Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 10:43 PM
337 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes (4 members, 333 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 17/37 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 16 of 187 (810571)
05-30-2017 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
05-30-2017 9:49 PM


Nice attempt to move goal posts, palm the pea, con the rubes, misdirect attention, change the subject.

We are assessing the performance of GOD. Don't you think that the arrangement of the periodic table is pertinent and also intimately related to the way that reproduction works?

If there was some designer she designed a system that could only succeed by being inept, inefficient, ignorant, ill thought out, and with all the characteristics of an unplanned system that is just barely good enough to get by.

And yet get by it does.

Here you sit on this wee speck, a mote upon a mote, casting aspersions. You should be smart enough to know that you don't know enough to decide how smart you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 9:49 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:53 PM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 29 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:14 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:47 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 17 of 187 (810574)
05-30-2017 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-30-2017 6:45 PM


Wow, you would mock God....

We can also conclude that the designer really didn't know what would work and is not at all concerned about success rates or failure rates and is pretty much just learning on the job.

Im sorry but I have to give you a WARNING for that...

Galatians 6:7
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked:"

Proceed at your own risk...

Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 6:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2017 12:58 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:16 AM Davidjay has responded
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:49 AM Davidjay has responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 18 of 187 (810575)
05-30-2017 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2017 10:10 PM


Prototype, can I also give you a WARNING....

If there was some designer she designed a system that could only succeed by being inept, inefficient, ignorant, ill thought out, and with all the characteristics of an unplanned system that is just barely good enough to get by.

Calling the Lord inept, inefficient and ill thought out is mocking Gods creation and His?her Design.

For your sake I suggest you not proceed....

Your choice your responsibility.... no one gets away with mocking God for long...No one as in NO ONE.


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2017 10:10 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2017 11:01 PM Davidjay has responded
 Message 135 by Aussie, posted 10-23-2017 1:37 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 19 of 187 (810577)
05-30-2017 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:53 PM


If you opened your eyes you might see that it is not I who is calling the hypothetical creator inept.

You, on the other hand, are a complete fucking idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:53 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 11:44 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 20 of 187 (810587)
05-30-2017 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2017 11:01 PM


My apologies, Jar gets TWO WARNINGS
My apoligies, it seems the blue shading ... was you quoting Jar, and he already received his WARNING. So he would now have TWO WARNINGS rather than just one.

Thankfully Prototype, you need no warning, and will write appropriately even though your 'fucking idiot' comment was a little overboard.

Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2017 11:01 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 21 of 187 (810591)
05-31-2017 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Porosity
05-30-2017 8:53 PM


Extinction via evolution?
This topic seems to have gone off-topic at somewhere the vicinity of message 4, or is it part way through message 1? That said, I still reply.

Finding out what doesn't work is very nearly as important as finding out what does work. Some things work for a while and then they don't. Perhaps all of these failed life forms were merely stepping stones on the way to some ultimate objective. Perhaps the variety is the objective.

No.. Evolution is not an entity trying to find a path or what works. All that is required for an evolutionary direction, is for a group to survive and pass on their genes. The ones who do not reproduce are dead ends and populations that go extinct are the ultimate dead end. No objective, nothing to do with variety, not a stepping stone, just a dead end.

...populations that go extinct are the ultimate dead end.

It seems to me that a population can go extinct via evolution. They reproduced and evolved into a new species, or perhaps a vast chain of new species. The original species no longer exists (is extinct), but was not a dead end.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Porosity, posted 05-30-2017 8:53 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 12:46 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Porosity
Member
Posts: 156
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


(2)
Message 22 of 187 (810595)
05-31-2017 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2017 9:28 PM


I agree with you about that but I am talking about the potential objectives of some hypothetical designer.

It is fun to imagine some advanced alien infinitely regressing and tinkering with DNA, but seeing how this happens naturally in systems that are self replicating, invoking alien intervention unnecessarily inserts an unknown and unevidenced claim.

What catches my interest is the question of what we can infer about the designer from the design should either one exist.

Aside from navel gazing, a designer does not follow and is not be needed or make sense in the bio chemical systems we observe here on earth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2017 9:28 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2017 6:31 PM Porosity has responded

    
Porosity
Member
Posts: 156
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 23 of 187 (810596)
05-31-2017 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
05-31-2017 12:13 AM


Re: Extinction via evolution?
It seems to me that a population can go extinct via evolution. They reproduced and evolved into a new species, or perhaps a vast chain of new species. The original species no longer exists (is extinct), but was not a dead end.

Moose

That's why I said populations. Over 99% all species have gone extinct, we are the current survivors. There are many, many dead ends.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-31-2017 12:13 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2017 1:02 AM Porosity has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 24 of 187 (810597)
05-31-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:49 PM


Wow, you would mock God....

Sorry, but it is you who are mocking God. And making Him look like a "fucking idiot".

Why do you persist in such blatant blasphemy?


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Steven Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:49 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 25 of 187 (810598)
05-31-2017 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porosity
05-31-2017 12:46 AM


Re: Extinction via evolution?
In a seminal "punc-eq" article from 1980, it was pointed out that many species become over-specialized to a particular environment, so when that particular environment disappears, they go extinct. It is the more generalized species ranging over a variety of environments that continue to survive to then split off and specialize into particular environments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 12:46 AM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 1:34 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 26 of 187 (810600)
05-31-2017 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
05-30-2017 11:00 AM


In high school biology (circa 1967), the most confusing part was plant reproduction. I mean, just the ferns were so complicated. One stage produced spores which grew other ferns. Those ferns then reproduced sexually, producing ferns that reproduced using spores, etc. It was like a single species was using two different methods of reproduction.

Then we have other plants that also reproduce literally by cloning. "Clone" means "twig". Some plants (maybe many) can reproduce by planting a twig. And at the same time they can reproduce sexually through seeds. More than one method operating in parallel.

There are a number of invertebrate animals which can reproduce either sexually or by a form of cloning. For example, if you chop up some invertebrates, each piece will then grow into a different individual. As new methods of reproduction are being developed, older ones persist.

Even among vertebrates, we have non-sexual reproduction. Some vertebrates, mostly reptiles and fish, engage in parthenogenesis, "virgin birth." Basically, in the absence of a male to provide sexual reproduction, a female creates clones of herself. All female, of course. This plays a role in my "Jesus H. Christ" page (a serious investigation for the most part), where we must assess what a "virgin birth" must really mean biologically. As in what the gender of the product of parthenogenesis must be. And why the Church has seen fit to cover it up.

Bottom line: Biology is always messy, reproduction multiply so, and there is often more than one way to get the job done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 11:00 AM jar has not yet responded

    
Porosity
Member
Posts: 156
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 27 of 187 (810602)
05-31-2017 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by dwise1
05-31-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Extinction via evolution?
I understand there are environmental variables to selection, my point being that evolutionary processes are not guided by a genie, there is no linear progression, there is no end goal. There are many branches, bushing out to many dead ends, the goal it is to reproduce. There is no invisible genie guiding one species to branch off and fade a away while their distant cousins linage survives.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2017 1:02 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2017 1:55 AM Porosity has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 28 of 187 (810603)
05-31-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Porosity
05-31-2017 1:34 AM


Re: Extinction via evolution?
Yes, of course. If you become over-specialized in one particular environment, then your survival depends on that particular environment. If that one particular environment goes away and you (as a population, of course) are not able to adapt quickly enough, then you go away as well.

At the same time, species who are not as over-specialized and overly dependent on one particular environment are not as vulnerable to extinction. As a result, they would have more ability to persist longer.

No "invisible genie".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 1:34 AM Porosity has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 29 of 187 (810612)
05-31-2017 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2017 10:10 PM


PT writes:

We are assessing the performance of GOD. Don't you think that the arrangement of the periodic table is pertinent and also intimately related to the way that reproduction works?

As I said, classic fail.

We are discussing God only from the evidence in the variety and effectiveness of reproduction methods over time. The Periodic Table is a creation of man, not God nor is the Periodic Table related to the subject in any way.

PT writes:

And yet get by it does.

Here you sit on this wee speck, a mote upon a mote, casting aspersions. You should be smart enough to know that you don't know enough to decide how smart you are.

Yet another classic fail. We are not discussing how smart I am but rather the topic of the various reproduction methods over time. If you wish to imagine some designer then we can only judge that designer based on the evidence at hand.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2017 10:10 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2017 6:41 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 30 of 187 (810613)
05-31-2017 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:49 PM


Yawn. Sorry but the God you market is worthy of nothing but mockery.

And if you are going to intrude into this thread understand a few basics.

Galatians is irrelevant.

The Bible is irrelevant.

This is a Science based thread not a fantasy based thread.

You have been warned.

Proceed at your own risk.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:49 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Davidjay, posted 05-31-2017 10:39 AM jar has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017