[aldo_14]

In response to aldo_14,

At least you seem to use scientific explanations.  (I personally don't like the monkey-typewriter illustration.)  The eye's "blinding" optic nerve is a channel to the brain, without which we couldn't see.  (But you probably already knew that.)  That is why we have two eyes.  You could say that we evolved the other eye in order to compensate, but the problem woud be how the first eye got there.

The evolution of the eye from a light sensitive patch has already been hypothesized.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html)

Also, the obvious note to make about the optic nerve is that it's perfectly possible to have the sensory nerves on the exterior of the eyeball.  The octopus, in fact, doesn't lose any visual perception due to the positioning of these information-carrying cells.  So it's 'better designed'.

also, on bilateral symmetry; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB751.html

By the way, you both mentioned that Evolution is not just random mutations.  Are you insinuating a purpose behind the chance?

no.  I should have made it explicitly clear earlier that selection is a deterministic process - the blind watchmaker.

The "purpose" could, I suppose, be the greater benefit to the organism, but then why have we lost our muscles?  I mean, it's a shame that a chimpanzee is proportionally several times stronger than us, as are all monkey-type creatures.

I would guess a combination of tool use ending a great deal of the survival (selection) benefit, combined with the action of sexual selection.  However, it's worth noting our evolutionary ancestors would still be tremendously strong; even the early homo sapiens would be living in an environment that demanded the strength and stamina of an olympic athlete.

(it's also worth observing that chimpanzees are themselves evolved and specialised animals with a selection pressure favouring things such as muscles and mobility)

The fossil that they found (in the Arctic, of all places) is said to be a transitional form between fish and land animals because of its similar "arm" structure.  That brings into mind a few questions (perhaps you can answer them):  If the fish had such limited capacity as a land animal, then why would it wander onto the land instead of staying in the water?  Did it breath air?  If so, how did it evolve lungs?

That's rather simple; evading predation, opening new food sources.  You're forgetting the value of occupying an environmental niche.

Evolution of lungs... well, mutations leading to an ability to breathe amphibiously would clearly convey an advantage in this situation and thus be selected.  Now, it seems you've selectively determined what is a proof and then set out to characterise it as false; FYI the archeopteryx is defined by more than 'claws'; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

I'd like you to provide an unbiased 'invalidation' to back up your statement.

Anyway, I can't see how the initial mutation would be immediately beneficial, so why would it keep the extra weight?  Perhaps the fish could swim better with it, but how would that benefit it on land?  And how exactly did it evolve the extra bones on both fins?  Is evolution always symmetrical?

See symmetricity link before.  And I answered this above.

By the way, I am a mutant myself, and it isn't exactly beneficial; it makes me about 50% more likely to get an infection of the urinary tract.  And it didn't add information, it just duplicated what was already there.  My kids probably won't get the same mutation.  And no, it's not symmetrical; it only happened on one side.

Then you are no doubt aware that the vast majority of mutations are either negative or have no significant survival advantage, which is an important concept in understanding selection processes.  I'm not quite sure why you bring this up, actually.

[aldo_14]

Is that why I have my mutation on only one side of my body? 

What organ is the mutation on, and is that organ duplicated and symmetrical.  Don't confuse an exterior bliateral symmetry for interior.  Also, Bob mentioned 'body plan'.

EDIT;
Haeckels embryos;  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html
Lucys knee;  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC003.html
Peppered moths;  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

[Shade]

Hm, you surprise me. You might not be a troll afterall, given your last post not containing so many annoying colour codes and your laying off the weirdness somewhat. So, onwards. For now.

I personally don't like the monkey-typewriter illustration

Funny then that it was you who brought it up in your first post, isn't it? And that it is you who continues to use utterly obscure allegories. I simply mirrored your post to point out how you had misrepresented evolution. I never claimed mutation added information - I can't say if it does or not. But it doesn't need to. It changes it. That's what mutation is, alteration, not creation.

you might have assumed no negative occurances in the entire process, which is not the case in nature.  Mutations are almost always harmful, rarely neutral, and extremely rarely benificial

I did, in fact, not assume that at all. If you read my post carefully, you might notice that I in fact allow for 2000 years of harmful mutations that result in death before the next positive one. The way it works is quite simple actually, the negative mutations result in reduced ability to survive, whereas the positive ones do the opposite. Given thousands of years, this means positive mutations are preserved while negative ones die out.

By the way, you both mentioned that Evolution is not just random mutations.  Are you insinuating a purpose behind the chance?

No, you misunderstand us. Evolution is most definitely random changes. But it is not one huge random change, it is a lot of very small random changes over a very long time, with only the useful changes surviving to the next generation. The important thing to always remember about evolution is that it is a very slow process with very many steps, with the result 'evaluated' after each step and rewarded with either death or life, depending on the usefulness of the mutation. So there are rules, certainly, but they are simply the rules of nature, the rules of survival.

[Edward Bradshaw]

So what? And why do you put in brackets "fully formed"? Of course they will be fully formed. I think youve been told that evolution says that creatures evolve half an eye, or half a leg. Sorry, evolution doesnt say anything of the kind.

Because we've never found a fossil with partially formed antennae (though we have caused malformed fruit fly antennae in labs!).

What did i JUST tell you?

I just told you Evolution doesnt say we should ever expect to find "partially formed" features. Contrary to what Creationists say about ours eye, it didnt just pop fully formed into what it is today. We can even see the precursers still around today. Like I already told you  2 replies ago which you apparently didnt read, some creatures eyes are simply light sensitive membranes.  And our eyes are still pretty simple compared to other creatures such as hawks and eagles.

Anyway, I think that it's suspicious that the greatest all-time proofs of evolution (peppered moths,

Peppered moths are a great example of natural selection. Creationists lie about the scientific method of collecting the data, thats the only fraud, and its a Creationist fraud.

Haeckel's embryos,

The only fraud here is the lie Creationists continue to tell about this. Haeckel's principle was correct, we just dont use his inaccurate drawings anymore we use real photographs in the field embryology.

Lucy's knee, not to mention all the ape-men) were invalidated, yet continue to be used

Id bet you dont understand any of these in the same way you didnt understand anything else youve said so far.

By the way, you both mentioned that Evolution is not just random mutations.  Are you insinuating a purpose behind the chance?

Mutation is random. Natural selection is not random at all.

Thats why all your ridiculous random analogies are so wrong. 

I can't see how the initial mutation would be immediately beneficial, so why would it keep the extra weight?  Perhaps the fish could swim better with it, but how would that benefit it on land?

Didnt you already embarrass yourself earlier when you said these creatures couldnt exist?
http://www.opefe.com/images/Smeegle.jpg

[aldo_14]

Didnt you already embarrass yourself earlier when you said these creatures couldnt exist?
http://www.opefe.com/images/Smeegle.jpg

And they like Guiness, too

[Edward Bradshaw]

Didnt you already embarrass yourself earlier when you said these creatures couldnt exist?
http://www.opefe.com/images/Smeegle.jpg

And they like Guiness, too

Its a funny advert I only wish it was more accurate in how it depicted commen decent, ah well.

[aldo_14]

Its a funny advert I only wish it was more accurate in how it depicted commen decent, ah well.

Weel, I think anyone taking evolution lessons from a Guinness advert probably is going to struggle to get anything more complex than 'ooh, pretty things backwards'.

[Black Wolf]

Oooh. Newbie who hasn't retreated into the corner, rocking back and forth with his eyes and ears covered and humming "God is Great". Fun.
And the best part is, I've been up all night studying for a Palaeontology exam. You're screwed mate.

The very animal mentioned in the beginning of this thread is compared to the Archaeopteryx, which is heralded as proof because it has claws, as does the baby hoatzin in South America.  So?  If you found a bird with just the beginnings of claws, that might be something, but I am dubious regarding "proofs", just because of the fact that there have been so many fakes.

Archaeopteryx is defined by more than "claws". Let's run through the barrel of evolutionary fun that is everyone's favorite fossil bird.

 - It's got feathers. Undeniable feathers, beautifully preserved by some of the best fossil preserving material in the world. So well preserved, in fact, that microscopic analysis shows the microscopic structure of the wing fibres that could not be faked by nineteenth century technoplogy, and almost certainly couldn;t even be faked that well with modern technology.
 - It's got a long, bony but feathered tail that hasn't fused into a pygostyle, unlike like all modern birds.
 - All the specimens of A. lithigraphica (the most common species) lack a bony sternum, unlike all modern birds. Interestingly, A. bavarica does have one, which, IMO, should be enough for a new genus, but it's not up to me.
 - It's skull-neck join is classic dinosaur (connects in mid rear skull rather than in the bottom of a nice round sealed skull like modern birds)
 - It's hands (finally we get to those claws) are also classic dinosaur, just extended, exactly as you'd expect in a transitional form from before they'd fused into a nice neat bird wing.
 - It's got a toothy jaw and no sign of a beak.
 - It's hip structure is a beautiful example of little theropod hips, nothing like modern bird stuff.
 - It's got a reflexed hallux, just like both theropods and birds.

And the kicker is that it's just one in a whole flock of small feathered dinosaurs which are helping flesh out the whole dinosaur - bird transition. So argue Archaeopteryx away all you like, chum, you find me one insurmountable obstacle for it to be a bird-dinosaur transitional form (if you'll be so kind as to extend the definition to likely early side branches from the precise line that gave rise to modern birds, which is likjely what Archaeopteryx is, and I'll bust out Sinornithosaurus and you can deal with that little palaeontological treasure.

The fossil that they found (in the Arctic, of all places) is said to be a transitional form between fish and land animals because of its similar "arm" structure.  That brings into mind a few questions (perhaps you can answer them):  If the fish had such limited capacity as a land animal, then why would it wander onto the land instead of staying in the water?  Did it breath air?  If so, how did it evolve lungs?

Let's take your questions in the logical order.

Did it breathe air?
Absolutely right there bucko. It, along with pretty much everything that came out of the water around then, had both lungs and gills. Evolution of something that's useful in one form of life but invaluable for another is called exaptation.

How did it evolve lungs?

I love this question, I really do, because it's a beautiful example of evolution. The first lungs were simple sacs with lots of blood pumping around the edges that probably started out as outpocketings of the intestines in fish that would let these fish gulp air. These oxygen sacks evolved two ways - some became lungs, some became swim bladders. So, as a good creationist, you're not thinking too hard at this point, and you think you've got the entire biological community beat because you're thinking "What does a fish need lungs for? It lives in water! I'm so clever." Well genius, there's this special part of water that's technically called the surface, but for you, we'll call it the top. Above the top of the water there is this nice, friendly stuff called air that's just chock full of oxygen. So why does the fish want oxygen from the air when its got gills that'll suck it from the water?

The answer to that question comes from a relatively simple experiment. Take a fish, any fish, as long as it has a swim bladder. Put it in a tank of flowing water and make it swim as fast as it can for a few minutes. You klnow what happpens to it? It'll suffocate. It just can not extract enough oxygen from the water to jheep going at full speed, and full speed is a useful thing to have when you're running from predators. Wouldn't it be useful to have a second method of obtaining oxygen, so you could swim at full speed for longer. Wouldn't it be great if you could just poip up to the surface... sorry, top of the water and take a gulp of air? Wouldn't that be a big advantage? Absolutely it would. And it was. The lobe finned fish who got the lungs rather than the swm bladders were very successful for awhile. But then something rather unfortunate happened - the air started filling up with pterosaurs that were quite adept at flying down and grabbing any fish silly enough to stay close to the top of the water. So the only evolutionary recourse was to sink down a ways, and once you're too far from the surface of the water to make gulping water a possibility, lungs become useless and a swim bladder becomes the greater advantage. So, as fish anyway, the lobe fins mostly died out.

But, there's an appendix to this story. Go on down to south africa and see if you can catch yourself a coelocanth, one of the last remaining lobe fins in the world. Cut the thing open and have a good old feel around. You know what you'll find? A tiny little near useless (for a deep water fish) pair of lungs. True story. It happened to a fish of a friend of mine.

If the fish had such limited capacity as a land animal, then why would it wander onto the land instead of staying in the water?

Because it's a damned good idea to get out of the water to do one thing - reproduce. Put yourself in the Devonian. I know that'll be hard because it was more than 6000 years ago, but just try a little bit and you'll get it. The earths vertebrate population is thriving in the oceans, but with the exception of plants, nothing larger than (admittedly pretty big) insects has colonized the land. So you're a fish, with lungs, with primitive limbs (how did they evolve them you say? Well, you didn't, so I'm not going to tell you because I do have to keep studying at some point. But if you are interested I can run through that one as well. Limbs are always fun), but you have a problem. You lay non-shelled eggs that are just chock full of the kind of nutrients that make then everybody's favorite snack. So, what's a fish to do? Well, how about this... what if you got your lazy ase up out of the water, trundled the few metres over dry land to that semi-isolated pool over there and lay your eggs in that? Then since nothing else can make the distance, your eggs'll be safe, and then when the rains come and reconnect the pools to the rest of the water, your babies can swim out like good solid baby tetrapods ought to.

In short, creationism is idiotic.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Good job Black Wolf! 

[Turambar]

i wonder if he'll read it.

[Solatar]

I've been following this thread for awhile (I like bloodsport...), and man...that was a nice reply, lol.

[Ace]

i wonder if he'll read it.

His response will be something on the order of:
"Durka durka durka mohammadalijihad!" 

[Kamikaze]

On a related note, this article about Judge Jones of the Dover Intelligent Design case is interesting. I'm glad there are still some judges that are maintaining their honesty and objectivity.

[jr2]

Side note:

All batteries... target m. Open fire!
Welcome to the HLP forums, m. Current top-side temperature is 40532 degrees centigrade, with internal temperatures being in the somewhat high side of 30 degrees centigrade.

Exits are to your right and left, and flamethrowers are under your seat.  Be careful, though, as they are usually filled with dihydrogen monoxide, chemical formula H₂O.  If this is the case, you could try to use the rusty old shotguns in the weapon closet as clubs.  Oh, and if you hear any strange noises from the ventilation shafts, don't worry, it's just Carl the Shivan; he likes to lurk in there.  If you happen to cross him, just toss him your lunch and hope that it satisfies him.  If it doesn’t… pray fast and hard.  In the event of an emergency, you can and will be used as a flotation device.  The Plasma rifles in the forward locker are released only under authorization of an Admin, a God, and/or hyperintelligent shade of the color blue.  Oh, and whatever you do, don't irritate karajorma, no matter how good of an idea it might seem.

*looks at kara* 
*screams: jk! don't shoot!* 
*runs*

jr2 was killed by a projectile from karajorma.

Anyways, m, you make some interesting points.  Just go a bit easier on the 'tude.  You have to remember that you do no-one a favor if you make them feel so bad towards you that everything is lost in a red haze.  Expand some of those ideas and look at them in more detail.  Then you can debate the sub-points, and >bonus!< nor everyone hates you except a few people who get worked up over everything anyways.

[NGTM-1R]

BTW ngtm1r, I paraphrased Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; and the source of the "proof destroys faith" logic is from Hebrews 11:6 which says that without faith it is impossible to please God, not it is impossible for God to exist.

Without faith God's influence is...well, nonexistent. So unless he reverses course and pulls an Old Testament on us he's going to be a nothing, a nonentity, to the world. And it would certainly require the reconfiguration of pretty much every organized religion there is into something very different, since they are, after all, faith-based.

Regardless of this point, however, my argument could actually be considered to have gained more weight, not less. Consider what's worse: not having to deal with an omnipotent omniscient being, or really, really pissing off an omnipotent omniscient being?

[m]

I'm BAAAACK!!!

Sorry 'bout the wait... I don't get online much. 

Anyway... Black Wolf?  No offense, but it might help if you didn't shoot yourself in the foot.

It just can not extract enough oxygen from the water to jheep going at full speed, and full speed is a useful thing to have when you're running from predators. Wouldn't it be useful to have a second method of obtaining oxygen, so you could swim at full speed for longer. Wouldn't it be great if you could just poip up to the surface... sorry, top of the water and take a gulp of air? Wouldn't that be a big advantage? Absolutely it would. And it was. (Quote from Black Wolf on pg. 22)

The problem is that the second method would be useless until at least mostly fully formed...  If fishy tried going full speed with a little blob of cells that were only part of the "lung", then fishy would get eaten.  Therefore the partially formed lung would be discarded because it was in no way beneficial.

Because it's a damned good idea to get out of the water to do one thing - reproduce. Put yourself in the Devonian. I know that'll be hard because it was more than 6000 years ago, but just try a little bit and you'll get it. The earths vertebrate population is thriving in the oceans, but with the exception of plants, nothing larger than (admittedly pretty big) insects has colonized the land. So you're a fish, with lungs, with primitive limbs (how did they evolve them you say? Well, you didn't, so I'm not going to tell you because I do have to keep studying at some point. But if you are interested I can run through that one as well. Limbs are always fun), but you have a problem. You lay non-shelled eggs that are just chock full of the kind of nutrients that make then everybody's favorite snack. So, what's a fish to do? Well, how about this... what if you got your lazy ase up out of the water, trundled the few metres over dry land to that semi-isolated pool over there and lay your eggs in that? Then since nothing else can make the distance, your eggs'll be safe, and then when the rains come and reconnect the pools to the rest of the water, your babies can swim out like good solid baby tetrapods ought to.

Another problem: Where would it get the instincts to perform this act?  Unless I'm mistaken, fish do get their mating/reproduction habits from instinct.  So what would happen is fishy would continue to lay eggs in the water and getting those nutritious objects eaten until it miraculously (oops) accidently mutated the complex programming required for the new instincts.

And about the Archaeopteryx:
I notice none of the things you mentioned were not fully formed (except for the "hands" which are nothing more or less than fully formed claws.  Indeed, you simply listed a bunch of body parts which you say are proof of its being a transitional form because other animals have them too.  The platypus has a tail like a beaver, a bill like a duck, lays eggs like a lizard, and has fur like an otter.  So what is it?  A sort of transition between mammals, birds, and reptiles all at once? 

Speaking of instinct, how the heck did any of the thousand-mile plus migrators get their instincts programmed in time to keep from freezing their butts off?  You could say that they gradually moved south as winter gradually set in over millions of years, except the trees from that "era" don't show any signs of unusually long fall seasons.

And speaking of shooting yourselves in the foot (BTW someone should combine "hopping" and "snipe" to make ""footshot"  ) more than once snowflakes have been mentioned as proof of evolution in nature.  May I ask a question: If this is evolution, then why do all snowflakes have such obvious design?  Why are there NO snowflakes that are just flakes of ice with no particular beauty? (Don't you DARE mention hail; they're two separate things and you know it.)

I have to go now, but I will be back with (among other things) an explanation of my Freespace analogy and a refutation of the ridiculous argument posed by ngtm1r:

BTW ngtm1r, I paraphrased Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; and the source of the "proof destroys faith" logic is from Hebrews 11:6 which says that without faith it is impossible to please God, not it is impossible for God to exist.

Without faith God's influence is...well, nonexistent. So unless he reverses course and pulls an Old Testament on us he's going to be a nothing, a nonentity, to the world. And it would certainly require the reconfiguration of pretty much every organized religion there is into something very different, since they are, after all, faith-based.

Regardless of this point, however, my argument could actually be considered to have gained more weight, not less. Consider what's worse: not having to deal with an omnipotent omniscient being, or really, really pissing off an omnipotent omniscient being?

Which pretty much amounts to the predicted  .

 

'til then,
m

[Turambar]

lol, m, you suck at argument.  prepare to be ripped a new one (i can't be bothered to do it myself, calc 2 final tomorrow)

[Shade]

Why are there NO snowflakes that are just flakes of ice with no particular beauty?

Easy - They are ice crystals. The shape simply comes from ice crystals forming in a hexagonal structure - Other crystals are no different in that respect, they all have a shape they tend to adhere to based on the crystalline bonds for that material. And in fact, all snowflakes are not beautiful anyway, some are quite plain and boring flakes of ice with no particular beauty, though still hexagonal due to the underlying crystal structure.

Not to mention beauty is invariably in the eye of the beholder, I know a few people who happen to think snow is decidedly ugly. Beauty simply can't be quantified, which basically invalidates any scientific argument involving it.

And how on earth would snowflakes be used as an example of evolution? It certainly hasn't by anyone on this thread, so I'd like to see the source for that... I have a hard time believing it's a serious biologist who has made that claim.

I'll stop there for now since the football game is on. Which I'm sure BW is watching as well, it being Australia and all.

[aldo_14]

To m ( trucated because a) footie and b) at work)

Partially formed lungs - in our little evolutionary line of descent - would not be a 'little blob of cells'.  They would be air sacs, i.e. functional.  (Otherwise, they would not be selected, would they?)  i.e. respiratory organs co-opted to form swim bladders, or vice versa.  Even a small air sac is potentially advantageous.

Some info; http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.000.html

also, RE: fish egg laying.  It would evolve those instincts.  Put simply; our little lungfish would be able to lay in both places.  The lungfish that instinctually laid, or moved to (and laid by coincidence; probably the more likely) isolated shallow ponds would lead to a survival advantage for its offspring.  Natural selection would favour and reinforce this behaviour.  Remember that evolution involves mutation, and mutation includes behavioural (instinct) changes.

The archeopteryx is of value as a transitional form because it can be placed within a lineage of (the development of) features.

As far as the platypus goes, you can find information here.  I'd suggest you bear in mind the geographical isolation of Australia and the concept of convergent evolution; a feature like, say,  a beak is not restricted to birds - why would it be?

RE: Migration; what makes you think migration only occurs due to weather (for example, why not simply for finding food)?  Moreso, it only needs to start as a simple concept; when cold, head in direction x.  Selection pressure after that favours effective migration.  and if you think there weren't seasons in the past...well, you just back that statement up.  i don't know why I should have to look about for scientific sources all the time, when there's such - frankly - tosh being spouted.

RE: snowflakes - what the hell?  I can't find that anywhere... but,  beauty is a human concept.  It's a point of view.  So the appearance of snowflakes as evidence of ID is, i'm afraid to say, simply idiotic.

To be honest, m, I've read your text and i'm not sure you actually understand what evolution is, and how it works.  Perhaps you should read up on it before posting.

[Ghostavo]

Perhaps he is confusing the snowflakes thing with a common response to the aplication of the second law of thermodynamics.

Example:
"Even if the second law applied to biological evolution, a local decrease in entropy is allowed as demonstrated by the formation of snowflakes."