Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University to this day. How has he abandoned science? The majority of his work has little to nothing to do with ID. That is an extra-curricular interest that came about directly as an inference from the work he does. But even though his opinion formed from his work doesn't mean that his immediate work entails ID.
yes he's a scientist when he produces things using the scientific method, but behe has never once produced anything having to do with ID, but he claims it's science? if its an hobby why does he claim its science or fact? why wouldn't he show it, if he believes its true?
Did I say that? I said nothing even remotely akin to that. What I said was is his explanation of how procryptic abilities could have evolved by chance by simply saying, "genetics," is not an answer.
i guess after all this time, percy thought you might have an understanding of how genetics works, including how procryptic abilities would come about
You're telling me that the mantis just so happened to procure this ability by a change in a single base or in a nucleotide or a whole sequence? That seems like a fantastic coincidence, wouldn't you agree?
eh? sorry but, please go read what the theory says for an understanding of how this happened, its pretty much how everything came about ie: mutations of genes found to be better through NS filtering
its not fantasic or a coincidence its NS at work, your own lack of seeming to not grasp the basic concepts not withstanding
That's a terrific hypothesis except that it can't be verified by anything. Aside from which, competing against each other isn't the issue. Its how such an ability can come about at all, that just so happened to look intentional. I think for face value even you could concede that it certainly appears intended. That doesn't mean that it necessarily was, but would you agree? And being that the Mantis isn't the only creature to employ such a marvelous feature makes the odds of lightening striking twice or thrice, or whatever, seem more than implausible, but closer to impossible.
so the fact that both birds and bats fly seem impossible to you? or birds losing flight? or pteridactals being able to fly?
the theory states that NS effects the organism by promoting traits that allow the animal to live and procreate, part of NS is competition
Of course I have. It just doesn't explain the more pressing questions
for someone who says they do it doesn't seem like it, these questions seem like the questions of someone who doesn't know much about it at all
I think the problem is that you know little about it, not me, which might explain your unflinching support of something so untenable. The vast preponderance of mutations are either neutral or detrimental. Even supposing that a beneficial mutation came along, we aren't talking about one mutation, we're talking about a slew of them that acts off of the premise of the first. Seriously, what are the odds that the mantis just so happened to look like a twig, or an octopus and chameleon that can blend in with its background, all from a series of mutations + natural selection?
you make it sound like god poofing stuff into existance, the fact is you ignore that the process took millions of years and the enviriment the creatures devoloped the abilities they have now doesn't exist anymore. its not like they started from point one with the ablity to change colors
your objection to mutation being a cause for the things we see is sad to say the least after all this time. sorry to point this out, but you don't seem to grasp the theory at all.
Now, I will certainly say that animals can adapt to their environment, within limitations. However, we should distinguish between variability and variation. The development of an organism, along relatively predictable pathways despite abnormality or injury, should be introduced as a variable that will either help or hinder the case of biological evolution. As well as this, we should consider developmental constraints, biological versatility, the effects both pro and con of a significant homeobox alteration, etc.
there is no difference its all the samething, only people trying to wiggle around and pick and choose what they accept change this.
what developmental constraints? the only constraints is the enviriment and what NS does to keep the animal from dying out.
as an example for instance i rememeber faith talking about parrots being brighter colors in captivity but not in the wild, and does that show more variation in captivity or in the wild? well let me ask you, if you live in a place that is mostly green leaves and trees and need to blend in would you be green or a blinding bright blue?
the way i see it, you are arguing from the conclution, we see lifeforms that can change color, they look designed, because they match the enviriment they need to, well if NS because of the enviriment demands green parrots would you see any blue ones around? there might be born some blue ones, but because of NS they die out from something, being eatten mostly
In other words, the applicable question is how extant species could acquire any new and improved contrivance solely by mutation and selection? Beyond that, the fact that the contrivances that make camouflage possible are so widespread that it would take numerous mutations occurring relatively simultaneously.
what? why would it need to happen at once? there are stable points in an enviriment, and things do get co-oped
for instance the chamilion changes colors not just for camoflage, but also for defense and mood changes, it has been co-oped
Of course, but you are assuming that such a feature could have developed in order to beat out its competitors.
this is the thing, mutation being random as we see it means, that they will be born with it and if its an advantage it will survive, if its not they won't, bigger horns on a deer, means the deer spreads the genes for bigger horns, this is just pure logic on both a mental level and a physical one
Are you telling me that an octopus is slow and cumbersome and needed some other defense/offense to evade from predators and to catch prey? Again, you're just making this up as you go. You have no way of knowing any of this. This is exactly what the ToE is based upon. Its based on the plausibility of something rather than anything of substance. They'll note that mutations happen and so does natural selection and by adding them together, voil, sympatric speciation.
this is all science, you arn't looking at how it works, just what we get from the conclusion. physics works just like this, a logical theory, that is backed up by evidence
this is how all theories work, they combine an explination for mechanics into a structure. i'm confused why you still don't understand this is how science theories work
ie:i prepose this;i test this; or find evidence or not of this; so its how it works until something can be shown to be otherwise
It would certainly seem to have to if evolution is true.
according to all the evidence it is
If we conducted some freaky Nazi-Germany experiments on dogs where we raised them in total darkness for their entire lives, for say, 10 generations, would their acuteness to darkness increase or would they eventually develop sonar or some derivative of that? Small adaptations can and do occur. I fully concur. And some animals are better suited to their environment. An Arctic fox is obviously going to fare better than a red fox in a snowy environment. Or when we look at the Great White shark, we can note that its underbelly is white so that anything underneath can't see it that well. When we look at the dorsal portion of the fish it is a darker color making it more difficult to see from below. Its predation instincts compel it to feed primarily from diving deep then driving itself forward to attack the prey. Was that design or selective pressures? I don't know. Perhaps a bit of both. But we are talking about monumental changes here with the other three organisms I listed. There is a vast difference.
not 10 generations, not even 100, think a lot more zeros, and try to think something less absurd, they would over a long time, gain acute senses of smell or hearing and overtime lose the ability to see.
just like blind-cave fish
the thing is the enviriment has to filter them, us making say odd shaped dogs is close, but it has to be a long time
There are limitations to how far any organism can adapt. If you think about it, there has to be. You can see such limitations with the advent of dog breeding. We all know that a pure breed carries less information than wild phenotype. Generalized, wild stock has a greater propensity than an isolated, specialized one. The greater the influence of this specialized sub-population becomes, the more it thins out the wilds with the most genetic variability because it swamps the mongrel stock with purebreds. The ability for variation is actually depleting with every successive generation, not becoming more suitable overall. We all know this intuitively, which is why such a high stress on mutations to save the day. The only problem is, they don't save anything-- they kill without impunity.
please show this, this just seems like you just don't want to accept the possiblity its not true
the reason dogs are like that is, people breed dogs with a small gene pool, brothers with sisters and fathers and daughters, its not the same thing
if say you had two groups that had well diverse genes this might work better
you just basically killed your own argument, a captive group will be less diverse than a wild one, theres no question of this
dogs make a terrible argument since we control the gene population and breed them too close togather for good genes
this is nothing like NS or how the ToE works.
Edited by ReverendDG, : posting at 3-4 in the morning is not advised
™ Version 4.2
