Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution
DogToDolphin
Member (Idle past 5876 days)
Posts: 40
From: Avignon, France
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 219 of 248 (455194)
02-11-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
01-28-2008 2:14 AM


Re: patterns
Hi,
quote:
"If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes around?", you've just moved the old silly argument back a few orders of magnitude. Why not push it back further:- why are there still non-animals around?
You say it's a silly argument but why is it silly?
As a matter of fact, when I was a kid I was taught evolution at school in France, and I couldn't believe it since my argument to myself at that time (i was not told that argument) was:
"I still see those fishes, there are still chimps, so why did they stop evolving if evolution is true?"
I think it's a good argument. You must have asked that question yourself since it's a legitimate question to ask.
Sincerely,
-David

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2008 2:14 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by JonF, posted 02-11-2008 11:47 AM DogToDolphin has replied
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2008 11:51 AM DogToDolphin has not replied
 Message 222 by Wounded King, posted 02-11-2008 11:51 AM DogToDolphin has not replied

  
DogToDolphin
Member (Idle past 5876 days)
Posts: 40
From: Avignon, France
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 224 of 248 (455201)
02-11-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by JonF
02-11-2008 11:47 AM


Re: patterns
I understand the fact that what we see today comes from other lineages that didn't evolve.
Actually I'm French, and still living in France, but let's say my ancestors migrated to the US, then I would be American, without any French culture left in me. My culture and language would be totally different to that of my ancestors. I could be bilingual though.
There would still be French people in France, but my ancestors wouldn't be the only ones leaving France and emigrate to other countries. It still something that is happening and that can be observed and tracked down. But also French culture (or any other culture) is evolving and changing. It's not what it was like 20 years ago, or 100 hundred years ago etc... It has always evolved.
As for, let's take the Coelacanth as an example, it is pretty much what it was millions of years ago (according to fossils), right?
So isn't it still legitimate to ask, in all fairness of the debate, why hasn't the Coelacanth changed or produced some new traits? Since neo-Darwinism theory requires a huge amount of new genetic information to tinker with and "choose" from the useful and the useless? I think it's fair to ask why don't we observe the tremendous amount of genetic mutation required for the emerging of new feature/traits/organs/?
Sincerely,
-David M.
Edited by DogToDolphin, : bad phrasing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by JonF, posted 02-11-2008 11:47 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by reiverix, posted 02-11-2008 12:29 PM DogToDolphin has replied
 Message 226 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2008 12:31 PM DogToDolphin has not replied

  
DogToDolphin
Member (Idle past 5876 days)
Posts: 40
From: Avignon, France
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 228 of 248 (455206)
02-11-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by reiverix
02-11-2008 12:29 PM


Re: patterns
Wait, I am not talking about apes whatsoever here.
My main point about the Coelacanth (Page not found (404 Error)- Canadian Museum of Nature) is that after millions of years why hasn't the population completely changed, if mutations are expected to occur in any individuals at anytime?
If a part of the population changed, then I guess it wouldn't be called Coelacanth anymore. But then we should be able to trace the ancestors of that new Coelacanth species to the original one? Shouldn't we? Why would the transitional forms disappear and not the master form?
About humans, I guess we can say we are the ending point of evolution. Who or what is above humans right now? nothing IMO.
quote:
If this was to happen, there would be huge gaps in the food chain and the environment would have countless dead zones.
The food chain is an extremely complex and fragile system, that's for sure. But it doesn't prevent species from mutating, since food chain is part of the pressures/stress that act upon natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by reiverix, posted 02-11-2008 12:29 PM reiverix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by reiverix, posted 02-11-2008 1:04 PM DogToDolphin has replied
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2008 1:46 PM DogToDolphin has replied

  
DogToDolphin
Member (Idle past 5876 days)
Posts: 40
From: Avignon, France
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 230 of 248 (455211)
02-11-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by reiverix
02-11-2008 1:04 PM


Re: patterns
The fact we're talking about such things is proof we're above (at least intellectually) everything that exists. Also the fact we talk, reason, use logic, derive conclusions, discover the world, use physics, chemistry etc...are pretty good proof of our superiority and dominion over the earth.
Don't you think? or maybe you'd rather be a fish or a bird of some kind? which is not bad in itself, but you will miss what makes life exciting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by reiverix, posted 02-11-2008 1:04 PM reiverix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2008 1:42 PM DogToDolphin has not replied
 Message 233 by reiverix, posted 02-11-2008 2:04 PM DogToDolphin has replied
 Message 236 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2008 2:24 PM DogToDolphin has replied

  
DogToDolphin
Member (Idle past 5876 days)
Posts: 40
From: Avignon, France
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 234 of 248 (455225)
02-11-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2008 1:46 PM


Re: patterns
quote:
Squid and bacteria, to name two.
As far as I know, they don't have the power to destroy the earth (Nuclear bomb).
Why would you think we are not at the pinnacle of the living world? It's true we don't have 8 arms, or we don't have wings, but we can make robots, planes, rockets...I mean it's obvious (to me), that we have the world for ourselves. Our knowledge and technology is certainly not complete (will it ever be?), but it will increase and increase as knowledge increase. No other living thing can do or be like that.
Humans are the only ones to ponder about their fate, origins, and everything that we ponder about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2008 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2008 3:02 PM DogToDolphin has not replied
 Message 242 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2008 5:04 PM DogToDolphin has not replied

  
DogToDolphin
Member (Idle past 5876 days)
Posts: 40
From: Avignon, France
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 235 of 248 (455226)
02-11-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by reiverix
02-11-2008 2:04 PM


Re: patterns
It's true that we are not the most numerous on earth.
I guess insects are the winners (or even Bacteria) then.
They are extremely useful for the ecosystem of the earth, without insects i can't imagine what the earth would be like. Since there wouldn't be recycling, most of pollination, and other things that are useful for the ecosystem and the balance of the living world.
So I guess Ants/Bacteria... are successful in colonizing the world, and they are needed and huge amounts, so I guess that's why they are so many. But they are still not above us.
It made me think of something though:
Are humans useful for the earth?
Since most insects/micro-organisms/animals are useful for the balance and the ecosystem, I don't see where do humans play a role in the ecosystem.
Just a thought.
Edited by DogToDolphin, : added a thought

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by reiverix, posted 02-11-2008 2:04 PM reiverix has not replied

  
DogToDolphin
Member (Idle past 5876 days)
Posts: 40
From: Avignon, France
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 237 of 248 (455232)
02-11-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Chiroptera
02-11-2008 2:24 PM


Re: Subjectivity, subjectivity, subjectivity.
quote:
And I seem to recall the last time folks advocated having dominion over the earth, they were put on trial in Nuremburg in 1946
Oh come on, I was not advocating that dominion over the earth (meaning in that case, dominion over other people) was good; if this is what you inferred from what I wrote.
I am just stating our position as humans towards the rest of the living world. We are the ones who put animals in cages and display them in zoo (once again I am not justifying that practice, since I'm anti-zoo, if zoo means animals in small cages).
I am not content to be in the superior category, actually I don't care that we are more intelligent than fishes or mosquitoes. It's just the fact, the earth belongs to man, man can do whatever he wants to it. It doesn't justify bad behavior and abuses of course.
Aren't you enjoying your time on the Internet, watching movies, write about things, philosophy and the list goes on...all those things you couldn't do if you were not human.
But then it's my opinion, but I quite don't understand why it's hard to admit we (humanity) are superior to the rest of the living world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2008 2:24 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by NosyNed, posted 02-11-2008 2:59 PM DogToDolphin has not replied
 Message 240 by reiverix, posted 02-11-2008 3:03 PM DogToDolphin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024