AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

This is not a book review in the sense one normally thinks. I'm reading a book on amazing abilities of animals. I'm going to describe amazing animal instinctual behavior as noted in the book, a little bit at a time. The first section I'd like to mention is instinctual partnerships, not the first section in the book, but it raises interesting Darwinian questions as to how the partnerships arose. Take Cleaner Wrasse fish, who clean the shark's mouth and teeth, or pilot fish who accompany sharks and show them dead flesh food. Pilot fish also clean shark's mouths, and pick parasites off their skin. Pilot fish will also clean manta ray's mouths. Rays and sharks are voracious predators who eat anything that comes their way, but not their companions. How was that behavior learned and incorporated into instinct? Very carefully, and both sides had to work it out. I have no idea. Do the Darwin folks?

7725 views

Another example of symbiotic instinctive partnership. The clown fish, think 'Finding Nemo' of the movies, lives inside a sea anemone. The latter is a cylindrical sack of a simple animal that attaches to the bottom. It has a ring of very poisonous tenticles at its mouth at its top. The adult clowns can live inside the tentacles without difficult, because it is surrounded by a gelatin layer. The young clown fish do not have this layer but develop it by allowing themselves to be stung a little. Without that layer they are killed instantly if heavily stung. When they have the gelatin layer then they enter. The clown fish by stirring the water brings food to the anemone and protects it from its enemy, butterfly fish. The clown fish benefit by being protected from their predators. Everybody wins but the predators. - Can anyone tell me how this developed in evolution? I can't think of a way.

7645 views

Not from the book, but an amazing, just reported, discovery of sea worms who release glowing 'bombs' to confuse predators. Nature's IQ is wonderful. How did evolution do this one? Think about it. Did the bombs appear all at once or in tiny steps? What would be a tiny step? Early in the process of development whatever was released had to be beneficial and act as a deterrent. All at once seems to fit best, but we will never know. It is hard to fit Darwin's concepts into some of this stuff. How many mutations are needed to create this? - My point is simple: life is filled with seemingly endless phenomena that look designed and purposeful. How much has to be discovered before evidence for design becomes overwhelming? - http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/08/worms_wiggling_with_weapons_wa.html - And here is another complex symbiotic relationship between aphids, the bacteria they carry, the viruses infecting the bacteria, and protection and/or non-protection from wasps, who like to deposit growing larvae in aphids. - http://www.physorg.com/news169996651.html - Read this carefully. It is so convoluted a story, it can be confusing.

7607 views

In Nature's IQ the scorpion fish's eating habits are described, as are a number of other predators. The scorpion fish has a dorsal fin that looks like the female fish of its prey. Male fish are attracted and eaten. When full the scorpion fish turns off the attractive color of the fin and stops eating. Obviously, the color comes back when hungry. Did the dorsal fin and its color come in a mutation, and then another mutation arranged to have the color turn off so the fish could rest (or not explode from overeating)? - The angler fish draws prey with a lighted bulb on the end of a stalk that is presumed to represent the mutated first spoke of its dorsal fin. It looks to be about as long as 1/4th-1/5th of body length. It lights up from rare bacteria in the bulb that produce luminescent chemicals. How did evolution arrange for all that? Did it grow the bulb and then invite in the bacteria? Or did it pick up the bacteria first and then grow the bulb to take advantage of the light produced? Is this epigenetic or mutative? - By the way, I've seen one speculative article that state the Chinese paleontologists, where the best Cambrian Shale fossils are far superior to the Canadian (Burgess), are begining to doubt the Darwin Theory. Frankly, I'm not surprised at the speculation. These fossils allow for better understanding as to how complex the critters are.

7640 views

More Nature's IQ found in the current literature. Symbiosis between orchids, fungi, and trees. It is a matter of, who's got the chlorophyll? - 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813190936.htm

7572 views

More Nature's IQ found in the current literature. Symbiosis between orchids, fungi, and trees. It is a matter of, who's got the chlorophyll?
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813190936.htm - I know you're big into symbiosis, but I think I need a little more clarification on how exactly this would tell me I need to use a deity to explain them.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7600 views

In Nature's IQ the scorpion fish's eating habits are described, as are a number of other predators. The scorpion fish has a dorsal fin that looks like the female fish of its prey. Male fish are attracted and eaten. When full the scorpion fish turns off the attractive color of the fin and stops eating. Obviously, the color comes back when hungry. Did the dorsal fin and its color come in a mutation, and then another mutation arranged to have the color turn off so the fish could rest (or not explode from overeating)?
> 
> The angler fish draws prey with a lighted bulb on the end of a stalk that is presumed to represent the mutated first spoke of its dorsal fin. It looks to be about as long as 1/4th-1/5th of body length. It lights up from rare bacteria in the bulb that produce luminescent chemicals. How did evolution arrange for all that? Did it grow the bulb and then invite in the bacteria? Or did it pick up the bacteria first and then grow the bulb to take advantage of the light produced? Is this epigenetic or mutative?
> 
> By the way, I've seen one speculative article that state the Chinese paleontologists, where the best Cambrian Shale fossils are far superior to the Canadian (Burgess), are begining to doubt the Darwin Theory. Frankly, I'm not surprised at the speculation. These fossils allow for better understanding as to how complex the critters are. - I still think you're looking at a chicken-and-egg question here. What about human mitochondria? I don't know how much traction the explanation has, but it appears much of life found ways to survive together. Behavioral explanations could shed quite a bit of light. - I still don't see how the complexity would be the sign of a creator--again our only disagreement, but there it is. Perhaps a powerful question: If it is shown that life's mutations happen in rapid bursts, of what significance is it? There would still be a general progression from noncomplex to complex, there would still be a common ancestor of all life... evolution could happen quickly or slowly. To me that's all I would get out of that, and in my case--only a direct observation of something I think is true. It wouldn't make me fundamentally question anything else. I guess the question just doesn't bother me as much. I've said before (and say here again) that stronger arguments for God exist in the mental world than in the physical one.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7700 views


> The angler fish draws prey with a lighted bulb on the end of a stalk that is presumed to represent the mutated first spoke of its dorsal fin. It looks to be about as long as 1/4th-1/5th of body length. It lights up from rare bacteria in the bulb that produce luminescent chemicals.-
The Wall Street J. today has a fascinating article which uses the picture of the angler fish above. The discussion is about bacterial 'quorum sensing', and sensing 'stranger' bacteria. They elute chemical messangers to do this. An infection does not start with one bacterium in a wound on the skin. The population has to reach a large enough trigger point to really attack. Bacteria average population doubling size in the right conditions is every 20 minutes, and they keep track. If researchers can find the right molecule to disrupt that communication, infections can be halted. Other sensing chemcials for communication are suspected and the hunt is on. Isn't life at any level just wonderful to behold and so complex.-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125236107718690619.html

7555 views

DT: "Isn't life at any level just wonderful to behold and so complex."-Yes, far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved.

--
GPJ

7590 views

Yes, far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved.-
The more complexity we find the more likely that an enormous number of contingencies will be required, by which I mean the necessary chance events to make that complexity, could not have happened by chance mutations alone. The odds for the reqired chance mutations increase exponentially. I firmly believe the DNA?RNA code guides evolution and drives it forward.

7568 views

I firmly believe the DNA/RNA code guides evolution and drives it forward.-
MicroRNA molecules are millions of years old, and now scientists are using them to establish species relationships.-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090909122108.htm

7573 views

David,
> > Yes, far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved.
> 
> 
> The more complexity we find the more likely that an enormous number of contingencies will be required, by which I mean the necessary chance events to make that complexity, could not have happened by chance mutations alone. The odds for the reqired chance mutations increase exponentially. I firmly believe the DNA?RNA code guides evolution and drives it forward.-But if we are the result of accrued changes (which you don't deny), what on earth is there even to argue about? -Epigenetics discusses changes to phenotype that aren't the result of DNA translation. This is still evolution to me. I guess I don't see the point that you keep trying to drive home about all this...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7584 views

The odds for the reqired chance mutations increase exponentially. I firmly believe the DNA?RNA code guides evolution and drives it forward.
> 
> But if we are the result of accrued changes (which you don't deny), what on earth is there even to argue about?-Remember the Darwin quote from dhw: I am a form of theist and I believe evolution occurred. 
> 
> Epigenetics discusses changes to phenotype that aren't the result of DNA translation. This is still evolution to me. I guess I don't see the point that you keep trying to drive home about all this...-The point is this. We have 3.6 billion years to get to H. sapiens under a passive and cumbersome process. Speed really didn't pick until the Cambian Explosion, over 500 million years ago, with the arrival of enough oxygen in the atmosphere. If it is shown that the evolution in this latter period required so many mutations that there is not enough time available, that is one discovery for my point of view. The second way my prediction will be proven is if the calculated odds are so monumental, beyond a probability bound of let's say 10^-100, that will prove my prediction that DNA/RNA is coded to drive creation, so that we appear rather directly, not by a wandering passive process, Darwin Theory.

7511 views

The odds for the reqired chance mutations increase exponentially. I firmly believe the DNA?RNA code guides evolution and drives it forward.
> > 
> > But if we are the result of accrued changes (which you don't deny), what on earth is there even to argue about?
> 
> Remember the Darwin quote from dhw: I am a form of theist and I believe evolution occurred. 
> > 
> > Epigenetics discusses changes to phenotype that aren't the result of DNA translation. This is still evolution to me. I guess I don't see the point that you keep trying to drive home about all this...
> 
> The point is this. We have 3.6 billion years to get to H. sapiens under a passive and cumbersome process. Speed really didn't pick until the Cambian Explosion, over 500 million years ago, with the arrival of enough oxygen in the atmosphere. If it is shown that the evolution in this latter period required so many mutations that there is not enough time available, that is one discovery for my point of view. The second way my prediction will be proven is if the calculated odds are so monumental, beyond a probability bound of let's say 10^-100, that will prove my prediction that DNA/RNA is coded to drive creation, so that we appear rather directly, not by a wandering passive process, Darwin Theory.-Here, critique these:-http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html-http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html-(Sorry to use talkorigins but I know quite a few biologists and paleontologists worked to put it together.) -Combining what you're saying with the explanations provided, for your claim to be tenable we would need to force a macroevolutionary event by inducing it biochemically in order to accept it. Hypothetically in the day and age of artificial carcinogens we should be seeing some drastic changes in phenotype. However if it is true then we should be able to forcefully create drastically different phenotypes at will by using epigenetic principles. We should be able to directly test it. Actually we're only about 4-5 years away from scientists custom-creating microbes. This would be a great place to test your idea--if there's no pressure for selection than mutations and traits should happen epigenetically. -The explanation of predator/prey relationships goes a long way to explain fast changes in observed phenotype during the Cambrian. I'd like to hear a stronger refutation...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7549 views

Here, critique these:
> 
> http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
> 
> http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html -Makes no point. Not worth anything.
 
> (Sorry to use talkorigins but I know quite a few biologists and paleontologists worked to put it together.)-Please don't ask me again to refute incorrect material:
Claim CC300:
Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils. 
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 80-81. 
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 60-62. 
Response:
1.	The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000).
 
DJT: Multicellular does not mean complex like in the Cambrian. Edicaran are branching fronds. Bilatarians were digesting sacks with mouth and anal opening. Complex? Hardly like Cambrian.-2.	Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). 
DJT: Eukaryotes 'may' have arisen from chemical evidence. A nice stretch.
3.	Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004). 
DJT: 2 & 3 are all about one celled forms; Stromatolites are large masses of bacteria!-4.	There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998). 
DJT: Is this fact on point? I don't see it.
5.	Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999). 
Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.-DJT: 36 out of 37 ANIMAL phyla appeared in the Cambrian. All the fish found so far, there are 3, relate to current species. One is identified as a hagfish.
 
6.	The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden. 
DJT: No point to this. Proves nothing.-7.	There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden: 
Â·	The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals.
 
DJT: there is no evidence of this-Â·	Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see. -DJT: How come we can find ancient bacteria (one cell) but not microscopic complex animals. Ridiculous!-Â·	The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). 
Â·	DJT: True-Â·	A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into. -Â·	DJT: My main objection: Does not explain the huge jump in complexity, just a time delay.-Â·	Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time.-Â·	 DJT: 'Likely' is a wonderful weasel word-Â·	Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
 
Â·	DJT: it did-
DJT:Both 8 & 9 beside the major point, the rapid jump in complexity.

7683 views

Here, critique these:
> > 
> > http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
> > 
> > http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html 
> 
> Makes no point. Not worth anything.
> 
> > (Sorry to use talkorigins but I know quite a few biologists and paleontologists worked to put it together.)
> 
> Please don't ask me again to refute incorrect material:-And how on earth am I supposed to know that it IS incorrect? Keep in mind this was a major source of info for me for quite some time. *You* know more about this stuff than I do. (Remember, paleontology is NOT anything I have any experience with whatsoever. You've spent much more time with it.) -The only sticking point I might have is on the predation issue. If we see predators rapidly evolving alongside of prey, do you simply consign that to "correlation only?" I ask because modern-day arms races have been well studied and these changes are rapid. It definitely seems like a very plausible explanation. -Part of your argument also seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that evolution is much more internally directed than it is by environmental influences? Help me out by describing how this statement could be proven. The best I can come up with is the artificial biotic experiment I created a short while ago. The DNA of these man-made life forms should drive them to evolve when outside pressures don't force them to. The only issue here is that we actively use selection to force selection where we want it to go.-If changes in phenotype happen epigenetically, but they are not passed on, then traditional evolution would still be safe. I can't find a way that epigenetics would crack natural selection as the driving force.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7671 views

And how on earth am I supposed to know that it IS incorrect? Keep in mind this was a major source of info for me for quite some time. *You* know more about this stuff than I do. (Remember, paleontology is NOT anything I have any experience with whatsoever. You've spent much more time with it.)-I realize, now, in your 'past life' you have used shortcuts to gain knowledge, but I have the impression that you have always picked websites that agreed with your preconceived notions. Not a good way to research an area of new knowledge for you. You must look at both sides, and make up your own mind to be an independent thinker, and I know you know all of that. Moral: no shortcuts. For example, I don't agree with Kenneth Miller but I read his book. i've read atheist books, etc. I didn't make up my theories until I had digested both sides. I maintain a skepticism against popular ideas. ('Global warming' is a liberal farce attempting to give UN third-world more money and large governments more governing controls. Lets not debate this here, wrong website, just an example of my research conclusions)
 
> The only sticking point I might have is on the predation issue. If we see predators rapidly evolving alongside of prey, do you simply consign that to "correlation only?" -You are absolutely right here. The 57 or so phyla in the Cambrian Explosion (CE) contained prey and preditors. They always evolve together and create a balance in nature. Ask the Australians about rabbits, or why Hawaiians keep out snakes.
> Part of your argument also seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that evolution is much more internally directed than it is by environmental influences? Help me out by describing how this statement could be proven. -You are correct: I believe RNA drives evolution and epigenetics.-> If changes in phenotype happen epigenetically, but they are not passed on, then traditional evolution would still be safe. -But that is the point of current research. Lamark had the right idea, but the wrong result. Kammerer was on the right path. Epigenetic changes are passed on, moving evolution along.-As an aside, cells die and are replaced. The process is called apoptosis. The dying cells call the garbage men by eluting chemicals that draw in the macrophages. Isn't life very complex and wonderful?-http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/edsumm/e090910-13.html

7568 views

The only sticking point I might have is on the predation issue. If we see predators rapidly evolving alongside of prey, do you simply consign that to "correlation only?" 
> 
> You are absolutely right here. The 57 or so phyla in the Cambrian Explosion (CE) contained prey and preditors. They always evolve together and create a balance in nature. Ask the Australians about rabbits, or why Hawaiians keep out snakes.-I know about that aspect of conservation; a good chunk of why my grandfather sold an ungodly amount of land to Uncle Sam was to keep a "wild" area near the farm to keep the populations of local wildlife high. It also gave us wild choke cherries, as well as one helluva nearby hunting ground every season.-What I find issue with here is how you would determine the difference between the pressure of selection and the driving of DNA. At what point can you say that evolution is happening by one process or the other? To me it seems it creates a chicken and egg scenario. In order for your idea to be tenable, you really need to be able to show that the process of speciation happens without some event to force the hand. --> As an aside, cells die and are replaced. The process is called apoptosis. The dying cells call the garbage men by eluting chemicals that draw in the macrophages. Isn't life very complex and wonderful?
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/edsumm/e090910-13.html-No one will disagree with you there... I just can't find a teleology for life.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7579 views


> What I find issue with here is how you would determine the difference between the pressure of selection and the driving of DNA. At what point can you say that evolution is happening by one process or the other? To me it seems it creates a chicken and egg scenario. In order for your idea to be tenable, you really need to be able to show that the process of speciation happens without some event to force the hand. -I'm sure there are always challenges; they may not be obviously external but biochemically internal, finding better, more economical ways to do things. For example, our brain uses less energy to produce electricity than in squids.-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17773-brain-cells-slicker-than-we-thought.html-> I just can't find a teleology for life.-My guess is that we were created as a challenge to us. Can we figure out how the creator did it? Where do we get our driving inquisitiveness about everything? Look at me trying to guess where, if anywhere, I am going. )

7529 views


> > What I find issue with here is how you would determine the difference between the pressure of selection and the driving of DNA. At what point can you say that evolution is happening by one process or the other? To me it seems it creates a chicken and egg scenario. In order for your idea to be tenable, you really need to be able to show that the process of speciation happens without some event to force the hand. 
> 
> I'm sure there are always challenges; they may not be obviously external but biochemically internal, finding better, more economical ways to do things. For example, our brain uses less energy to produce electricity than in squids.
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17773-brain-cells-slicker-than-we-thought.html-If THAT is true, then we're smarter than the creator. There are some biochemical processes that would give the same outputs with less energy and work. I'd have to dig into Pigliucci's book again, but he went over a few processes that can be designed better by us than by what nature has done. If we can do something--I would say anything--better than the creator, it speaks more for us than for it. -> 
> > I just can't find a teleology for life.
> 
> My guess is that we were created as a challenge to us. Can we figure out how the creator did it? Where do we get our driving inquisitiveness about everything? Look at me trying to guess where, if anywhere, I am going. )-Who or what then... is doing that willing? (Sorry... had to break that one out again...)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7624 views


> If THAT is true, then we're smarter than the creator. There are some biochemical processes that would give the same outputs with less energy and work. -We don't know if that statement is true. Remember the argument over the design of the retina. Ours is backwards in its layers, but it has the advantage of better energy delivery. Perfect design is not optimal design. 
> > 
> > > I just can't find a teleology for life.-> 
> Who or what then... is doing that willing? -I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)

7482 views


> > If THAT is true, then we're smarter than the creator. There are some biochemical processes that would give the same outputs with less energy and work. 
> 
> We don't know if that statement is true. Remember the argument over the design of the retina. Ours is backwards in its layers, but it has the advantage of better energy delivery. Perfect design is not optimal design. 
> > > 
> > > > I just can't find a teleology for life.
> 
> > 
> > Who or what then... is doing that willing? 
> 
> I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)-
As stated way earlier, both you and penrose misuse statistics in order to make those kinds of claims. You have to know everything about said system for that kind of knowledge. Inference can't get you there. -[EDIT] Our knowledge of the universe is based on a model constructed by a human language. We use the model to make guesses but for you or Penrose to be able to make those kinds of claims we need to have considerably more knowledge than we presently have available. We've never even been past our own moon!!!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7557 views


> > I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)
> 
> 
> As stated way earlier, both you and penrose misuse statistics in order to make those kinds of claims. You have to know everything about said system for that kind of knowledge. Inference can't get you there. 
> 
> We've never even been past our own moon!!!-Even if we go past the moon to Mars, we can never expect to leave the Milky Way. You must admit by your standards we will never know everything. We must extrapolate what we can know. And there is another set of close to infinite chance events: evolution, itself. So there are two distinct processes to account for, all by chance or by design, to account for us. Both require enormous series of chance events. And then there is the issue of a very complex code, that is only slightly different from Boolean Math. Invented by chance?; or by an intelligence? As I've said before, I've never seen a code that wasn't intelligently designed. Penrose is just one leg of my stool. And I haven't even mentioned consciousness. My stool is four-legged.

7508 views


> > > I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)
> > 
> > 
> > As stated way earlier, both you and penrose misuse statistics in order to make those kinds of claims. You have to know everything about said system for that kind of knowledge. Inference can't get you there. 
> > 
> > We've never even been past our own moon!!!
> 
> Even if we go past the moon to Mars, we can never expect to leave the Milky Way. You must admit by your standards we will never know everything. We must extrapolate what we can know. And there is another set of close to infinite chance events: evolution, itself. So there are two distinct processes to account for, all by chance or by design, to account for us. Both require enormous series of chance events. And then there is the issue of a very complex code, that is only slightly different from Boolean Math. Invented by chance?; or by an intelligence? As I've said before, I've never seen a code that wasn't intelligently designed. Penrose is just one leg of my stool. And I haven't even mentioned consciousness. My stool is four-legged.-Remember, I'm more strict than most. If I wasn't, I would already be either on your side of the fence, or still with Dawkins. And let us also remember, that in either the atheist case or yours, statistics are ultimately a folly because you cannot claim statistics for events that we do not understand. We don't know how life began--and we cannot go farther than that without being dishonest. Any statistic you or Dawkins places on the "probability" or "improbability" of life is absolutely and positively specious without having actual knowledge about how life got here.-Inferences are fine as long as you recognize that all scientific models are just that; models. They are tenuous explanations. The inference you make is based on this data, and the inference is about something we can't see, feel, hear, taste, or touch--and is completely closed to study by the tools that generated the data your conclusion rests on. If we're talking in terms of "intellectual safety" here, I don't have a stool, I have a solid steel cube. It's admittedly less comfortable than a stool, but it certainly provides more support--especially in the realm of epistemology. And I predict ill things in my future; Grad school after all, makes you dumber...-http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=374

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7594 views

And I predict ill things in my future; Grad school after all, makes you dumber...
 
> http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=374-Very funny website. Definition of an expert: someone who knows more and more about less and less.

7525 views

More of Nature's IQ, not from the book:-17 September 2009 Newscientist.com-The pitcher plant is normally carnivorous, preying on spiders and ants. But ant densities are low in tropical mountainous forests. So pitcher plants (Nepenthes lowii) found in Borneo have had to get used to a still less appetising diet. -Pitcher plants and tree shrews have formed a relationship of mutual benefit: the shrews feed on the plant's wax and defecate into its convenient "lavatory", so providing the plant with 60 to 100 per cent of its nitrogen needs.

7491 views

"Isn't life at any level just wonderful to behold and so complex."
 (David Turell)-"Yes, far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."
 (George Jelliss)-A man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."
 (Charles Darwin)

7571 views

"Isn't life at any level just wonderful to behold and so complex."
> (David Turell)
> 
> "Yes, far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."
> (George Jelliss)
> 
> A man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."
 (Charles Darwin)-
Yes, I can!!! Thank you, Charles.

7525 views

"Isn't life at any level just wonderful to behold and so complex."
> > (David Turell)
> > 
> > "Yes, far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."
> > (George Jelliss)
> > 
> > A man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."
> (Charles Darwin)
> 
> 
> Yes, I can!!! Thank you, Charles.-Here Here!

7548 views

"Isn't life at any level just wonderful to behold and so complex."
> (David Turell)
> 
> "Yes, far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."
> (George Jelliss)
> 
> A man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."
> (Charles Darwin)-Funny that you brought up this Darwin Quote... I don't know if anyone here is aware, but it was his student Huxley that coined the term "Agnostic" and began supporting it definitively as he championed the theory of evolution. He did this to create a social "safe haven" between atheism and theism--which didn't exist at the time.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7522 views

Another example of symbiotic instinctive partnership. The clown fish, think 'Finding Nemo' of the movies, lives inside a sea anemone. The latter is a cylindrical sack of a simple animal that attaches to the bottom. It has a ring of very poisonous tenticles at its mouth at its top. The adult clowns can live inside the tentacles without difficult, because it is surrounded by a gelatin layer. The young clown fish do not have this layer but develop it by allowing themselves to be stung a little. Without that layer they are killed instantly if heavily stung. When they have the gelatin layer then they enter. The clown fish by stirring the water brings food to the anemone and protects it from its enemy, butterfly fish. The clown fish benefit by being protected from their predators. Everybody wins but the predators. 
> 
> Can anyone tell me how this developed in evolution? I can't think of a way. - Dr. Turell, - Could it perhaps be that clown fish are a little more intelligent than given credit for? Anytime intelligence emerges, it has the potential for removing you from the "stream of life" as it were.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7575 views

Could it perhaps be that clown fish are a little more intelligent than given credit for? Anytime intelligence emerges, it has the potential for removing you from the "stream of life" as it were. - Matt: Cute answer, but baby clowns have to get slightly innoculated to grow the gelatin layer and be protected. Do you think the parents taught the kids? These symbiotic relationships are truly amazing, and how they develop is problematic. Look at the other entries I've made in this area. I'm fascinated.

7628 views

Could it perhaps be that clown fish are a little more intelligent than given credit for? Anytime intelligence emerges, it has the potential for removing you from the "stream of life" as it were.
> 
> Matt: Cute answer, but baby clowns have to get slightly innoculated to grow the gelatin layer and be protected. Do you think the parents taught the kids? These symbiotic relationships are truly amazing, and how they develop is problematic. Look at the other entries I've made in this area. I'm fascinated. - On that specific instance, I think its explainable by babies staying close by their parents. As for how it originally appeared, I know I can't know, so I'll just go with the best explanation, which is always going to be a "maybe" or an "I suppose." Some phenomenon just don't grab me when I know they're intractable.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7555 views

In The Selfish Gene, 2nd edition, 1989, chapter 12 (not in the 1st edition), is about Robert Axelrod's work on "reciprocal altruism", which tested different computer programs against one another that simulated competitive strategies. The winner was the "Tit for Tat" scheme which cooperates initially but retaliates if the other participant reneges. - Richard Dawkins explains "The birds ... who removed ticks from each other's feathers were playing an iterated prisoner's Dilemma game." The outcomes depend on the relative advantages of the various strategies, e.g. in terms of energy use. - Axelrod and biologist W.D.Hamilton combined to publish a paper on "The Evolution of Cooperation" (1981): - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/211/4489/1390 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation - In biological terms the concept becomes one of "evolutionary stable strategies". This provides a mathematically justified basis for the evolution of all these symbiotic relationships that DT finds beyond his imagination.

--
GPJ

7594 views

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/211/4489/1390
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
> 
> In biological terms the concept becomes one of "evolutionary stable strategies". This provides a mathematically justified basis for the evolution of all these symbiotic relationships that DT finds beyond his imagination. - I have reviewed these references and I've read both of Robrt Wright's books, Non-Zero and The Moral Animal, and E.O. Wilson's On Human Nature and I am still of the same mind. We humans are different in kind, and to apply human cooperation to animals and plants is stretching credulity beyond its bounds. They can't think like we do and they cannot imagine altruism. I must conclude, if mutations are random and generally deleterious, with a series of lucky contingencies, these symbiotic relationships are miraculous.

7608 views

David: "We humans are different in kind, and to apply human cooperation to animals and plants is stretching credulity beyond its bounds. They can't think like we do and they cannot imagine altruism." - I see the process in reverse. Animal cooperation preceded human cooperation, and social animals had to cooperate in order to survive. Man is a social animal, and he too has had to cooperate in order to survive. The difference in my view is that with our enhanced consciousness, we have created extraordinarily complex communities with formal laws and with forms of altruism that depend on reason and not on instinct. The framework is the same, however: our cooperation serves to enable our species to survive by providing us all with food, protection, care and training of the young etc. And so I would not apply human cooperation to animals, but animal cooperation to humans, which we have inherited and extended to a massive degree. - You continue: "I must conclude, if mutations are random and generally deleterious, with a series of lucky contingencies, these symbiotic relationships are miraculous." I can only agree with you. Minor adaptations (e.g. the length or shape of a beak) over generations are perfectly explicable in terms of natural selection, but new faculties, new features, new organs (think of sex ... that should cheer us all up!), however primitive they may be at the beginning, just can't be dismissed with a wave of the "natural" wand. But I can't go to the other extreme and attribute them to a "supernatural" wand either. We have what may be an insoluble mystery on our hands, but that shouldn't stop us from speculating on and having respect for other people's suggested solutions. If you can't believe in chance, you have good reason to believe in a designer, though most believers in design claim to have more positive reasons. If you can't believe in a designer, you have good reason to believe in chance, though most believers in chance also claim to have more positive reasons. And if you can't believe in chance or a designer, you have good reason to be an agnostic!

7683 views

Dr. Turell, - > I have reviewed these references and I've read both of Robrt Wright's books, Non-Zero and The Moral Animal, and E.O. Wilson's On Human Nature and I am still of the same mind. We humans are different in kind, and to apply human cooperation to animals and plants is stretching credulity beyond its bounds. They can't think like we do and they cannot imagine altruism. I must conclude, if mutations are random and generally deleterious, with a series of lucky contingencies, these symbiotic relationships are miraculous. - My education did not teach that most mutations are deleterious. It taught that only the deleterious ones never pass on. Most mutations are point mutations where one letter of a codon results in sometimes a subtly altered protein, sometimes not altered at all; therefore *only* if the mutation is deleterious will it cease to exist. You seem to think the opposite with your statement - >if mutations are random and generally deleterious, with a series of lucky contingencies, these symbiotic relationships are miraculous.< - From what I've learned, mutations are not generally deleterious. Mutations are fine more often than not.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7779 views

From what I've learned, mutations are not generally deleterious. Mutations are fine more often than not. - Matt: You are wrong. Good mutations are around 30%; neutral 35% and deleterious about 35%. check it out.

7593 views

From what I've learned, mutations are not generally deleterious. Mutations are fine more often than not.
> 
> Matt: You are wrong. Good mutations are around 30%; neutral 35% and deleterious about 35%. check it out. - By your own numbers, 65% of mutations are perfectly fine. To me, that is the definition of "fine more often than not." You know what you could do in Vegas with 65%?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7538 views

By your own numbers, 65% of mutations are perfectly fine. To me, that is the definition of "fine more often than not." You know what you could do in Vegas with 65%? - I have a different view of those numbers: 70% going nowhere or worse. This is why Haldane raised the issue of his dilemma, as it is called. Evolution advances very slowly, as it is well known, so some species in a rapid change of nature might die out faster than they can adapt.

7563 views

By your own numbers, 65% of mutations are perfectly fine. To me, that is the definition of "fine more often than not." You know what you could do in Vegas with 65%?
> 
> I have a different view of those numbers: 70% going nowhere or worse. This is why Haldane raised the issue of his dilemma, as it is called. Evolution advances very slowly, as it is well known, so some species in a rapid change of nature might die out faster than they can adapt. - Can't really call neutral mutations bad, they lay the foundation for further changes. What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. - Your exact words were that the majority of mutations are "generally deleterious." By your own numbers, this is false. For rounding's sake, 33% are deleterious. Everything else is non-deleterious. That means that the majority of mutations are non-deleterious. It's a BIG stretch to claim "generally deleterious" against a 2/3 survival rate. - Furthermore, the middle 3rd are neutral... meaning exactly that. You can't say an organism is "going nowhere" when for all you know that neutral mutation can set the next generation up for something else. - [EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7536 views

Can't really call neutral mutations bad, they lay the foundation for further changes. What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. - 
I'm sorry. The word neutral means no change, and we don't know that neutral makes you stronger or prepares for further change. Mutations are chance occurrances. According to Neo-Darwin precepts, the future of evolution is not planned. I still view mutations as 30% to the good side.

7494 views

Can't really call neutral mutations bad, they lay the foundation for further changes. What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. The word neutral means no change, and we don't know that neutral makes you stronger or prepares for further change. Mutations are chance occurrances. According to Neo-Darwin precepts, the future of evolution is not planned. I still view mutations as 30% to the good side. - David, I'm holding you the fire for this one. Neutral isn't deleterious either. There's no way to escape this bit of logic; - Claim: Mutations are generally deleterious. 
Evidence (rounded) 33% good, 33% neutral, 33% deleterious. - Your claim is not supported by evidence. 66% of mutations do not cause death, therefore they are not "generally deleterious." That claim can only be supported by the deleterious portion at 51% or greater, which again by your own data, isn't reachable. (33% != 70%) - [EDIT] - Using your exact original numbers, 30%G 35%N and 35%B, you still cannot claim "generally deleterious" for the reasons above. If 65% of mutations do nothing all the way to being beneficial, that still means they don't die.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7538 views


> Claim: Mutations are generally deleterious. 
> Evidence (rounded) 33% good, 33% neutral, 33% deleterious.
> 
> 
>> 
> Using your exact original numbers, 30%G 35%N and 35%B, you still cannot claim "generally deleterious" for the reasons above. If 65% of mutations do nothing all the way to being beneficial, that still means they don't die. - 
I think we are arguing about the hole in the doughnut. We must agree that most mutations are not good. We don't know how neutral mutations will eventually end up, good or bad, or still neutral. Further, I have not mentioned before, but mutations are usually recessive. (see Jeffrey Schwartz, "Sudden Origins",pg. 7, 1999). I must admit that using the word deleterious as I did must have mislead your thinking, but your statement that most mutations were good needed to be set straight. Even the good ones have to figure out how to become dominant. Please remember I believe evolution occurred, and I think Darwinism has a litle of the truth. The real truth, to me lies in the DNA/RNA coded mechanism and where did that come from. From the beginning of time a large number of genes can be traced from the simplest organisms to the most complex. It is combination of genes and how they are organized that makes most of the differences in morphology.

7614 views


> > Claim: Mutations are generally deleterious. 
> > Evidence (rounded) 33% good, 33% neutral, 33% deleterious.
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> > Using your exact original numbers, 30%G 35%N and 35%B, you still cannot claim "generally deleterious" for the reasons above. If 65% of mutations do nothing all the way to being beneficial, that still means they don't die.
> 
> 
> I think we are arguing about the hole in the doughnut. We must agree that most mutations are not good. We don't know how neutral mutations will eventually end up, good or bad, or still neutral. Further, I have not mentioned before, but mutations are usually recessive. (see Jeffrey Schwartz, "Sudden Origins",pg. 7, 1999). I must admit that using the word deleterious as I did must have mislead your thinking, but your statement that most mutations were good needed to be set straight. Even the good ones have to figure out how to become dominant. Please remember I believe evolution occurred, and I think Darwinism has a litle of the truth. The real truth, to me lies in the DNA/RNA coded mechanism and where did that come from. From the beginning of time a large number of genes can be traced from the simplest organisms to the most complex. It is combination of genes and how they are organized that makes most of the differences in morphology. - David, please reread the post: - http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=2024 - I said that most mutations are generally fine... that's not the same as saying "good." - You don't need to qualify your position here, it wasn't what was in focus.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7590 views

David, - While I'm sometimes rash, I've been extremely good about retracting erroneous statements and other statements where I've placed my foot in my mouth. This is one instance where I do believe you have done one or the other. - --Matt

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7538 views

David, please reread the post:
> 
> http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=2024
> 
> I said that most mutations are generally fine... that's not the same as saying "good." 
> 
> You don't need to qualify your position here, it wasn't what was in focus. - I have re-read the post, and we shall move on. Sometimes I write without exposing the background issue, in this case, the mutation rate matched against the time taken for evolutionary change. Many times there is no mathematical fit, and has the appearance that evolution has made a giant jump with no intermediate stages and in a time frame that seems not to allow for those gradual stages. This was first noted at the Wister Institute Symposium "Mathematical Challenges To The Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution", 1966 (part of the U. of Pennsylvania).

7565 views

There is a section in the book on instinctual migration. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario for evolution of salmon migration. They are born as fresh water fish in tiny tributaries of rivers, go to sea for six years and travel back to the same tributary to spawn. One can imagine a process in which they ventured out into the ocean bit by bit and developed some sort of navigation system to come back to their birthplace over many favorable mutations. - But this is not true of many migrating birds. Hummingbirds in the south USA must cover over 600 miles of Gulf waters to reach Mexico, non-stop. The birds weight 0.1 ounce and must eat to double their weight before making the flight, to have enough nutrition for the journey, but only if they use favorable tail winds. The American Golden Plover does the same thing from Alaska to Hawaii, 2,200 miles non-stop. They must gain 2.5 ounces added to their 4.5 ounce bodies to have the energy to make the trip. They use V-formation in flight which acts like drafting in car racing to save energy, because the trip calculates nutritionally to require 2.9 ounces of weight gain. Both species must also navigate properly as there are no guidposts along the way. There is no way that this can develop in a step-wise manner as I can imagine for salmon. Either you make it the first time or there are no future generations. And you also have to know how much to eat in advance without knowing the distance of flight required. I can actually imagine the Hummingbirds working their way down the Gulf Coast over many generations to get to the southern Mexican coast, but the step to the one long flight; there is no way the birds could figure out how to try that. The Plovers can only make the one huge hop. There are no intermediates. This does not fit Darwin.

7604 views

Sometimes I write without exposing the background issue, in this case, the mutation rate matched against the time taken for evolutionary change. Many times there is no mathematical fit, - Appropriatly, there is a recent article on human mutation rate. but please carefully note that this is general rates for whole human DNA, not specific mutations in functional genes, i.e., 100-200 per 3.3 billion base pairs. - 
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html

7542 views

DT asks in the ("How did Sex Pop Up?" thread): "What of some of the cooperative actions I presented in Nature's IQ? With chance mutation and natural selection, I seriously wonder how it works."-I've not responded to all the cases listed by DT in this "Natures IQ" thread because I'm not a biologist, so my replies would only be quoting the experts. Perfectly adequate explanations of all these cases are to be found in the evolutionary literature. Indeed, Darwin's theory, together with its modern improvements, is the only adequate explanation of these phenomena. -I understand why DT is scouring the literature for examples of strange adaptations, to try to support his thesis of design, but the same literature also offers explanations of these adaptations. They cannot be dismissed as he often does as "just so stories".

--
GPJ

7536 views

Perfectly adequate explanations of all these cases are to be found in the evolutionary literature. Indeed, Darwin's theory, together with its modern improvements, is the only adequate explanation of these phenomena. 
> 
> I understand why DT is scouring the literature for examples of strange adaptations, to try to support his thesis of design, but the same literature also offers explanations of these adaptations. They cannot be dismissed as he often does as "just so stories".-You missed my point entirely. Yes we know how many of these cooperative endevours work now. We do not know how they got that way. We know that birds migrate temendous distances by various guidances. We really don't know about penis and vagina, or baby head and mother's pelvic opening. Your guess or conjecture about the baby and mother is a good one, but we can only suppose it works that way. A simple statement 'evolution is the only explanation' begs the real question, and as dhw points out, it sounds like faith in Darwin's religion.-The following link is to Uncommon Descent, where Gould is quoted in regard to the green turtle's migration across the Atlantic from Brazil to Ascension Island. It is taken from the Panda's Thumb. He is willing to make a guess, like George did, but true science is not guesswork, or just-so stories.There are other problematic similar practices by animals discussed also. How did these things evolve. That they evolved I don't doubt. I just raise the challenge to find the true process: either natural evolution or designed evolution.- http://www.uncommondescent.com/

7456 views

David: A simple statement 'evolution is the only explanation' begs the real question, and as dhw points out, it sounds like faith in Darwin's religion.-This is what I meant when I referred to 'Sprite's' piece on sex as a cop-out: everything 'evolved' ... end of story. However, I would say it's faith in Dawkins' religion, not Darwin's! Darwin went out of his way to emphasize that he saw "no good reason why the views given in this book [The Origin of Species] should shock the religious feelings of any one". -David: How did these things evolve? That they evolved I don't doubt. I just raise the challenge to find the true process: either natural evolution or designed evolution.-I think you have pinpointed a constant source of misunderstanding, which is often exploited and even deliberately created in order to discredit the design argument. Matt has also hit on it with his useful distinction between ID and design. Darwin himself made it clear that evolution and theism are compatible, and the design theory in itself does not entail rejection of Darwinian evolution and is no more contrary to science than the claim that evolution is the result of a large slice of luck. We've said it before, and we'll say it again: Science is neutral, even if some scientists are not, and whether you plump for design or you plump for luck comes down to faith. -(My thanks to George for two very helpful posts, which I will respond to in due course, and to BBella ... still thinking about yours!)

7499 views

Trying to solve another of Nature's IQ, how monarch butterflies migrate:-
Butterfly Navigation- 
CREDIT: MONARCH WATCH
 
 
Monarch butterflies migrate to Mexico from various parts of North America in the fall and navigate with the aid of Sun compass. This navigational mechanism, also employed by migratory birds, uses the circadian clock to compensate for the positional change of the Sun in the sky throughout the day. The mechanism behind time-compensated Sun compass orientation has remained obscure. Merlin et al. (p. 1700; see the Perspective by Kyriacou) now provide comprehensive data showing that the mechanism resides in the antennae of the butterflies, rather than the brain, as previously thought. The "antennal clocks" found in the monarchs probably provide the primary timing mechanism for Sun compass orientation. These findings reveal a further function for the antennaeâa function that may extend widely to other insects that use this orientation mechanism. -This is copied from Science blog, which summarizes the current papers in the current edition.

7437 views

Here is another migration story, not fully understood. European eels seem to understand the Gulf Stream and drift will get their babies back home. Amazing.-http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5948/1660?sa_campaign=Email/toc/25-September-2009/10.1126/science.1178120-And a fascinating discussion of how the Monarch butterfly uses its antennae to to find an exact location in Mexico for its migration:-
http://www.physorg.com/news173021625.html

7422 views

Here is an article about crooning predators, and the fact that cicadas change tunes to avoid being trapped; othr entrapments are discribed, including a spider who throws bolas at his victim. Who knew spiders were Argentinian?-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327272.000-monster-insect-mimic-lures-prey-with-siren-song.html?full=true-I suspect we are seeing epigenetics again, or just a brain-game with insects learning as fast as we do. No mutations in this example.-In the same vein: an electric protection mechanism explained in fish. Amazing process.-
http://www.physorg.com/news173418765.html

7455 views

How much understanding do bird brains have? Rooks and other crow families do simple problem solving. Here is a comparison of rooks and human babies and physical concepts such as gravity:-http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1009/2

7401 views

Spider webs and water. They are hydrophilic and attract water droplets. Silk worm webs do not:-http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/03/08/design_principles_in_spider_silk-From an ID site, but certainly not proof of anything. No purpose is known, and ID needs purpose.

7464 views

Now we have amoeba farming bacteria!-
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/the-worlds-smallest-farmers.html?ref=hp

7143 views

Now we have amoeba farming bacteria!
> 
> 
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/the-worlds-smallest-farmers.html?ref=hp-I always loved slime molds. (All fungi, really...) Had I gone down the biology path I undoubtedly would have ended up a Mycologist. Yeah.. the must "Fun-Guy" on campus...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

7221 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum