage channel. As they flowed down the old channel, they removed all the gravel and essentially scoured out the Grand Canyon.

"The modern Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon in the last few million years," Dr. Elston said. "The canyon was already there."

source

or have you changed your mind to only be asserting that the colorado river didn't create the canyon?

{ABE} Another nice bit from that article you might like:

This theory held sway for more than 50 years, Dr. Young said, but today it has few adherents because too many pieces of the puzzle do not fit. For example, as mentioned, a major part of the riverbed shows strong evidence of being younger than the Kaibab Upwarp.

One holdout for the old river explanation is Dr. Don Elston, a retired geologist with the United States Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Ariz., who has been working on canyon formation theories since the mid-1950's.

So, who is this majority that thinks this?

{ABE number 2} Man, this gets better and better:

(fromt he same article)

"I've attempted to solve the problem using stratigraphy and climate data from all over the Colorado Plateau," Dr. Elston said in an interview. "Some people call it geofiction, but I think I'm right."

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 12:15 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
DavidOH
Junior Member (Idle past 952 days)
Posts: 11
From: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Joined: 09-12-2008


Message 33 of 53 (542246)
01-08-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Sky-Writing
01-07-2010 11:48 PM


Little Tangent
I am interested in the comparison between the Grand Canyon & the Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River. Is there an existing topic on the similarities & differences?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 11:48 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Iblis, posted 01-08-2010 1:39 PM DavidOH has not yet responded

caffeine
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 872
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 34 of 53 (542248)
01-08-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Sky-Writing
01-08-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Bunched up Panties
"The modern Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon in the last few million years," Dr. Elston said. "The canyon was already there."

This is an odd thing to quote in support of the view that the Grand Canyon was carved in a few weeks. Out of context, it's difficult to tell what this Dr. Elston was talking about. In context, it has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon being carved in a few weeks.

The quote comes from this article on a website offering Grand Canyon tours, who say it's originally from the NYT. Elston is quoted as defending the traditional view that the canyon was carved out slowly between 60 to 75 million years ago; against more popular modern hypotheses that believe it all happened within the last 5 million years.

Of the various geologists quoted in the article, none advances a view at all resembling the idea that the canyon was carved in months, though it does mention that some support the idea of "a catastrophic flood that carved the Grand Canyon very quickly, within a couple million years" (emphasis added).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 12:15 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 13355
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 35 of 53 (542253)
01-08-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Sky-Writing
01-08-2010 11:02 AM


Hi -Sky-,

You seem to be missing the point. The Grand Canyon and Mt. Saint Helens are valid topics in this thread only to the extent that they touch on this thread's topic, which is how small changes can over time create large effects. This is what happens in geology, and this is what happens in evolution.

It's not really relevant to the topic that you don't believe the Grand Canyon formed gradually. If the Grand Canyon is not a good example for you of small changes accumulating over time then there are many other examples we can supply to make clear the way evolution works. But you did make a couple errors that are worth correcting just for purposes of creating an accurate record in this thread.

3/4 of the earth surface is sedimentary layers. (water born)
And fossils only exist when buried rapidly by sediment.

You can't have the flood both deposit and erode the same sedimentary layers, and as mentioned earlier, a flood cannot carve canyons in the landscape it covers. That takes the focused flow of a river.

You're not up to speed. The most plausible public theory is that a plate uplift gave way and an inland sea to burst through and cut the canyon in months. But I enjoy defending "mainstream science" when they already agree with biblical concepts.

...

"The modern Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon in the last few million years," Dr. Elston said. "The canyon was already there."

Dr. Elston believes the Grand Canyon is even older, millions and millions of years older, than mainstream geology, and that it was formed by rivers even more ancient than the Colorado, not by a global flood a mere 4500 years ago. You're citing in support of your position someone who disagrees with you even more than mainstream geology.

Your many short posts and frequent errors indicate that you're not taking sufficient time and care.

Do your own research.

At EvC Forum you're expected to support your position yourself, not ask those who disagree with you to do it for you. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 11:02 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 36 of 53 (542263)
01-08-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by DavidOH
01-08-2010 12:38 PM


Re: Little Tangent
I am interested in the comparison between the Grand Canyon & the Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River.

Me too. I'm not finding a place on the site where it's been discussed in detail though.

Here are a couple of links

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html
http://www.icr.org/article/mt-st-helens-catastrophism/

If you want to fish for people to discuss it with you, I suggest A question about "Great Flood" geology.

The main point for this topic, as Coyote demonstrated, is that both are cases of gradualism. The much smaller scale in size and density at Mt. St. Helen's simply leads to a much smaller timescale in proportion. Message 28


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DavidOH, posted 01-08-2010 12:38 PM DavidOH has not yet responded

Taz
Member
Posts: 5064
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 37 of 53 (542265)
01-08-2010 1:58 PM


And here I was thinking this topic was a dead end. I kept wondering why it was a dead end since the power of accumulation keeps popping up in practically every debate on this forum.

Anyway, I was actually hoping more prominent creationists would join in the debate. Wasn't really expecting a troll to resurrect the thread.

PS I know nothing about geology or the grand canyon. You guys have fun with it.


Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 1413 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


(1)
Message 38 of 53 (542282)
01-08-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
10-20-2009 5:30 PM


On another note
Taz

Your OP got me thinking about another aspect of gradual accumulation you mentioned.

The creationist would argue that something like the eye would have required all the necessary components to assemble at the same time in order for the eye to exist. Both cases show a gross ignorance of the power of accumulation.

This, of course, refers to the popular "irreducible complexity" argument of which we're all so fond. Anyway, this example has perhaps been used before, but your examples of John Doe got me thinking of our current society as an example of something that has gradually accumulated, yet exhibits some aspects of being irreducibly complex.

Por ejemplo, just 20 years ago, it was difficult to find anyone that had their own email address. Yet now, if you could some how shut down the entire internet without affecting other aspects of society, things would get chaotic pretty damn quickly. The internet has become something that is necessary for the stability of our economy (not that it's very stable right now) and our society in general. But, just because it is necessary now, doesn't mean it was always so.

The power of gradual accumulation is not just that massive changes can occur over a series of many small steps (grand canyon, walking across the country) but that as changes accumulate it can change the very nature of the system so that removing an accumulated trait does not simply revert it to what it was before.


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 10-20-2009 5:30 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 01-08-2010 7:04 PM Stagamancer has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 39 of 53 (542303)
01-08-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Sky-Writing
01-08-2010 11:09 AM


Re: Miniature Grand Canyon recreated in days
-Sky- writes:

My point exactly.


Your point was that the Grand Canyon and the area around Mount St. Helens are actually nothing alike?

Yet the erosion patterns are identical.

No, they're not. And even if they were, like stated, Grand canyon is solid rock, Mt. St. helens is soft ash.

So one can't use the Grand Canyon as an example of millions of years of erosion, if the same feat can be accomplished in days.

But it's not the same, you said as much. It's soft ash, not solid rock. You're not going to tell me you think soft ash has the same hardness, and erodes just as easily as solid rock does, do you?

Similarly, one can't claim crude oil as an example of millions of years of sediments, if the same result can be accomplished in weeks with a load of garbage slop.

You get crude oil from your garbage slop? Mind if I ask for evidence on that? Oh, and by the way, if this were actually true, we wouldn't really be having an oilproblem like we do.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 11:09 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member
Posts: 5064
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 53 (542317)
01-08-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Stagamancer
01-08-2010 3:57 PM


Re: On another note
Stagamancer writes:

This, of course, refers to the popular "irreducible complexity" argument of which we're all so fond. Anyway, this example has perhaps been used before, but your examples of John Doe got me thinking of our current society as an example of something that has gradually accumulated, yet exhibits some aspects of being irreducibly complex.


I'm getting the impression that you've misunderstood what irreducibly complex is.

The idea of irreducibly complex is that something can't function at all if a even a single part of it is removed. The problem with this idea is that IDists don't even consider all the possible alternative functions the thing can have after a part is removed. A mouse trap, after the pin is removed, could serve as a perfectly good tie holder. An internet-dependent economy/society will continue to exist in another form if the internet is removed. It will turn into a barter economy or something, who knows...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Stagamancer, posted 01-08-2010 3:57 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Stagamancer, posted 01-09-2010 4:21 PM Taz has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16125
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 41 of 53 (542323)
01-08-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coragyps
01-08-2010 11:54 AM


another Hovind Hoax and incomplete comparison
Hi Coragyps,

The most plausible public theory is that a plate uplift gave way and an inland sea to burst through and cut the canyon in months.

You are Making Shit Up, Sky. Post a link to this "plausible public theory" or shut up.

This is a little mixed up, as uplift raised the ridge cut by the canyon, but the "inland sea burst" is one of Hovind's hoaxes. The problem with it is that the supposed burst point is near a hill-top, on the side of a slope, and there are several lower points north and south of the canyone that show absolutely no erosion on either side, a point that Hovind (being the fraud that he is) fails to mention. He also crops the pictures he shows to remove this evidence from view.


(From Google Maps)

Dark areas are higher than light areas. "A" is where the Grand Canyon crosses the uplift ridge

Google Hovind Grand Canyon

If you are interested, I can try to dig up an old post on another forum on this, but it may take a while (herballure forum run by Russ ... if it hasn't been deleted after I was banned for exposing such lies). Found them:

A couple of my posts on the Grand Canyon there:
Post37849
Post38129

From what I can see, the ash erosion patterns at Mt St Helens fails to explain how the spires and ridges perpendicular to the river formed in the Grand Canyon (nor does it mimic the effects of wind and ice erosion in the older strata, or several other features) -- it only mimics some of the most rudimentary erosion patterns seen in the canyon, not all. To show this is the case, one would have to show mile by mile how the features of the Grand Canyon were replicated at Mt St Helens.

The formations at Mt St Helens generally show single level broad U shaped valleys with vertical sides and one set of rubble slopes at the bottom.

What we see is closer to what is seen in the Channeled Scab-lands:

wikipedia article (with one picture)
article by a geologist (with several pictures and some maps)
Channeled Scablands Overview (with many good pictures of different locations along the path and some maps).

There are several pictures on the last site that match the pictures of Mt St Helens better than the Grand Canyon does. Of course that could be because the mechanism that formed them was the same, while the mechanism that formed the Grand Canyon was actually quite different. In neither case are there any formations that look like:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/photos/

quote:



Note the spires and perpendicular formations, and also where the erosion has occurred in several stages with multiple soft and hard layers unlike any of the formations at Mt St Helens.

Then there is Horseshow Bend, also part of the Grand Canyon:

Slow flowing rivers in flat land create meanders, burst dam outflows do not.

Of course creationists are not fond of complete evidence, it's too inconvenient.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : links, additional info

Edited by RAZD, : link to google maps & citation


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 01-08-2010 11:54 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16125
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 42 of 53 (542325)
01-08-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Sky-Writing
01-08-2010 10:40 AM


Re: Miniature Grand Canyon recreated in days
Hi -Sky- welcome to the fray, if I've not replied to you before.

Just Google-Map "Mt St Helens, Gifford Pinchot, Skamania, Washington" You will see the exact same erosion patterns in fresh ash as in "slowly layered sediment". Zoom in till 1 inch = 1 mile.


View Larger Map

This is at 1"=2 miles. I don't see a single feature that looks like this:


(From Google Maps)

Mt St Helens show fairly linear erosion in the ash flows, similar to what is seen in the Channeled Scablands. Only when you zoom out, to the point where areas not affected by the ash, do you see the underlying ridges and canyons formed by erosion in a pattern similar to what is seen in the Grand Canyon, however these areas were not formed in weeks by erosion through ash deposits.

Instead of the linear patterns at Mt St Helens, the Grand Canyon shows many side canyons, each with their own side canyons in a branching format. Many of these side canyons are lower at their beginning than the rim of the main canyon is where they join the main canyon. This is explained by slow continuous erosion during geological ages as the ridges are uplifted in a geological process that is still going on (and can be measured). This is not explained by rapid outflow from some burst dam.

Whether it is evolutionary forms or geological forms, the slow accumulation of small effects add up over time to much larger effects, sometimes arriving at an end result that seems (at first glance) impossible to form by natural processes (water flows uphill?). Only by understanding all the evidence can one come to an understanding of how these seemingly impossible features can actually be formed by the known natural mechanisms.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : topic

Edited by RAZD, : more

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 10:40 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3578
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 43 of 53 (542326)
01-08-2010 9:40 PM


Topic has vague core theme - Going to close down soon - Please, summary messages only
This topic's beginning is such that most anything could be considered to be at least vaguely on-topic. I think we need to direct the various sub-themes to be in more specific topics, be they existing or new proposals.

Plan of the moment - Close this topic down sometime in the next 24 hours.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2
Thread Reopen Requests 2
Topic Proposal Issues

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150


Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-10-2010 3:58 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13355
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 44 of 53 (542345)
01-09-2010 6:46 AM


Summation
This topic evolved into one that could have been called The Present is the Key to the Past. The same processes we see taking place today, such as erosion and the slow accumulation of sediments in oceans, lakes and river mouths, are the same ones that shaped our planet in the past. And of course there are also rapid processes, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and asteroid strikes, though these are inconstant and unpredictable.

In this way evolution is analogous to geology. For the most part evolution is the accumulation over time of tiny changes, though occasional larger changes like gene or chromosome duplication can also occur. There's even the equivalent of asteroid strikes when a segment of virus DNA becomes inserted in an organism's own DNA.

All these processes, both geological and evolutionary, leave evidence behind. Things that actually happened in the past leaves traces of the fact that they actually happened.

--Percy


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16125
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 45 of 53 (542363)
01-09-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by slevesque
10-21-2009 12:41 AM


the law of accumulation of characteristics over time
Hi Slevesque,

Moose has threatened to close the topic due to drift, so I thought I would go back to the beginning and see what it says.

I don't considered my comments were insignificant, principally because if your post gave me that impression (that everything comes about through accumulation), than it probably gace the same impression to others. And so the clarification was needed.

Can you think of anything that has not been made or modified by an accumulation of characteristics\traits\features?

Maybe I'm a little brain lazy this saturday morning, but I can't think of any.

In any case, I still consider your claim to be a strawman.

But what is it a straw man of? I find many people make this claim when they don't like an argument, but they never show why it is a straw man -- what is the more complex issue that has been simplified, and what is thereby being refuted?

Straw Man

quote:
Definition:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Here Taz is proposing that accumulation is almost universally apparent around us, that the effects of accumulation can be seen in virtually everything we observe, do, use, interact with.

You are a product of accumulation, most recently having just accumulated the reading of this post.

What is your stronger argument?

You use the term 'creationist' in a very englobing manner, as if they all didn't understand acumulation.

I agree that portraying creationists as 'those people' is not very ennobling.

Let's just say 'people who don't understand evolution'.

I would be very surprised if even 1% of creationist would bring up the sort of reasoning you assigned to them (the rats example, etc.)

Curiously, I have heard this argument several times from people who don't understand evolution - it is one of the common arguments they make regarding macroevolution, the "hopeful monster" argument. To paraphrase Taz:

The (people who don't understand evolution) would argue that the first (hopeful monster) must have evolved into the (hopeful monster) miraculously at the same time as another creature evolved into the (hopeful monster) in order for them to reproduce more (hopeful monster)s. Another specific example along this line is the rise of specific structures like the eye and the wing. The (people who don't understand evolution) would argue that something like the eye would have required all the necessary components to assemble at the same time in order for the eye to exist. Both cases show a gross ignorance of the power of accumulation.

The eye example is a well known PRATT (Claim CB921.1: What use is half an eye?), so citing this as an example is based on evidence of many typical arguments put forth by people who don't understand evolution.

Would you agree that the features of the mammalian eye can be explained by an accumulation of characteristics\traits\features?

We can also look at explaining the development of the octopus eye by an accumulation of characteristics\traits\features to the point that it seems to be similar to the mammalian eye, except for a couple of distinct differences:

  • the nerves are on the back side of the octopus eye and on the front side of the mammalian eye.
  • the eye is focused by changing the length of the octopus eye to move the retina to the focal point of the fixed lens, and by changing the focal length of the lens to focus on the fixed retina in the mammalian eye.

Accumulation of characteristics over time explains these differences.

I would say that the accumulation of characteristics over time is so universal that we can regard it as a natural law.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 10-21-2009 12:41 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Taz, posted 01-09-2010 1:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 01-09-2010 2:16 PM RAZD has responded

Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014