Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
26 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, PaulK (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 165 (358666)
10-24-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
10-22-2006 10:54 AM


RAZD
The fossil record is littered with extinctions (evolution explains these extinctions as lack of fitness for a changed environment, design on the other hand has no excuse for failed species).

Except of course ID can posit failure as simply a variation within a specie type that does not fit the conditions for that variation so it ends. How many variations of dog are there? And yet they are all still dogs. suppose we had a radical climate change and there was an ice age. most dog types would die but, not all. Thus a future investigator might see a multitude of dog breeds go extinct and yet dogs would still exist and still posess the ability to form those same extinct breeds again once the environment became more friendly again. Just as we empirically observed in the peppered moths. The light colored ones never died off and when environment changed the numbers of light colored moths returned and they are still moths.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 10:54 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2006 11:29 PM KBC1963 has not yet responded

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 165 (358669)
10-24-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RickJB
10-22-2006 11:49 AM


RickJB writes:
The evidence we have shows that it can. You must remember that the changes we are talking about are very gradual. Fish didn't evolve limbs in a single generation. This is a straw man assertion - evolution makes no such claims.

Ahh. but you have not shown this at all. I would like to see the beginning of bone formation and the myriad of steps (selectable) it went through. Do you have any of that kickin around the fossils?
You know, like maybe the gradual formation of a back bone and then the gradual formation of ribs or tails or legs or arms.
And where is all the evidence for the evolutionary garbage along the way? where are all the evolutionary errors? obvious disfunctional forms that would have to accompany even one correctly functional form.
Amazingly every form seems to be fully functional in its own right, no little transitional step by step fossils.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RickJB, posted 10-22-2006 11:49 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by RickJB, posted 10-25-2006 4:49 AM KBC1963 has not yet responded
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2006 11:46 PM KBC1963 has not yet responded

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 165 (358672)
10-24-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by DominionSeraph
10-22-2006 4:22 PM


KBC1963 writes:
Our DNA provides the blueprint for every structure formed
in our bodies. DNA codes for every aspect of 3 dimensional
form that we see

DominionSeraph writes:

No it doesn't.

Then you may wish to let these scientists know the truth, as you see it:

Subdividing the embryo : A role for Notch signaling during germ layer patterning in Xenopus laevis
The development of all vertebrate embryos requires the establishment of a three-dimensional coordinate system in order to pattern embryonic structures and create the complex shape of the adult organism.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17333654

The number of dimensions a shape can really take up is limited to the number there really are. And, once you run out of things with which to make a shape, you can no longer add more things to it.
Reality is quite confining.

And by this you believe that gemetric shape is limited. So tell me exactly how many 3 dimensional geometric shapes there are?
According to your statement there would only be 3.

Take, for example, a shape that's so complex that, if you coded it chemically, you'd have a structure with so much mass that it'd collapse into a neutron star. There'd go your code.
You obviously don't have a handle on either math or the limitations imposed by reality. Try again once you do.

Stating that you may run out of "disc space" per se and thus can't code for the whole shape does not mean you can't code for part of a complete shape. Therefore the only thing that would "go" would be the evolutionary garbage that had unfinish coding for one of an infinite set of geometries composing only a finite set of selectably functional shapes. Where are all those fossils? I wonder why we only find fully functional fossils when evolution admits to billions of incorrectly made forms being randomly formed until a good mutation occurs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-22-2006 4:22 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-25-2006 2:02 AM KBC1963 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 139 of 165 (358678)
10-25-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by KBC1963
10-24-2006 10:28 PM


If you think thats what i'm doing then define exactly how i'm doing it.

I wasn't saying in that post that you were doing so. I was simply pointing out that you obviously didn't understand that rather elementary term.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by KBC1963, posted 10-24-2006 10:28 PM KBC1963 has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 165 (358683)
10-25-2006 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Taz
10-24-2006 9:49 AM


Re: On Design
gasby

IDists refuse to get into this logic loop because they don't claim that whatever this intelligence that they claim to be behind the "designs" of our world is an all powerful being.

My arguement does not need to know just what the intelligent designer is. It merely states that whatever the ID is it must be more complex than that which it designs. Since it is so complex the hypothesis applies to it and we form the question of what created that creator{ and so on...}

When a field is as young as ID (and I'm not referring to the amount of time it's been floating around), you can't demand the "experts" of that field to know everything about it. If you want to debunk it, work with what they've presented.

And I do not expect it from them. I do however expect them to declare that their arguement be universaly applicable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Taz, posted 10-24-2006 9:49 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by NosyNed, posted 10-25-2006 1:13 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 141 of 165 (358685)
10-25-2006 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by sidelined
10-25-2006 12:44 AM


More complex designer?
It merely states that whatever the ID is it must be more complex than that which it designs.

I don't see that this holds. We have examples of design by very unintelligent things. Maybe (I'm not sure) they are less complex than the design output.

Either the ID is more complex and you assertion holds or the ID is at least somewhat less complex than us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by sidelined, posted 10-25-2006 12:44 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Parasomnium, posted 10-25-2006 2:27 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 142 of 165 (358686)
10-25-2006 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by KBC1963
10-24-2006 11:37 PM


KBC writes:

Then you may wish to let these scientists know the truth, as you see it:

...requires the establishment of a three-dimensional coordinate system...

A 3D coordinate system is not: "Every aspect of a 3 dimensional form"

KBC writes:

And by this you believe that gemetric shape is limited.

Yup. Can't have any 4D shapes if you only have 3 spatial dimensions.

KBC writes:

So tell me exactly how many 3 dimensional geometric shapes there are?

Relevance? Remember, I'm simply ripping your argument to shreds -- not proposing anything.
Oh, and a request doesn't take a question mark.

KBC writes:

According to your statement there would only be 3.

Hmmm... so you don't know the difference between dimensions and matter?

KBC writes:

Stating that you may run out of "disc space" per se and thus can't code for the whole shape does not mean you can't code for part of a complete shape.

Which is off-topic.

KBC writes:

functional shapes

Function is assigned, not innate. Evolution doesn't use assigned characteristics, so such is out of place.

Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by KBC1963, posted 10-24-2006 11:37 PM KBC1963 has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 950 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 143 of 165 (358689)
10-25-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by NosyNed
10-25-2006 1:13 AM


Re: More complex designer?
Nosyned writes:

It merely states that whatever the ID is it must be more complex than that which it designs.

I don't see that this holds. We have examples of design by very unintelligent things. Maybe (I'm not sure) they are less complex than the design output.

The argument about the complexity of the designer comes from ID reasoning itself. ID-ists reason that life is too complex to have arisen "by pure chance", as they often put it. It is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligence. It is the level of complexity that prompts them to say this. Critics of this line of reasoning have two venues to attack it.

First, there is the question of how to measure complexity. ID-ists notoriously neglect to define and/or quantify complexity. And if they do define it, they usually end up conflating Shannon entropy with thermodynamic entropy, en passant misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics.

Second, their reasoning that if something is too complex to have arisen naturally, it must have been designed by an intelligence, backfires on them. Humans are too complex to have arisen naturally, the reasoning goes. Yet, the critics may observe, humans are not intelligent enough to create life. So an intelligence that is capable of creating life is surely more complex then humans, and must therefore itself be too complex to have arisen naturally. So the critics ask the ID-ists: who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? And so on.

It's not that the critics themselves think that this ID reasoning holds, but that if ID-ists want to use it, they have to realise that it isn't a satisfactory explanation, because it raises an infinite regress of ever more unexplained complex beings.

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NosyNed, posted 10-25-2006 1:13 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3244 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 144 of 165 (358698)
10-25-2006 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by KBC1963
10-24-2006 11:15 PM


kbc writes:

I would like to see the beginning of bone formation and the myriad of steps (selectable) it went through. Do you have any of that kickin around the fossils?

Here's a couple of links. All I had to do was Google "evolution of vertebrates". I don't know why you are incapable of doing the same, but I guess you prefer to keep yourself in the dark.

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/HigEvoVer.html
http://www.gpc.edu/~janderso/historic/vertev.htm

kbc writes:

And where is all the evidence for the evolutionary garbage along the way? where are all the evolutionary errors?

"Errors" is a relative term. Animals which were unable to adapt to selective pressure died out. We have their fossils. Simple.

kbc writes:

Amazingly every form seems to be fully functional in its own right

They are adapted in the same way that a puddle of water is "adapted" to the shape of a depression.

kbc writes:

...no little transitional step by step fossils.

This is simply not true. Here is a reptile to mammal sequence complete with "steps".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

In any case, where is the middle of a piece of string of infinite length? ALL forms are transitional. Humans are transitional. All forms are a product of their environment.

Now, where is YOUR evidence of a designer?

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by KBC1963, posted 10-24-2006 11:15 PM KBC1963 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 145 of 165 (358908)
10-25-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by KBC1963
10-24-2006 11:06 PM


several posts combined
Welcome back KBC1963, I expect you are beginning to feel rather overwhelmed by the responses you have generated, so I will try to compile this and keep it brief (famous last words).

Message 126
There is more to this than simple existence.
If as you assert the bone cell (osteoblast) simply comes into existence, then it could simply continue to be made for the life of the organism.

No, that is not what I am saying, what I said was that "When the first bone cell evolved the DNA of the organism involved the necessary code for that cell. That is all that is necessary. "

What you had claimed was that "... when the first bone cell would have been caused by the genome it would have had the possibility to code for production of an infinite amount ... "

It's a bit of a chicken and egg question eh? But in this case we are pretty sure that the DNA change comes first, and we are also pretty darn sure that mutations don't code for just any much less than infinite shape a mechanical engineer can think of, but is pretty specifically limited to variations on a theme for existing features and that anything else would likely be lethal.

Simply saying they just came into existence overlooks a lot of mechanical control that must be in place or the cell will simply act according to its own makeup.

You have a big thing about this "mechanical control" issue don't you? It's false. The control on mutation is very simple: if it is neutral (makes no significant change) it survives in the population genome, if it is beneficial (makes a slight change than enhances either survivability or reproduction) it increases in the population genome, and if it is too different it kill the organism.

Over 75% of human zygotes don't make it past the first two weeks. By the time you get to birth of a "normal" infant (not too many changes) that's down to somewhere around 10% and even then there are childhood diseases that kill humans before they reach reproductive age. That's a lot of errors being discarded eh?

If you need to have a "mechanical engineer" term for it you can use feed-back correction loops. Doesn't matter what you call it - that is how it operates. Unworkable variations don't survive or breed.

Next thing to consider is what advantage does one or even a few of these cells in no coordinated structure provide for the organism to make it selectable by natural selection?

What makes you assume there is no coordinated structure involved? Do you think bones just happened with no precursor structures? Are you really that ignorant of the evolutionary history of this planet?

Actually you don't get to play the 3.5myo card because bone first appeared:
The first vertebrates appeared about 500 million years ago in the Cambrian Period (just after the so-called "Cambrian explosion" of Metazonan diversity).

It appears so, because you are conflating "bony shell" with the bone of a standard femur (that is built up from the blastocysts you mentioned (this is the logical fallacy of equivocation).

osteoblast
a mononucleate cell that produces osteoid...
...which build bone
Osteoblasts also...
...store calcium in the matrix
osteoblasts also secrete enzymes that facilitate mineral deposition within osteoid matrices.

Actual bone, as you outline above - what is used in modern vertebrates - is quite different from the bony material of the ostracoderms. It is an evolutionary adaptation from the class of "bony fish" - osteichthyans - that first evolved this bone material we use.

From Vertebrate Evolution I - Chordates and the Evolution of the Craniata (written for an introductory course in the topic):

quote:
"The osteichthyans (meaning 'bony fishes') today form the largest and most diverse group of vertebrates and are represented chiefly by the ray-finned fishes (Subclass Actinopterygii). However, their origins date back to the Late Silurian, some 410 million years ago, when they were only a minor component of the ancient fish faunas.

And yes, I do get to "play" the 3.5 billion (not million - we had hominids 3.5 million years ago) year card, because life is a continual chain of development, each link dependent on the one before evolving to provide the basis for what evolution has in store for it. The bony shell of the ostracoderms could not evolve into being on their own, they depended on previous species to provide the basic materials they developed further with their own mutations and selections. Just as the true bony fish evolved from cartilaginous fish - Condrichthyes - where the definition is that they lack an ossified bony skeleton (ie - what we call bone). The cartilaginous fish evolved through a series of stages from ostracoderms, and these are all much more recent than the Cambrian "explosion" -- but they could not have happened without it, or the life that preceded it, or the first life on record, some 3.5 billion years ago

I get to "play" it because it shows a continuous development of feature after feature in simple steps from one celled life to the multicellular land tromping masses we know today..

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no excuse for taking so long to do so little -- unless evolution is the way in which the design is accomplished, in which case evolution is still the valid mechanism.

Note what else it says about "bony fish" here:

quote:
Buried within the early evolution of osteichthyan fishes lies the key to the complex evolutionary transition in vertebrate history: how a water-breathing fish became a land-living amphibian. One of the secrets of the success of the 'bony fishes' lies in their swim-bladder, an internal organ of buoyancy, which was to become modified into the lungs of land animals.

Again, building on preexisting features with modification and selection. Lungs don't just happen either.

Thus we can pinpoint the age of the origin for the system. Prior to that age there was no bone thus no systems for controlling it. There was no step by step record to show how bone formed into mechanically functional shapes. They simply appear.

You are also confusing the fossil record with the history of evolution on earth. The "appearance" of certain fossils does not mean they did not live before then, just that none have yet been found.

Nor does the absence of bony fossils before the cambrian mean there were no precursors to bony shells, just that there is no fossil record of such. The cartilage of sharks does not fossilize well, so most fossil evidence of sharks is just the teeth, but that does not mean that their cartilaginous skeletons did not exist. The fact that this bony shell development is likely a definitive "punk-eek" feature also makes it unlikely that the source location (a) survived and (b) has been discovered yet (if it is findable).

So rather than simply provide blanket statements about all kinds of systems simply falling into place like domino's, how about we get a description of the mechanics of how it happened since you seem to have the understanding down to a "science".

They may seem blanket statements to you because you do not understand how simple the mechanism is or because you are in denial about the evidence for it. Doesn't matter though, as the logic of the argument still exists and is not refuted by your comments. You also fail to refute the argument and thus failed to invalidate it.

Message 131
Show me any complex interactive mechanical system that can function continuously without control.

Do you mean a human designed system that has operated for thousands of years without being fixed and tweaked and adjusted and modified? Of course there isn't one: we aren't capable of this yet. But we do make things that last and function longer than living individual organisms, so when we compare individual device to individual organism we can build things that last longer and operate better, even with our rudimentary ability.

Or do you mean a natural systems that has operated for thousands of years? These do exist, we call them species. But (1) the "system" is made up of successive generations of many individuals that automatically replace previous generations as they wear out and fail, something no mechanical engineer designed system does, and (2) there are also many more species that have failed to update to the latest operating system and didn't download the latest anti-virus software, nor did they go in for the necessary maintenance checkups and oil changes to maintain their warrantee -- they are extinct, due to lack of control, whether continuous or otherwise. It isn't foolproof. This is a fact of life eh?

Or do you mean life in general? Life that has existed in a state of continual adjustment and modification since the first life some 3.5 billion years ago, where the "system" is made up of successive generations of species that are made up of successive generations of individuals that automatically replace previous generations as they wear out and fail, something no mechanical engineer designed system does.

Or do you mean the complex interactive system of planets, asteroids, meteors, comets, moons and an oblate spheroid shaped sun that has been quietly spinning away in multitudinous orbits for some 4.55 billion years?

Or do you mean the complex interactive system of suns and solar systems and galaxies and everything else in this universe that has existed for 13.7 billion years?

Your "complex interactive mechanical system" criteria is meaningless and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the ability of biological systems to reproduce, mutate and evolve over time.

I am not looking at an end product and asking anything. I observe functional mechanical form and ask what logical steps would result in functional form period.

You gave an example, and in response you were given a very simple process by which the change from one femur to another is easily accomplished within the time-frame needed using the available "state of the art" materials at hand. This completely refutes your claim that it could not happen.

What advantage is one or even a few bone cells that produce unorganised bone formations? What resources would they use up continuously without controls and while awaiting for control to magically evolve what limits the cells contructive abilities?

That doesn't really relate to what I said or the reality of evolutional history. It displays more your ignorance of evolution than any real problem.

Message 133
If its wrong then you must have the correct exact mechanical analysis of the formation proceedure. I am all ears to this information. Blanket terminology is a no-no BTW. So I will await to hear this evidence that flatly proves that I am incorrect.
Logical arguements start from the beginning and define the specifics along the way and then draw a conclusion.

I refer you to Message 27, as well as to the correction of your definition of straw man which is, btw, a straw man ( :rolleyes: ). And no, I don't need to have the "correct exact mechanical analysis" to show that your concept is wrong, ALL I need to do is show that it is invalid because it used false premises and poor logical structure. That's been done.

Message 135
You are completely blanket terming every mechanical alteration. This is a black box assumption. Essentially saying "I don't know how it happened since I can't define it step by step so I'll just assume that it happened", "we are here right? so it must have happened that way"

This does not invalidate the argument or in any way challenge the logical structure of the argument. The fact that this is your only reply to my numerous points and evidence and the invalidation of your arguments shows how weak your argument is. You are not addressing the substance of the arguments, but attacking the character, another logical fallacy.

The evidence in fact shows that there are fish that can breath air and have gills, so assuming their existence is not imagining things to happen. We also have fossil evidence of similar fish and we have fossil evidence of transitional features, as listed in my post, that talk directly to the features in question evolving. This substantiates the argument. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away, nor does it invalidate it.

Curiously we only see functional formations in all fossils we don't ever see the step by step additions.

Curiously this is demonstration of an abysmal understanding of evolution. Of course fossils are all fully functional organism. They were fully living organisms before they became fossils after all.

We also don't see the results of what should be the evolutionary mechanism which should be spitting out all the evolutionary rejects that would have to accompany any of the good mutations along the way.

No we don't see the results of your straw man version of evolution because that is NOT what evolution predicts. Once again you base your argument on a false understanding of evolution, make a straw man and prove nothing.

Message 136
Except of course ID can posit failure as simply a variation within a specie type that does not fit the conditions for that variation so it ends.

How long would a mechanical engineer last in your company with a 99% failure rate? Is that the kind of thing that you say "gosh I want to be like that when I grow up"?

And the fact that you can make excuses for the failure of design does not mean that the concept is robust, rather it shows how weak the concept is because you have to make excuses for why it cannot explain the evidence that would be predicted by a robust concept.

And the excuse you have to make means that there is no benefit to the concept - we can make predictions based on evolution and they will pan out, or we can make predictions based on KBC's ID concept and sometimes they work but most often they fail. That's good science eh?

How many variations of dog are there? And yet they are all still dogs.

I thought your understanding of evolution was pretty bad before, this sure does not help that impression.

Of course they "are still dogs" - dog is the common ancestor species and no matter how far and wide and novel they evolve they will still be on the branch of life labelled "dog" -- just as we are not just "Human" but "Hominid" and "Ape" and "Primate" and "Mammal" and "Vertebrate" and no matter how much we continue to evolve and change and develop through future ages we will still be "Human" and "Hominid" and "Ape" and "Primate" and "Mammal" and "Vertebrate" .

This is what the tree of evolution and the theory of common ancestor MEANS.

On the other hand there are no cross-fertilized features, where a feature developed on species {X} is much superior to the one developed on species {Y}, where a barely adequate designer would clearly be able to discern the benefits and then copy and paste the feature into species {Y}. There is no crossing of the branches as there would be if there were good design involved.

It becomes increasingly evident that if a designer is actively in control of the development of species that it is incompetent, OR that the designer is NOT actively in control of development and is irrelevant.

... suppose we had a radical climate change and there was an ice age. most dog types would die but, not all. Thus a future investigator might see a multitude of dog breeds go extinct and yet dogs would still exist and still posess the ability to form those same extinct breeds again once the environment became more friendly again.

No they would not evolve the same breeds again. At best they would evolve similar breeds, but some of the genes selected in the original breeding process would be lost with the extinct breeds. Again you are ignorant of how evolution, genetics, breeding, biology and life works. The DNA does not carry around a recipe box of breeds that can be pulled out and applied when wanted, there is no backup drive with archived blueprints, no master plan.

Just as we empirically observed in the peppered moths. The light colored ones never died off and when environment changed the numbers of light colored moths returned and they are still moths.

Stunningly brilliant of you to notice that the Peppered moths issue is only about natural selection, not speciation or even mutation. They are also still insects etc etc etc ... still life on earth, but they are still typica and carbonaria varieties of Biston butelaria.

Still think you have an argument?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

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

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by KBC1963, posted 10-24-2006 11:06 PM KBC1963 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 146 of 165 (358910)
10-25-2006 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by KBC1963
10-24-2006 11:15 PM


forams forearms for aims
... no little transitional step by step fossils.

The Foram Fossils: A Classic Tale of Transition

Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) are the developers of what reportedly is the largest, most complete set of data ever compiled on the evolutionary history of an organism. The two scientists have painstakingly pieced together a virtually unbroken fossil record that shows in stunning detail how a single-celled marine organism has evolved during the past 66 million years. Apparently, it's the only fossil record known to science that has no obvious gaps -- no "missing links."

"It's all here -- a complete record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this organism has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

The study focuses on the microscopic, fossilized remains of an organism belonging to a huge order of marine protozoans called foraminifera. Often heard shortened to "forams," the name comes from the Latin word foramen, or "opening." The organisms can be likened to amoebas wearing shells, perforated to allow strands of protoplasm to bleed through. The shell shapes range from the plain to the bizarre.

As he spoke, Arnold showed a series of photographs, taken through a microscope, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foraminiferan species.

"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.

What more do you need?

Other than denial eh?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

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

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by KBC1963, posted 10-24-2006 11:15 PM KBC1963 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by FliesOnly, posted 10-26-2006 1:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2399 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 147 of 165 (359039)
10-26-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by RAZD
10-25-2006 11:46 PM


Re: forams forearms for aims
Wait...I'll take this one.

"But they're still just Forams!"

Gothca...

check and mate, buddy!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2006 11:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2006 6:49 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 148 of 165 (359121)
10-26-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by FliesOnly
10-26-2006 1:46 PM


Re: forams forearms for aims for stars
yeah, and even if the evolve into some kind of giant squid like animal that crawls on land, eats elephants, and builds rocket ships they will still be forams ...

:rolleyes:


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

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

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by FliesOnly, posted 10-26-2006 1:46 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 130 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 149 of 165 (377359)
01-16-2007 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by DominionSeraph
10-22-2006 3:24 PM


quote:
quote:
KBC1963 writes:
A snowflake follows rules of form according to atomic structure of water.

And which form is determined by environment.


Indeed. I recently watched a program on snowflakes in which it was discussed how things like humidity and temperature dictate which final form a snowflake will take. I'm sure KBC will accept this, yet will insist that such simple 'rules' cannot possibly play a role in biology, since all things are "programmed"...

By the way - KBC has tried this exact same argument here and probably at ISCID and who knows where else.

Edited by derwood, : addendum


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-22-2006 3:24 PM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Chiroptera, posted 01-16-2007 2:55 PM derwood has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 150 of 165 (377388)
01-16-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by derwood
01-16-2007 1:00 PM


quote:
By the way - KBC has tried this exact same argument here

Gods, and that exchange is even funnier over there!


But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by derwood, posted 01-16-2007 1:00 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by derwood, posted 01-19-2007 8:29 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019