Prime Factor

“For the Jedi Religion:
I think it’s funny, total stupid, and shows how influental such fiction can become.”

I don’t know. If that religion teaches them to be moral, upright citizens (as Samuel L Jackson, said, “Keepers of the Peace”), to resist the dark side (greed, hate, violence) and embrace the light side (helping others), then I find it much less “stupid.” Now if they ran around worshipping Yoda, that would be a much different story entirely. :wink:

”how do you explain the metamorphosis?”

Forget God. He/she/it doesn’t have the slightest clue of what’s going on, unless he does this for the fun of it. But as an evolutionist, not all insects go through the Complete Metamorphosis cycle of life. Cockroaches, very ancient insects by fossil standards, hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger. Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through Incomplete Metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult. Apparently at some point some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. Cockroaches stayed on in their way, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise. This is not absolutely proven. Not every step is preserved in stone and amber insect bodies do not readily fossilize (a big problem with evolution is fossil records). But it does show that life cycle evolution is not impossible, and this is a working hypothesis to compare findings with. By looking for remains of transitional forms, and by making genetic comparisons that show the distance between insect forms, and by examining insect growth processes that have continued today, the development of butterfly growth can be traced.

“People try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.”

Okay, here’s another question. Evolution is small changes over a lengthy amount of time. We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether be it a car, gun, or computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

@TG:

“For the Jedi Religion:
I think it’s funny, total stupid, and shows how influental such fiction can become.”
I don’t know. If that religion teaches them to be moral, upright citizens (as Samuel L Jackson, said, “Keepers of the Peace”), to resist the dark side (greed, hate, violence) and embrace the light side (helping others), then I find it much less “stupid.” Now if they ran around worshipping Yoda, that would be a much different story entirely. :wink:

True, but it’s funny that a movie can have such an impact (especially with this total black-white painting of good and evil in it:) …. btw, i love it!)

“People try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.”

Okay, here’s another question. Evolution is small changes over a lengthy amount of time. We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether be it a car, gun, or computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

Actually, the first eye was not much more than a layer of photosensitive cells. the improvements came later. The first wings were for gliding only, the improvement came later.
Just like the first planes were pretty crappy compared to todays planes, or cars or computers.
But even a small use is a use from which the animal benefits and therefore can be “fitter”

True, but it’s funny that a movie can have such an impact (especially with this total black-white painting of good and evil in it:) …. btw, i love it!)

Well there are many reasons why Star Wars is so popular. It is the first and closest movie(s) set on an epic scale in the late 20th Century. Its adventures were chronicled in a “galaxy, far, far away” –a Space Opera of good versus evil. Until then, most movies were mainly one-shots, there was no Casablanca Part II or Gone with the Wind II. Many people say Star Wars is just good because of the technology (ahead of its time), though I think it’s so much more. If you ask me, religions have been founded on a lot less…

“The first wings were for gliding only, the improvement came later.”

True, but what about when wings first start to develop? IE just a protruding fragment out of the body incapable of flight, which will (after many generations) allow that species to glide. Until then, it would serve no purpose whatsoever.

@TG:

“The first wings were for gliding only, the improvement came later.”

True, but what about when wings first start to develop? IE just a protruding fragment out of the body incapable of flight, which will (after many generations) allow that species to glide. Until then, it would serve no purpose whatsoever.

Wings are forelegs, arms. All that started to develop was something to give these arms some more area, so they can be used for gliding. One of the first gliding dinosaurs (which actually had feathers) could glide only for about 10-20m.
So, there is no portuding fragment, but an addtion to something existing (first), which changes the use of that something more and more over the time as the addition develops.
AFAIR You still can see the fingers in the bone structure of a chicken :). But they (now being useless) degenerated to not much more than “knobs”.
Or have a look at bats: there the wing is actually the arm and hand, with skin between the bones of the arm and fingers.

@FinsterniS:

i am a creationist. maybe not a young-earth creationist - although it is possible to defend that at some level, i don't really buy into it. but yes. i'm an intelligent design/creationist. 

How can you defend New Earth Creationist ? What, the earth is 10 000 year old, all the current species lived with dinosaur some time ago ?… But it take less than 2 000 and they completly disappear ? the flood probably. The carbone 14 test is working on a formula that say things are older than we really are, but it seem it only work for dinosaur, because between X and Y% of c14 remaining, there is only dinosaur and some mammal ?

Fanatism . . . i don't get it. I don't even know what that word means. Is it like Fanaticism? And if so that's a pretty subjective comment. Maybe in this context it's good to be fanatical? And if i'm fanatical about this, then are you not also fanatical? I mean, you've mentioned hatred vs. certain religious types much more than i've mentioned hatred vs. . . anyone.

Sure it is subjective, because you think you are right. What i mean by fanatic is that you take everything the bible said even if this is incohrent with current theory. Also that is a little hard for me to be fanatical; i rarely said in what i believe, you only know in what i do not believe. Sure i feel anger vs some religion, not when they are personnal, but when they take space in politic & science - look at the thermodynamic argument, the earth’s atmosphere argument, the logical argument; these are only creating confusion. If you do not have any formation (knowledge) in physics/chimy/mathematic you will probably get conned… that is not science byt demagogy ! you see i do not fear the word anger. Will you say you are tolerent vis-à-vis Québec ?

i won’t defend young-earth creationism here. I don’t really buy into it, and it has been a contention with between my father and i for some time.
Also the bible is not incoherent with current theory. I’ve always maintained that if there appears to be a conflict between the bible then there is information that we are missing. Either that or we are taking something literally which was intended metaphorically and vice versa. I maintain that for scientific literature as well (mind you, Nature or Science has an edge over “the Medical Post” - which is kind of a rag).
I’ve a B.Sc. in Chemistry, and nearly minored in Mathematics (too boring), so i’m not likely to get conned too easily.
And i am tolerant with regards to Quebec. In fact, i hope the best for Quebec. I hope that federalist Quebeccers may retain their Canadian citizenship and the rights and priveleges they deserve, and that separatists would leave once and for all - whether by separation of their region, or some other means - thereby fulfilling their dreams and destiny.
I also do not have a problem introducing spiritual concepts into the realms of science etc. If we do not consider the possibility of a place for them, then we may be missing the boat. Is it not scientific to consider possibilities outside of measurable realities? Theoretical physics at one time suggested that this was not a bad idea. Why not metaphysics?

@F_alk:

Wings are forelegs, arms. All that started to develop was something to give these arms some more area, so they can be used for gliding. One of the first gliding dinosaurs (which actually had feathers) could glide only for about 10-20m.
So, there is no portuding fragment, but an addtion to something existing (first), which changes the use of that something more and more over the time as the addition develops.
AFAIR You still can see the fingers in the bone structure of a chicken :). But they (now being useless) degenerated to not much more than “knobs”.
Or have a look at bats: there the wing is actually the arm and hand, with skin between the bones of the arm and fingers.

Understandable of course.

Okay, lets see if you can answer this,

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don’t forget that “natural selection” is supposed to retain those individuals, which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive, when it would not be well suited to either its old environment or its new environment?

@F_alk:

Actually, the first eye was not much more than a layer of photosensitive cells.

Certainly a “light-sensitive spot” is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye is hard to take.

@TG:

@F_alk:

Wings are forelegs, arms. All that started to develop was something to give these arms some more area, so they can be used for gliding. One of the first gliding dinosaurs (which actually had feathers) could glide only for about 10-20m.
So, there is no portuding fragment, but an addtion to something existing (first), which changes the use of that something more and more over the time as the addition develops.
AFAIR You still can see the fingers in the bone structure of a chicken :). But they (now being useless) degenerated to not much more than “knobs”.
Or have a look at bats: there the wing is actually the arm and hand, with skin between the bones of the arm and fingers.

Understandable of course.

Okay, lets see if you can answer this,

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don’t forget that “natural selection” is supposed to retain those individuals, which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive, when it would not be well suited to either its old environment or its new environment?

@F_alk:

Actually, the first eye was not much more than a layer of photosensitive cells.

Certainly a “light-sensitive spot” is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye is hard to take.

This is tied in to one argument vs. evolution discussed in the book “Darwin’s Black Box” - i referred to this as irreducible complexity in an earlier post (in a galaxy far far away). It is quite problematic reducing many physiological systems as there is no reason for an eye to spontaneously develop in its current form. Or for photosenstive cells to be adapted in the way that it has. This is one area where the “blind watch-maker” hypothesis requires even more faith than religion.

WRT Jedi religion - i understand that stating your religion as “Jedi” on a census in Australia is against the law and punishable (by fine, i suppose). I don’t know if i mentioned it here, but i was thinking of generating that religion here, using the “temple” as a tax haven to live in and conduct “Jedi Outcast” playing and “Star Wars:***” watching type rituals. Who knows what we could get the taxman to foot the bill for . . . :)
The funny thing is in Canada we could get away with it - especially if Sheila Copps (heritage minister) takes a run for leadership of the Liberal party.

• oh yeah, in case you couldn’t tell, this is a lazy crypt.

Damn Australians! Always trying to put Star Wars down! [just don’t expect the Jedi to protect them when the Empire invades and declares the earth as it own] :P
Why not answer my census at all then, maybe that would make them happy! :wink:

@FinsterniS:

Also the bible is not incoherent with current theory

The bible is incoherent with ALL current theory (well i don’t remember all the bible but in part). The earth is not flat, we are (human) very similar to other species, the earth was not “created” but formed, we are product of evolution not of some divine creator, and concept such as good & evil make the bible sound like a book for children. All these are incoherent…

I must admit i find it very hard, and always harder, to understand why people want to hard not to use their logic & creativity…

I don’t know how to argue this other than to say “you are wrong”. As i said earlier, the Bible is not a scientific document, so some poetic license may be taken, particularly in the book of Psalms. Whether the earth was created instantly or over a long period of time is not in conflict with the idea of it being created (if i create a cake out of instant mix, do i not get a similar result to one made from scratch?). We may be a product of an evolution guided by a devine creator, and whether you agree or not that the concepts of good and evil have a place in the world, it was written in many ways, simply - for children, for fishermen, for slaves, for solders, etc. They are not coherent if you open your mind a crack.

@FinsterniS:

I’ve always maintained that if there appears to be a conflict between the bible then there is information that we are missing. Either that or we are taking something literally which was intended metaphorically and vice versa.

That is fanatism… A good reason so you will never have to say somethings is incoherent in the bible, it is “metaphorical”.
"Plants began to grow before there was sunlight. "
“God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by injuring Jacob’s hip”
“The Moon is created as a “lesser light””
These are metaphorical ?

You know, i used to take offense to you using terms like “fantism” to describe my beliefs, but as i think about it, i feel better. Often i am afraid that i am more fanatical about exercising, pizza, gaming, women, etc. than my faith and Jesus Christ.
With regards to your “quotes”, if they are not metaphorical, then there is something that we don’t understand, or else that certain concepts were written simply for a simple people.

Is it not scientific to consider possibilities outside of measurable realities?

Yes, but as i said we do not, in science, create concept just because it pleased us, i am sure you know that. There’s no evidence, empirical or rational for god… That is why you will find far more unreligious scientist…
Christianism take very hard hit… with Freud, with Copernicus, with Darwin. But it still live, people do not want to know, they just find it a little hard to believe we came microbes.
You even support once in this forum a circular argument, not because you are idiot, not because you are not logic. because this was coherent with your belief (yeaaaa, stupid argument for atheist also exist…).

you know, we scientists often make up concepts that please us as well. They are called hypothesis, and are developed according to previous literature and findings. The null (opposite) hypothesis is tested, statistical analyses are run, and the null hypothesis is either found to be true or wanting (i.e. the hypothesis is correct). This is a scientific method hung onto before Louis Pasteur. Scientists DAILY say . . . “hmmm . . . i wonder if the reason for this might be that . . . that is a concept that pleases me” (or something similar). RNA is considered the first biological molecule - not because of any proof, but because it is a concept that makes sense. Apoptosis, now more or less demonstrated, was a much touted concept well before it’s pathway was elucidated. The Bible, a compilation of work that has been tested for validity over the years has been around much longer than the scientific method (obviously so has religion). The problem is, God is not something that we can test, or develop a set of materials and methods around in order to find whether God exists or not. We can only go by the evidence as we see it (or feel it, etc.). Your criticism of Christians/religious people for their own scientific approach to their feelings and interpretations of nature, their thoughts, etc. is not supported as well as a religious person’s approach, not because it is invalid (who am i to say so), so much that you lack that 3rd eye to allow you to see what we do.

@TG:

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don’t forget that “natural selection” is supposed to retain those individuals, which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive, when it would not be well suited to either its old environment or its new environment?

Why is a badly done, “improvised” improvement better than no improvement?
Things happen gradually (as you said), so there is a mutation, which has no effect at the moment, but maybe when temperature drops by 5 degrees. That animal now can go up “further north” and find food etc. without his fellow animals eating it.
A mutation has to show wether it is an improvement (gives more flexibility etc) by a change of environment, right.
See this nice example of that white butterfly, that hid on …. this white tree, don’t know the name…it’s Birke in german :). , in the Uk before the industrial revolution.
Every say 1 in 1000 was a mutant, who was black and not white, tried to hide on the same white surface, and was easily spotted and eaten by birds.
Then came the industrial revolution… lots lots lots of pollution, turning the tree bark black. In “no time” the white ones were the easy prey, the black ones survived… with a 1 in 1000 mutant being white instead of black.
Now, the british learned to use filters, the trees became white again…and guess what happened: the colour of the butterfly population changed again…

@F_alk:

Actually, the first eye was not much more than a layer of photosensitive cells.

Certainly a “light-sensitive spot” is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye is hard to take.

Luck, Chance, Unlikely Mutation? There is no answer for this kind of “why”-questions. Only if you assume there is a plan behind it all, then this is allowed, but when you assume there is no plan, then there is no answer to that.
And i think the development is pretty straightforward.
Take for exaple the evolution from the laterna magica to the first photographs to today. Humans copy nature quite a lot, and a not half as successful as nature in that (one think why i don’t trust genetic engineering too far).

“Why is a badly done, “improvised” improvement better than no improvement?”

Good counter move.

“See this nice example of that white butterfly, that hid on …. this white tree, don’t know the name…it’s Birke in german . , in the Uk before the industrial revolution.
Every say 1 in 1000 was a mutant, who was black and not white, tried to hide on the same white surface, and was easily spotted and eaten by birds.
Then came the industrial revolution… lots lots lots of pollution, turning the tree bark black. In “no time” the white ones were the easy prey, the black ones survived… with a 1 in 1000 mutant being white instead of black.
Now, the british learned to use filters, the trees became white again…and guess what happened: the colour of the butterfly population changed again…”

Hmmm… this reminds me a lot of the peppered moth changing its predominant color in response to environmental pollution from in industrial era of England. Before the population shift occurred both light and dark moths were present. The environment allowed one shade to flourish. However, what if the pollution covering the trees on which they rested was a bright green, making both the light and dark moths highly visible. Would the moths become green? Also, experiments and knowledge to date demonstrate that adaptation has limits beyond which no more change is possible. Selective breeding of roses has never been able to produce a blue-colored rose.

“Luck, Chance, Unlikely Mutation? There is no answer for this kind of “why”-questions. Only if you assume there is a plan behind it all, then this is allowed, but when you assume there is no plan, then there is no answer to that.
And i think the development is pretty straightforward.”

I also wondered as much. But I can say “chance” (and maybe even “luck” if you believe in it) certainly plays a large part in evolution. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations give greater reproductive success to their possessors are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out.

Anyways, this is along the same lines as the “photo-sensitive cells” argument, but try taking a stab at it. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce (it is improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point)? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient.

i’ll post a better reply to Moses later,
just a couple quick notes: F_alk’s lines about the moths just demonstrates “natural selection” - not the sudden generation of an entire protein (as well as its underlying genetic code). Multiply that by thousands of proteins (and genes), and one starts to see the incredulity of many people (scientists etc.) when considering the “blind-watch-maker” hypothesis. True, i can fathom ways that it can happen (and i have several times), but i don’t really believe them as contributing THAT much to the final “Person”.
Also Moses, with regards to evolution producing two sexes, just want you to consider a few things:
bacteria are without “sex” as we know it. At the same time, they do exchange genetic material (by conjugation) where by the “male” bacteria donates a plasmid (gene-like structure) to a “female” bacteria (lacking the plasmid). Bacteria reproduce asexually, but there is exchange of genetic material outside of reproduction. Obviously with “higher” species genetic variability and reproduction are more entwined. In theory this is a better “solution” in that you maintain genetic variation throughout a population if both are required for each to happen. Insofaras there is a possibility of passing down a mutant gene to your progeny, you also increase the chance of passing down a favorable mutation to your progeny.
Hope you found that interesting. If not, i really don’t care. Either way i hope you have a nice day . . .

• lazy crypt

“Also Moses, with regards to evolution producing two sexes, just want you to consider a few things:
bacteria are without “sex” as we know it. At the same time, they do exchange genetic material (by conjugation) where by the “male” bacteria donates a plasmid (gene-like structure) to a “female” bacteria (lacking the plasmid). Bacteria reproduce asexually, but there is exchange of genetic material outside of reproduction. Obviously with “higher” species genetic variability and reproduction are more entwined. In theory this is a better “solution” in that you maintain genetic variation throughout a population if both are required for each to happen. Insofaras there is a possibility of passing down a mutant gene to your progeny, you also increase the chance of passing down a favorable mutation to your progeny.”

Okay, I see.

@TG:

Anyways, this is along the same lines as the “photo-sensitive cells” argument, but try taking a stab at it. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce (it is improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point)?

Well, actually, self-reproducing molecules have been formed by humans in the lab, from what we by out knowledge expect could have been in the muddy soup of our very early planet, adding energy in form of electricity (e.g. lightnings).
These molecules then work as a catalyser (sp?) for the creation of themselves out of the ingredients. Once you know how a cell works, it doesn’t take creativity to imagine how the first reproducing molecule could have come into existence.

Have a look at the mad cow disease, there you van get a picture of how the “bad case of self-reproducing molecules” works. One of proteins in your neural cells has (at least) two stable configurations (ways of the atoms being folded into the molecule).
One of those configurations is the one needed for the cell, the other one works as a catalyser to promote its way of folding, folding the “useful” proteins it meets into “infective”, non-useful ones.
That is the same principle.