|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Really. How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage? Well, more than a 0.005% of a mammary system. And, yes, a marginally better mammary system would indeed confer a better survival advantage. So just what the fuck are you arguing for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
And a chunk of a reptile's jaw somehow evolved into the bones of a mammal's inner ear. Pure fiction. Convenient that you drag up that old PRATT. It was while researching that question that then-creationist Merle Hertzler realized how much evidence there is for evolution and how false creationism is. Merle was the first of extremely few honest creationists that I have encountered in the more than three decades I've been studying and discussing "creation science." On CompuServe around 1990, he was doing things that no other creationist would do: he would actually try to engage in a discussion, would actually respond to questions, would actually try to support his claims and statements, and when he said he'd go read something he would actually follow through and actually read what he said he would. He was an honest creationist, so after about a year he came to realize how false creationist claims are so he switched to arguing for evolution. As I understand, several members of this forum used to be young-earth creationists who learned the truth about YEC and now oppose it. I think that's why so many creationists are so dishonest, because they have to keep themselves deluded in order to avoid learning the truth. The following is a small excerpt from Merle's page, Did We Evolve? (itself a very small part of his site), in which a visit to the university library and the research there opened his eyes. I present it to you, because the evolution of the mammalian ear was the specific question he was researching.
quote: As I pointed out to you last night, you are arguing against popularized science. You need to address the actual science as Merle had done. Which I'm sure you won't do, because you are not an honest creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
The theory that a mammal's four-chambered heart evolved from a reptile's two-chambered heart is untestable. Any theory of how a four-chambered heart evolved from a two-chambered heart is untestable. "two-chambered heart"? What organisms have that? Amphibians and reptiles have three-chambered hearts: two atria and one ventricle. Please try to get at least your most basic facts straight. What's the difference between one ventricle and two? A septum that divides the one ventricle into two. What proof is there of that happening? Consider the crocodile. Reptile, born with a three-chambered heart. As it grows larger, that becomes a four-chambered heart. Without skipping a beat. Possessing such abysmal ignorance, what do you think you can ever accomplish? I mean besides making your side look ridiculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Oh, I get it ... an honest creationist is one who gets converted to evolution and the creationists who don't are all dishonest. I'm glad we got that straightened out. No, an honest creationist is one who actually looks at the evidence. Someone who is willing to test his own side's claims. Even the New Testament commands to test everything and hold on to that which is true. Have you ever tested a creationist claim? You're afraid to, because deep down you know that it's false. Dr. Kurt Wise, a YEC, is another example of an honest creationist. He found and freely admitted that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. He freely admitted that if all he had to go on was the evidence, then he would accept evolution. But he is a presuppositionalist, which means that he presupposes his YEC beliefs and proceeds from there. He's sure that evidence will be found to support his YEC beliefs, but we just haven't found them yet. In the meantime, he very much wishes that creationists abandon their fascination with being evidential and should instead be presuppositional. We recently discussed Dr. Wise (no relation to myself) with Phat, so if you use the forum's search function you should find more information and links to even more. The thing is that if you are all wrapped up about what the evidence says, then honestly following the evidence will lead you to evolution. The only way for you to avoid that would be to avoid the evidence, to deceive yourself. Lies and deception, that's all that creationism has to offer. The irony is that there is no inherent conflict between evolution and a Divine Creator, YHWH even. The only conflict is with YEC and its contrary-to-fact claims. If YHWH (AKA "your god") did truly create the universe, then no evidence from the universe, from the real world, could possibly contradict that. But if you hold false beliefs about Creation, then reality would indeed conflict with those false beliefs. When are you ever going to wake up and stop doing such stupid things?
Poor, stupid, gullible Merle. He fell victim to the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. He asked the questions and sought the answers. You are the one falling for a hoax.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
A better example is a fish heart. It is nothing like the heart of its "descendants" - amphibians and reptiles. After you lied to us so outrageously about the reptile heart, why should we believe at all what you say about the fish heart? You have proven yourself to be a liar! You're just lying to us again, aren't you? That is after all what creationists do, isn't it? Lie about everything and anything. That is what their god demands, isn't it? What your god demands. Over half a century ago, I was a Christian. I was taught Christian doctrine. Everything that creationists do, including you, is contrary to that Christian doctrine. According to that Christian doctrine, everything that creationists do, including you, indicates that you actually serve and worship the Prince of Lies, the Great Deceiver. Why don't you just come clean and admit that you worship and serve Satan?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
A better example is a fish heart. It is nothing like the heart of its "descendants" - amphibians and reptiles. And actually we're talking about the ancestors of modern fish, not modern fish themselves. Only willfully ignorant creationists would ever try to claim that modern fish are completely identical to ancient fish. And your attempt to move the goal posts is duly noted. You still need to address your claim regarding reptilian hearts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
It seems that not only is there no culture of honesty in Creationism, there is no evidence that Creationists even have a clue what honesty or truth or reality is. That appears to be an integral part of their religion/theology, which not only has no clue what morality is, but actively promotes immoral behavior so long as it serves their god. Completely contrary to standard Christian doctrine. I would applaud their zealous efforts to promote the growth and spread of atheism except for the fact that they also teach an aberrant form of atheism which does nobody any good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Just remember that nobody is completely useless ... ... they can always serve as a bad example. Throughout school starting in early elementary school, I seemed to always serve as the bad example. "Everybody look at David and see what he's doing. Don't do that!" But seriously, I don't want to see people becoming atheists just because their religion taught them to become atheists -- eg, "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then Scripture has no meaning and you should throw your Bible on the trash heap and become a hedonistic atheist who runs down the street naked and eats babies for lunch." Rather, I want to see people becoming atheists because they have outgrown the need for gods. Religions' false teachings about atheism paints it as a legalistic loophole for them to escape responsibility and do whatever they want to do. Rather, atheism requires that you do take personal responsibility for your actions; it's religion, especially fundamentalist Christianity, that enables you to escape responsibility for your actions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Sorry, but I just came across this particular piece of inanity again.
Sorry, "Slowly over long periods of time" doesn't explain anything. This is the Darwinist's equivalent of the Creationists' "God did it." Absolutely false equivalency. To start with, "God did it" does not even attempt to answer any questions nor to discover what happened or how. It is the ultimate cop-out. To illustrate that, the next time you pull that crap of demanding of us complete knowledge of every single step in which some feature evolved, we will demand of you the exact same level of complete knowledge of precisely how it was created. Your just copping out with "God did it" will not even begin to suffice. For that matter, "God did it" would also support evolution; we're just getting deeper into how it happened. "Slowly over long periods of time" refers small changes over many generations. We have observed small changes occurring within a few generations, so that is certainly no fantasy. And the thing about a generation is that it takes a particular length of time -- let's call that t measured in years. So if something requires 100 generations to evolve, then it would have taken it 100×t years. If t is one year, then it would have taken 100 years. If t is 4 years, then it would have taken 400 years. If t is 20 years (arguably the length of a human generation), then it would have taken 2,000 years. Therefore long periods of time is a basic necessity in evolution, not a cop-out. Despite all the creationist lies you've devoured and regurgitated here, it doesn't happen overnight -- nobody but an ignorant or deliberately dishonest creationist would even begin to think that it's supposed to happen overnight. Please, learn something about evolution!
Any mammary system is very complex, but you seem happy to believe that such a system evolved by sheer luck. Again, that's just yet another idiotic creationist lie. While new changes can be random (eg, the mutation of lysozyme into alpha-lactalbumin), it's natural selection which selects which new changes stay and which go away. Natural selection is the opposite of "sheer luck." Please, learn something about evolution!
This is akin to believing a mammary system could evolve in a human male.
Are you really that stupid? Besides the fact that your wording shows a complete ignorance of evolution (ie, we inherit our mammary system from ancestors who evolved it long before primates let alone humans), you overlook the very simple and obvious fact that human males do possess a mammary system! It doesn't develop during puberty because our hormones are not right for it, but it's there and it will develop if you mess around with our hormones (just how do you think that transsexuals are able to grow breasts?). And some men do develop breast cancer. How could you be so stupid? Please, learn something about reality! To quote the Organians, "The mere presence of beings like yourselves is intensely painful to us." Remember, there is a cure for ignorance, but you must want it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Deary, deary me ... a mammary system is one that produces milk, so males don't have a mammary system. Oh really now. So if a human isn't producing milk, then he/she does not have a mammary system? How very interesting! For the vast majority of her life, every single female human is not producing milk. So female humans do not have mammary systems? How very interesting! So how can you account for the vast fortune amassed by Playboy? All humans possess the genes for the mammary system, males and females both. During gestation, all humans grow the tissue for the mammary system, males and females both. During puberty (of which of course you are ignorant), hormones cause the mammary tissues of females to develop into secondary sex traits, but not the mammary tissues of the males. But it isn't until after having given birth that those mammary tissues get the hormones needed for actual lactation. Dredge, that is all basic biology. Very basic biology. Of which you are abysmally ignorant. So then, Dredge, why are you so abysmally ignorant of those things that most normals know? Because your false religion demands that you remain ignorant. Because your false religion's greatest fear is knowledge. Because the only way that your false religion can keep you imprisoned is through ignorance. And OBTW, your religion is not necessarily Christianity itself. Rather, Christian doctrine would identify your religion as Satanic, since it has you worshipping the Prince of Lies. But then that's your problem, not mine.
Btw, how do you know so much about transvexuates or whatever they're called? No, don't tell me; I don't want to know ... They are called "transsexuals". It is common knowledge. For example, the tenets of Christianity are common knowledge, so I do not need to be a Christian in order to point out how you and other creationists violate Christian doctrine on a regular basis. Or to quote George Takei (from his appearance on "The Big Bang Theory"), "I read!" One does not need to be an actual transsexual to know what a transsexual is. One does not need to be an actual female to know what a female is. Are you trying to imply that in order to know about females you need to be female yourself? But your desperate resorting to a form of argumentum ad hominem ("attacking the person") tells me that you have nothing, so you are trying to bluff. You are trying to attack my own sexual identity in order to draw attention away from your lack of any argument whatsoever. Well fuck you so very much, you unspeakable asshole ... I'm divorced! I guess it's confession time. I just now passed retirement age and I've signed onto the local Oster LifeLongLearning Institute (OLLI) program, though with limited access because I'm still working. With no previous background (the only cards I ever played with had 80 columns and you never wanted them to be shuffled), I've been learning about poker. One of the things about poker is the other players' tells. Your tell there is to go full blown bullshit. Which you have done.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024