Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 11:35 AM
39 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (5 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,526 Year: 3,563/19,786 Month: 558/1,087 Week: 148/212 Day: 15/49 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   The egg came first
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 11 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 61 of 111 (243469)
09-14-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
09-14-2005 6:49 PM


quote:
"He makes his tail stiff like a cedar."

That's a euphemism for "penis".


Interestingly, the New International Version, the contemporary English translation favored by most evangelicals, list "trunk" as an alternate translation. So, even evangelicals admit that the passage may not be referring to a "tail".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 6:49 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 111 (243476)
09-14-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John
08-24-2005 8:36 PM


Re: Et al
I received notification that someone replied to one of my posts and decided to jump back in.

You, John, said a non chicken could not give rise to a chick. An animal cannot give birth to an animal of another species.

I say it can. The fact that a mule and liger are not fertile does not prove me false. The basic fact is that an animal can indeed give birth to another species.

Next, on what grounds to you say that? You say it, but you do not have evidence to support your position. I say it can, that is what evolution is all about, changes in inheritable characteristics.

Do you reject the concept of man and primate sharing a common ancestor? At some point, maybe many points, the offspring was indeed different from the parent. Small differences, over time, add up to large differences.

And to respond to other replies in general, a line that is arbitrary is not invalid because it is arbitrary. Often, it matters not that the dividing line is arbitrary. I claim this to be one of those times.

In a true sense, the chicken and egg both evolved together. However, recall my original concept. The change comes when the egg and sperm combined and the genetic traits for the descendant are set. The egg is different from the parent in that it contains traits not posessed by the parent. That is the true definition of evolution, the decendant differs genetically. No matter how small the difference, the egg was entitled to the moniker "chicken" before a grown chicken was.

Let’s throw this into the mix. Suppose a chicken is infected with a virus. Viruses enter the cells and can alter the DNA, sometimes the cell produces more viruses and dies, and sometimes it lives, but changed. Maybe a virus infected an egg cell, or a sperm cell, and altered the genetic content. Not much, but just enough to be different. When that egg or sperm combined with its new partner, a new species is born. Remember, there are millions of years for this to occur, and it only needs to be successful once.

The egg came first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John, posted 08-24-2005 8:36 PM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 7:12 PM bkelly has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 111 (243477)
09-14-2005 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by bkelly
09-14-2005 7:08 PM


Re: Et al
But aren't you kind of arguing from a position of species essentialism? If a species is a reproductive community, or a community between whose members there is significant gene flow, then it's hard to understand how an offspring can be in a different reproductive community from it's parents - the gene flow between parent and child should be obvious.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bkelly, posted 09-14-2005 7:08 PM bkelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by bkelly, posted 09-15-2005 8:49 PM crashfrog has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 64 of 111 (243504)
09-14-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by igor_the_hero
09-13-2005 10:54 PM


Re: Evolution 101 - remedial classes needed
igor_the_hero writes:

Hmmm....so teaching a young mind is too good for you? First, I said I was sorry if it seemed rude.

Teaching a young mind that is open to ideas and asks questions is one thing, to respond to one that asserts several PRATTs as facts is not.

PRATTs are Points Refuted A Thousand Times

I didn't say you were rude, I said you were ignorant, and qualified that as one who doesn't have the knowledge and not one ill equiped to process the knowledge when it is pursued.

But if you cannot teach someone who is curious then maybe evolution should not be researched.

For one, demonstrate that you are truly curious and not trying to base all your arguments on pseudoscientific creationist propoganda, for two, that has nothing to do with what good science teachers in good science classes should teach. This is a {logical fallacy argument}, and you better become familiar with this expression because it is common problem with non-scientific thinking.

As for knowing the theory, I have researched it. From all points of few. I have read Scientific Creationism and Origin Of The Species.

Wow. Now read and research evolution. I suggest you start with something simple like the wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Another common fallacy of creationist propoganda is that Darwin is central to the science. In point of fact he was one of several people that were coming to a common understanding due to the weight of evidence before their eyes -- eyes that were looking with an open mind. Several theories in Darwin's book have been invalidated by later work. Reading the book is not studying the science.

And judging from your posts you have not begun to study the science of evolution "From all points of few" or you would have known that you made several really ignorant blunders.

but are you aware that evolution is as much a religion as creationism?

This is not the comment of an open mind but one that has only looked at creationist propoganda. It is another logical fallacy compounded by ignorance. Like I said you need to learn the difference.

Creationism actually has a better concept of scientific laws than evolution.

Show me one falsifiable validation test for creationism. ONE (1).

Until you have that you do not have a science, no matter what assertions to the contrary you or other make.

Now, I'm sorry if what I said earlier seemed harsh, but in point of fact you need to discard everything you think you have learned about evolution -- pro and con -- and start over from scratch.

Richard Dawkins has a(n in)famous quote where he says "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He later goes on to qualify it by saying "I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed." I call this fifth state deluded.

The whole article is Ignorance Is No Crime (click), and I recommend you read it. Personally I find Dawkins to be a little over the top with his "anti-theism" and that he has made some logically invalid claims from that perspective, but the point is that evolution is not that hard a science to understand, if you have -- truly have -- an open mind.

Read the wikipedia article. If you find yourself shaking your head and saying "that's not right" then ask yourself {why} do you think that? {what} is the actual evidence you have? {where} can you go to find unbiased answers? {how} can you validate the evidence? {who} can you ask to help?

Now go and learn some correct basics, rather than stumble around with incorrect information.

And when you return, ask one question at a time instead of trying to show off your ignorance in as many {forum\threads} as you can find.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by igor_the_hero, posted 09-13-2005 10:54 PM igor_the_hero has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 568 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 65 of 111 (243643)
09-15-2005 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by igor_the_hero
09-13-2005 10:54 PM


Re: Evolution 101
The problem here is not that you are being rude or that you are unteachable.

The problem has nothing to do with you as an individual.

We've just been burned too many times before.

If you have honest questions and are willing to approach the answers with an open mind, hurray!

But, too often we run into the exact same arguments, usually a version of one of the following -

"Your evidence is not real, and despite the fact that I know nothing about that field (genetics, geology, particle physics, etc) I discount your data out of hand."

"Nothing you tell me will overcome my devotion to what I hold to be true (Bible, Koran, Etc)"

"Though you have provided me with logical examples which demonstrate exactly what I'm asking, I still discount your evidence by simply restating my possition unchanged".

If you can avoid those three statements, you'll find a lot of information and helpful teachers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by igor_the_hero, posted 09-13-2005 10:54 PM igor_the_hero has not yet responded

    
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 111 (243943)
09-15-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
09-14-2005 7:12 PM


Re: Et al
quote:
But aren't you kind of arguing from a position of species essentialism? If a species is a reproductive community, or a community between whose members there is significant gene flow, then it's hard to understand how an offspring can be in a different reproductive community from it's parents - the gene flow between parent and child should be obvious.

I am not understanding what your are trying to tell me. First, do you disagree with my conclusion, the egg came first?

Second,

quote:
it's hard to understand how an offspring can be in a different reproductive community from it's parents

If a species gradually evolves through a large number of generations, the each offspring will be in the same reproductive community. But each will be different. (For the sake of discussion, assume grandual and even and continuous advancement of characteristics) At some point we come to the arbitrary line where the parent is not a chicken and the offspring is. The is not and is are in the same community, but at the same time, that fine line gets crossed and we have a chicken.

Am I addressing you positon or have I missunderstood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 7:12 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 7:55 AM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2005 10:18 AM bkelly has responded
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2005 10:28 AM bkelly has responded

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 111 (244078)
09-16-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by bkelly
09-15-2005 8:49 PM


Re: Et al
At some point we come to the arbitrary line where the parent is not a chicken and the offspring is.

I'd say that succinctly sums up the difficulty that lies at the heart of this entire discussion. It is a fine example of what Dawkins referred to as: "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bkelly, posted 09-15-2005 8:49 PM bkelly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 7:58 AM Cal has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 111 (244080)
09-16-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cal
09-16-2005 7:55 AM


Reference please.
If you would be kind so much a kind to kindly return a hint about where Dawkins said t of "discontinuous mind". Pretty please with sugar on top.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 7:55 AM Cal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2005 8:08 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 69 of 111 (244085)
09-16-2005 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
09-16-2005 7:58 AM


Tyranny
He said it in 'The Ancestor's Tale'

Read more here


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 7:58 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 8:42 AM Modulous has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 70 of 111 (244098)
09-16-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
09-16-2005 8:08 AM


Re: Tyranny
Thank you. God Bless.Ohhhh, RD is speaking "Against" this tyranny??

If that is so, I do not understand at all what Parasomonium has been writing about on EVC!!

Since I know salamanders so well, my guess is that the inverts THE NAME 'salamander' for it's tail ontogentically. The issue with the word "salamander" is that the "white-headed" salamander name HAS NEVER been brought forward from Bishops original discription in South Carolina but instead every one is talking about salamander colors and tails etc.

So if One talks about what came first the salamander or the frog or the apodian then I guess I might be able to contribute to this thread unless it is actually about an "egg" then it really is the bird/reptile transition at which this discussion really works (for any given mammal).

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2005 08:51 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2005 8:08 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2005 10:22 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 71 of 111 (244115)
09-16-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Brad McFall
09-16-2005 8:42 AM


Parasomnium?
What has Parasomnium written so prolifically about with regards to the mind and its discontinuity?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 8:42 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 12:03 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 111 (244143)
09-16-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Modulous
09-16-2005 10:22 AM


Re: Parasomnium?
Today's post about time from Para seems like a repeat of
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=83&m=42#41 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=83&m=42#41">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=83&m=42#41
about space.

Before that, I had some interaction over memes with Para long after our first real encounter years ago.

I had thought intially that Dawkins'must have been saying that the "discontinuous" mind is part and parcel of memetic change and perhaps there is still another layer of discourse for me to realize but given that Ben recently called (my) mind "discontinuous" and I am starting to actually *think* boolean wise, while doing some JAVA programs, I no longer understand what Parasomnium MEANS when writing clear questions. I suppose there are not prolific "answers" from Para but I would need to search and see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2005 10:22 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 1:17 PM Brad McFall has responded
 Message 74 by robinrohan, posted 09-16-2005 1:35 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 111 (244157)
09-16-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Brad McFall
09-16-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Parasomnium?
I have to say that I share an observation I've seen made by some others here: that your posts tend to offer interesting parsing challenges. My initial intuitive impression (after viewing an admittedly limited number of them) is that your often cryptic contributions do not bear the signature of the deliberate obscurantist; the author of what I like to call: "excrementitious polysyllabic terminological esoterica". Rather, I get the impression that I am seeing ideas supported by broad grasp of facts and depth of thought, but which have not been fully expanded after having been transmitted, in compressed form, through a narrow channel. I look forward to seeing this tentative hypothesis fail to be falsified.

I had thought intially that Dawkins'must have been saying that the "discontinuous" mind is part and parcel of memetic change

I don't think so. I can quote Dawkins, but I certainly can't presume to speak for him; having aired that disclaimer: I'm willing to venture that he was referring to something that runs deeper than that; something that emerges as an artifact of the most essential of 'meme substrates': the architecture of the human brain, at the lowest levels of organizational structure.

I no longer understand what Parasomnium MEANS when writing clear questions.

I predict that we might be able to engage in stimulating dialogue on the nature of meaning and the extent to which it is a property which resides with sender versus reciever... but I doubt if this particular thread is the appropriate place.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 12:03 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 3:55 PM Cal has responded
 Message 76 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 4:02 PM Cal has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 111 (244160)
09-16-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Brad McFall
09-16-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Parasomnium?
I no longer understand what Parasomnium MEANS when writing clear questions

You're quite right, Brad. Parasomnium can be very obscure, especially when compared to your crisp and lucid posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 12:03 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 75 of 111 (244194)
09-16-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Cal
09-16-2005 1:17 PM


Re: Parasomnium?
This is unlikely.

There *Can noT* be anythiing deeper scientifically. If science does THEN change, it will only be because the concerns of creationists, as just represented on NPR science friday, evolution, social problems, just BECOME SCIENCE. This is Johnson's view. I dont hold that. Dawkins will be arguing with him and not me in the future etc.

My own ideas are not "precedent setting". I have no ideas about LEGAL THEORIES. I am only interested in theoretical biology and its truth. The idea that one can not change a few words and make a teaching constitutional is just wrong. One can. If indeed the "new argument" is going to be (no legit controversy, no necessary conflict) it is not hard to see how the verse can be made both in conflict with the power extended law sufficency as well as the nessissty that currenly lacks due to foucs not on life on Earth or its origins. What I am suggesting, myself, only relates the community of no legit conflict BECAUSE of thought on primative RNA life. The reason I object is because the there is a much larger ranger for vital forces if one is not thinking that RNA and natural selection are absolute. Will Provine did not consider the full effect of "external variables" in his own thought. Discovery of life off Earth can change anything as to A NECESSARY CONFLICT if one writes up the new curriculum from Kripke's point of view. I have always refused to try to do this because one ends up with a conflict of life based on any kind of elements and there through the idea of infinity would already exist.

NPR's view is dependent on the legitamcay being to NOT include infinity in the theory. That by my view is absurd. Thus it can not get material deeper on my view unless the science already moved to where NPR represented it is not.

If you really think you can engage me in another thread go ahead but I will be relating it to THIS PARTICULAR question as to which came first the egg or the adult. THAT IS THE QUESTION. The parents only stray from the line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 1:17 PM Cal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 5:56 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019