|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1690 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wombat Pouch | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why has nature not produced this? Why hasn't the Intelligent Designer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Why has nature not produced this?
Why hasn't the Intelligent Designer? Depends on whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist. I have left the question open for all to answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The answer to that question is really simple; it just hasn't happened yet.
There is no plan, no goal, no direction to evolution since we got past the very first simplest life forms. What we see in nature and all living critters is "just goodnuff to get by".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Depends on whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist. I have left the question open for all to answer. Mmhmm, riiight. Its not just an honest question. You're acting as if that question should cast doubt onto the theory of evolution. What it casts doubt on, is that trying to provide you with an answer wouldn't be a waste of time. Do you understand anything about evolution? The fact that you asked that question suggests that you don't know much. The answer can range from about 10 words to about 10,000 words. Open questions to all aren't really good ways to spark discussion. We need more from you to figure where to come from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If you climb a tree you do have to get back down too. Have you ever seen a koala traverse downwards? Much more useful for a koala would be a sideways facing pouch. Why has nature not produced this? Even better would be a pouch that rotates at the flick of a switch. Or for the modern marsupial ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
BA writes: Even better would be a pouch that rotates at the flick of a switch. A gentle spin speed would be natures very own merry go round. Good idea. The fact this doesn't exist suggests that if there is an inteligent designer he/she is not even as clever as you are.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
jar writes: There is no plan, no goal, no direction to evolution since we got past the very first simplest life forms. What we see in nature and all living critters is "just goodnuff to get by". Given that evolution works on the principle of "just goodnuff", it really doesn't matter that much which way the pouch faces. Nature however, operates in a symmetrical fashion, with pouches facing upwards or downwards. We don't find any pouches at a 30 or 45 degree slant which should be perfectly acceptable. Pouches fashioned so that they are 180 degrees opposed suggests that design has played a part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nonsense. It suggests no such thing. It's not a matter of what is acceptable, only what is. And there is no evidence of design or any designer.
AbE: In fact, take a look at Koalas. They live in trees and yet their pouch opens at the bottom. If there was a designer then that designer is about as bright as a burned out light bulb. That has led to a whole bunch of Rube Goldberg features in the Koalas. Edited by jar, : see AbE:Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Pouches fashioned so that they are 180 degrees opposed suggests that design has played a part. Can you walk me through the logic on that one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Nature however, operates in a symmetrical fashion Eyes, asymmetrically on the same side (Wide-Eyed-Flounder) . . .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Given that evolution works on the principle of "just goodnuff", it really doesn't matter that much which way the pouch faces. Nature however, operates in a symmetrical fashion, with pouches facing upwards or downwards. We don't find any pouches at a 30 or 45 degree slant which should be perfectly acceptable. Pouches fashioned so that they are 180 degrees opposed suggests that design has played a part. You're not taking into account developmental constraints. Genes affecting the exterior of the body are going to be symmetrical in their effect, because it would actually be quite hard to set up a new system distinguishing between the left and right side of the body. We can see this in mutations such as antennapedia, which gives fruit-flies legs where their antenna should be. Always legs plural --- there is no mutation that makes them lopsided, because you'd need a whole new biochemical system to tell the developing fly's body how to break the symmetry. It doesn't take a lot of care and fine-tuning to make the mutation come out symmetrical in its effect --- it would, on the contrary, take a marvel of bioengineering to make it asymmetric. The same could be said of other well-known mutations, such as those giving fruit-flies white eyes or an extra pair of wings. In short, being asymmetric is difficult. So "given that evolution works on the principle of "just goodnuff"", asymmetry won't be produced without a very good reason, whereas symmetry is the lazy way of doing things and occurs by default. So you wouldn't even need natural selection to explain the laterally symmetric placement of the pouches --- it's in the nature of mutations to produce lateral symmetry in animals which are already laterally symmetric. Whereas your argument seems to depend implicitly on the idea that a feature produced by mutation might as well have a 30 or 45 degree skew as be symmetric. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: In short, being asymmetric is difficult. So "given that evolution works on the principle of "just goodnuff"", asymmetry won't be produced without a very good reason, whereas symmetry is the lazy way of doing things and occurs by default. This all sounds very plausible initially but a little bit of investigation would have revealed to you that internally we are far from symmetrical. The heart, the colon, intestines, stomach, appendix, pancreas not to mention others are all asymmetric.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
You really should do some basic research before you spout off.
quote: Symmetry in biology - Wikipedia Took me all of 10 seconds to find that.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Theoderic writes: Took me all of 10 seconds to find that. And your point is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This all sounds very plausible initially but a little bit of investigation would have revealed to you that internally we are far from symmetrical. The heart, the colon, intestines, stomach, appendix, pancreas not to mention others are all asymmetric. Credit me with a little common knowledge. I know that, which is why I explicitly said "Genes affecting the exterior of the body are going to be symmetrical in their effect". The same does not apply to the internal organs, and so if a mammal underwent a mutation giving it (for example) an extra liver, one might well expect that to be asymmetric, since livers are as a rule produced asymmetrically. But the pouch is not an internal organ. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024