I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this please.
Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in complexity by any standard.
I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
On Nov 5, 10:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
It also simplifies as well. In industry the theory of evolution is used to reduce mass and to refine algorithmns. A regular use is to simplify the route for multiple point deliveries.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
In all the usual places. You know the list by now. Irredicuble complexity was a fake idea based upon the idea that evolution only makes things more 'complex'. And as for your 'back to the sea' idea - you think whales are less complex than frogs? Well unless you define what you mean by complex I'd say whales blow you views out of the water (pun intended).
On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
?? so when you drive on a road and you go up a hill
you can't go DOWN a hill because you can only go one way? you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it. my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not need it. and that's EXACTLY what happened. eyes take up a large amount of energy. naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and, as evolution predicts, it's losing them
creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
in addition, creationism has a problem because we KNOW the bible can''t be read literally. 'all seeing' just got his ass handed to him the other day when it was shown the book of exodus describes events that never happened, and therefore is not literally true, as he said it was
creationism....a wrong idea for 2000 years.
and he has the balls to come here and criticize science.
balls...he never uses 'em so perhaps he'll lose 'em
All-seeing-I wrote: > complexity increases through evolution?
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
It is not backward evolution and has nothing to do with complexity. There is nothing inherent in an aquatic environment that makes life there necessarily less complex than on land.
Nor woudl it matter Evolution does not follow a plan towards more complexity.
If
> an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
by pretty much no standard, unless you an show us that the genetic complexity of land living creatures is necessarily higher than aquatic creatures. Have fun.
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
On Nov 5, 11:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
. .
> ?? so when you drive on a road and you go up a hill
> you can't go DOWN a hill because you can only go one way?
As you travel down, you are only going "one way".
> you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it. > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with all the naked people around?
> because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not > need it.
On a serious note: I have a question.
Deep sea bioluminescence.
According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean so noone needs eyes.
Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
And further, bioluminescence, didn't just *spring up* fully developed. You must have had a single bioluminescence-skin-pigment, then another, then another.
But everybodies blind, so the first bioluminescence-pigment, would have been selected out as expensive waste.
So why wasn't it?
And then, Those who are blind down there, would have to evolve photoreceptive pigments, to detect, these miniscule farts of light, millions of times duller than the dullest LED, in a *BIG*, *VERY BIG*, - *BLACK*, *VERY BLACK* *DARK OCEAN*.
So why bother developing eyes, for these nonexistant blips of light, when the naked rat lost his, (because it was expensive).
When in actually, the naked rat, receives more light than the they do at the deep ocean?
Have a think about it! You might learn something.
> eyes take up a large amount of energy.
So do deep ocean marine life waste it, detecting blips of light that even ours could not detect, in the deep oceans?
> naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and, > as evolution predicts, it's losing them
Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
> creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
On Nov 5, 10:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
Yes, needless complexity is to be expected from evolution.
Evolution has no foresight. Therefore the most direct solution is often bypassed.
Variations pile up according to how much they increase the reproductive efficiency of the organism.
From this, we should expect a variety over-complex reproduction machines, with complex, roundabout ways of functioning.
In other words, life on Earth.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. > Where is the evidence for this > please.
One way would be to look at the fossil record.
Following the fossil record further and further back in time, you find that the families all converge, and reach an apex of simplicity right at the earliest point (the earliest hard-bodied organisms).
Looking at the record overall, this is plain as day.
If you want to observe and verify tiny increases of compexity, you would need a definition of complexity precise enough to describe the events within these time scales.
- Having two folds in a strcuture rather than one. - Having a contorted structure
The evidence for these variations is trivially easy to find. For example, I could be more complex than you.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea,
Yes....
>then that is backward evolution decreasing the
> complexity
Evolution is adaptation to the environment. It is not some march toward greater complexity(although early life happens to be very simple so obviously the actual history of fossil record does show this -- but this is not an ongoing inclination of evolution). There is no 'backward\forwards' in evolution.
> and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome
It isn''t. The genome is a string of GCA & Ts, which, considered alone as a data string is very irregular. 'Complex' is a misplaced concept this context. It's just near-total complexity right from the outset.
> then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
What?? Why?
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind.
Why? It adapt to changing envornments.
>B ecause one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
On Nov 5, 6:52 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> .
> > you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it. > > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an > > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost > > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
> How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with > all the naked people around?
well that could happen...but if they'd invented beer they'd screw anyone...
> > because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy > > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not > > need it.
> On a serious note: I have a question.
> Deep sea bioluminescence.
> According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean > so noone needs eyes.
> Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
really? sure about that? because 't'aint true.
ONE reason for bioluminescence is that it's a by product of other chemical reactions:
The origin of bioluminescence is regarded as a problematic aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution (for recent discussions see Czyż & Węgrzyn 2001a, Labas et al. 2001). The problem is that the function of bioluminescence is generally believed to be directly associated with the visual behaviour of organisms.
If this were true, there should be no benefit to organisms possessing weakly luminescent systems, i.e. emitting low amounts of light. Quite simply, for the development of an efficient system, there has to be positive environmental pressure to select individuals bearing more and more effective systems among population of organisms
Recent studies of the biological role of bacterial luminescence, discussed in the preceding section, have shed new light on the problem of the early evolution of luminescence systems. As described above, bioluminescence can stimulate DNA repair by activating the photoreactivation reaction (Czyż et al. 2000b). Moreover, this stimulation is effective even when luminescence is several hundred times less intense than that observed in wild-type V. harveyi, as demonstrated in experiments with E. coli cells bearing the luxCDABE operon and the luxR gene (Czyż et al. 2000b). Such E. coli cells produce light invisible to the naked eye, but this luminescence is of an intensity that is still sufficient to stimulate effective DNA repair. Therefore, it seems plausible that stimulation of DNA repair could have been an evolutionary drive for bacterial luminescence. When the light emission of the early luminescent bacteria was very weak, more luminescent cells could repair DNA more effectively. This mechanism could have operated even when the emitted light was still invisible to the naked eye. Thus, weakly luminescent bacteria might prevail in competition with cells producing light less effectively in environments endangered by mutagenic factors like UV irradiation
> Have a think about it! You might learn something.
i did think about it. and you're right; i learned something
evolution is a marvelous thing that explains our world much, much better than creationism does.
you might take your own advice!!
> > naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and, > > as evolution predicts, it's losing them
> Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
> You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
hmmm...so you say.
except, of course it's not. you just made an assumption which does not survive scrutiny. you ASSUMED bioluminscence evolved for optical reasons.
try again, creationist. be my guest!
> > creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
> Sure we do.
> God created everything.
meaningless. for 2000 years that has been a meaningless statement
but, if it makes you happy and gives you a warm feeling, be my guest.
All-seeing-I wrote: > complexity increases through evolution?
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
Look at a bacterium. Then look at an elephant.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
What is your evidence that a land animal evolving to live in the sea is an example of "decreasing complexity?"
> If > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
False assumption on your part.
"In the animal kingdom, the relationship between genome size and evolutionary status is not clear. One of the largest genomes belongs to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA, or base pairs. The genome of a cousin, Amoeba proteus, has a mere 290 billion base pairs, making it 100 times larger than the human genome."
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
It's quite clear that your understanding of evolution is poor. Try to educate yourself on the topic and you won't be so confused.
> On Nov 5, 11:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> . > .
>> ?? so when you drive on a road and you go up a hill
>> you can't go DOWN a hill because you can only go one way?
> As you travel down, you are only going "one way".
>> you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it. >> my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an >> ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost >> most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
> How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with > all the naked people around?
>> because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy >> expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not >> need it.
> On a serious note: I have a question.
> Deep sea bioluminescence.
> According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean > so noone needs eyes.
> Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
Yes animals that evolved further up in the water column.
> And further, bioluminescence, didn't just *spring up* fully developed. > You must have had a single bioluminescence-skin-pigment, then another, > then another.
Most bioluminescence comes from bacteria that live symbiotically with the creatures who need to use the light. (I know there are exceptions but that is how it normally works)
I don't know why bacteria themselves produce light though I know it is very common. If you run your hand through sea water late at night you can see the agitated bacteria glowing.
> But everybodies blind, so the first bioluminescence-pigment, would > have been selected out as expensive waste.
> So why wasn't it?
> And then, Those who are blind down there, would have to evolve > photoreceptive pigments, to detect, these miniscule farts of light, > millions of times duller than the dullest LED, in a *BIG*, *VERY BIG*, > - *BLACK*, *VERY BLACK* *DARK OCEAN*.
Actually there is a very good use for eyes when there is only a tiny amount of light. When a preditor looks up he sees a shadow against the surface, making the prey easy to detect. Many deep sea preditors have eyes that are designed to look only or primarily up.
Many potential prey species use bioluminescence to mimimic the glow from above so preditors below cannot pick out their shadows.
> So why bother developing eyes, for these nonexistant blips of light, > when the naked rat lost his, (because it was expensive).
> When in actually, the naked rat, receives more light than the they do > at the deep ocean?
> Have a think about it! You might learn something.
>> eyes take up a large amount of energy.
> So do deep ocean marine life waste it, detecting blips of light > that even ours could not detect, in the deep oceans?
>> naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and, >> as evolution predicts, it's losing them
.
> Deep sea fish live in total blackness, so why have they evolved eyes?
In most (or all) cases they would be animals that evolved higher up in the water column and then adapted to lower light for hunting during the night and/or at greater depths.
> You logic (or lack thereof) is flawed yet again.
Your imagination only has one track.
>> creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
On Nov 5, 4:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
Not as a hard and fast rule, especially when "complexity" is a somewhat vague term in some suystems.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere.
Perhaps you do not have the ability to perceive.
> Where is the evidence for this > please.
Depending on the definition, probably all around you, but you cannot, or will not, perceive it.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
Not really. It's simply modifications and adaptations to that enabled a more efficient exploitation of an environmental condition.
> If > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
Nope. But then again, you have low standards.
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind.
Evolution is a process,not an entity with a mind.
> Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
Try the new Angus Burger. I'm partial to the Bacon Cheese Angus, myself.
All-seeing-I wrote: > complexity increases through evolution?
No. Complexity can increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on what is most advantageous to individuals and what mutations happen.
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
There being no such general principle, you will find no evidence for it.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
There is no such thing as forward and backward in evolution. This is not the paradox you imagine. Nor does going into the sea necessarily involve decreased complexity.
> If > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome
It isn't.
> then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
And that doesn't even follow from your false assumption.
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
You are ill-equipped to recognize conflict, since you have so little understanding of evolution. I have a car. I can drive it north, and I can also drive it south. Is that a conflict in the theory of automobiles?
On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
Complexity is not the "goal" of evolution. The closest thing to a goal is survival. If complexity does it, fine. but simplicity can also do the job. There is no forward or backward evolution, there is just evolution. Land animals that have "returned" to the the sea are not going backwards, they are using new tools their ancestors evolved to exploit a niche.
Evolution has no "mind". Yes, it does produce conflict. Species context with their environment and each other. Heck, right now humanity is slugging it out with the latest in flu viruses. The real conflict at issue here is your ongoing struggle with your own ignorance and reality. A hint: Reality always wins in the long, and short, run.
> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > complexity increases through evolution?
> > I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > > please.
> > Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If > > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > > complexity by any standard.
> > I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
> ?? so when you drive on a road and you go up a hill
> you can't go DOWN a hill because you can only go one way? you > creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it. > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
> because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not > need it. and that's EXACTLY what happened. eyes take up a large amount > of energy. naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and, > as evolution predicts, it's losing them
Bull.
T Rex had tiny arms that look atrophied compared to the rest of the body and i am sure the Trex would have survived better with full arms.
> creationism, OTOH, has no explanation for this at all. none.
> in addition, creationism has a problem because we KNOW the bible > can''t be read literally. 'all seeing' just got his ass handed to him > the other day when it was shown the book of exodus describes events > that never happened, and therefore is not literally true, as he said > it was
> creationism....a wrong idea for 2000 years.
> and he has the balls to come here and criticize science.
> balls...he never uses 'em so perhaps he'll lose 'em
> On Nov 5, 6:52 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 11:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > .
> > > you creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it. > > > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an > > > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost > > > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
> > How do you know they never lost their eyes, keeping them closed with > > all the naked people around?
> well that could happen...but if they'd invented beer they'd screw > anyone...
> > > because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy > > > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not > > > need it.
> > On a serious note: I have a question.
> > Deep sea bioluminescence.
> > According to what you just said, it's dark at the bottom of the ocean > > so noone needs eyes.
> > Now, to evolve bioluminescence, someone must be able to see it.
> really? sure about that? because 't'aint true.
> ONE reason for bioluminescence is that it's a by product of other > chemical reactions:
> The origin of bioluminescence is regarded as a problematic aspect of > Darwin’s theory of evolution (for recent discussions see Czyż & > Węgrzyn 2001a, Labas et al. 2001). The problem is that the function of > bioluminescence is generally believed to be directly associated with > the visual behaviour of organisms.
> If this were true, there should be no benefit to organisms possessing > weakly luminescent systems, i.e. emitting low amounts of light. Quite > simply, for the development of an efficient system, there has to be > positive environmental pressure to select individuals bearing more and > more effective systems among population of organisms
> Recent studies of the biological role of bacterial luminescence, > discussed in the preceding section, have shed new light on the problem > of the early evolution of luminescence systems. As described above, > bioluminescence can stimulate DNA repair by activating the > photoreactivation reaction (Czyż et al. 2000b). Moreover, this > stimulation is effective even when luminescence is several hundred > times less intense than that observed in wild-type V. harveyi, as > demonstrated in experiments with E. coli cells bearing the luxCDABE > operon and the luxR gene (Czyż et al. 2000b). Such E. coli cells > produce light invisible to the naked eye, but this luminescence is of > an intensity that is still sufficient to stimulate effective DNA > repair. Therefore, it seems plausible that stimulation of DNA repair > could have been an evolutionary drive for bacterial luminescence. When > the light emission of the early luminescent bacteria was very weak, > more luminescent cells could repair DNA more effectively. This > mechanism could have operated even when the emitted light was still > invisible to the naked eye. Thus, weakly luminescent bacteria might > prevail in competition with cells producing light less effectively in > environments endangered by mutagenic factors like UV irradiation
Huh. I always thought those fish were bioluminescene so they could find mates in the dark sparsely populated deep sea.
> All-seeing-I wrote: > > complexity increases through evolution?
> No. Complexity can increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on > what is most advantageous to individuals and what mutations happen.
> > I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > > please.
> There being no such general principle, you will find no evidence for it.
> > Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
> There is no such thing as forward and backward in evolution. This is not > the paradox you imagine. Nor does going into the sea necessarily involve > decreased complexity.
> > If > > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > > its genome
> It isn't.
> > then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > > complexity by any standard.
> And that doesn't even follow from your false assumption.
> > I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
> You are ill-equipped to recognize conflict, since you have so little > understanding of evolution. I have a car. I can drive it north, and I > can also drive it south. Is that a conflict in the theory of automobiles?
Gould seems to disagree. He did quite the paper on complexity.
> On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > complexity increases through evolution?
> > I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > > please.
> > Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If > > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > > complexity by any standard.
> > I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
> ?? so when you drive on a road and you go up a hill
> you can't go DOWN a hill because you can only go one way? you > creationists don't understand evolution well enough to criticize it. > my favorite example is the naked mole rat. it evolved from an > ancestor that USED to h ave eyes...but it lives underground so lost > most of its eyesight except for rudimentary eyes. why?
> because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy > expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did not > need it. and that's EXACTLY what happened. eyes take up a large amount > of energy. naked mole rats live underground so don't need eyes. and, > as evolution predicts, it's losing them
Bull.
"T Rex had tiny arms that look atrophied compared to the rest of the body and i am sure the Trex would have survived better with full arms.
According to you Trex was losing the arms.
Highly unlikely"
Where are the T. Rex bones mixed with human ( or any other mammal for that matter ) bones?
On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
Unsurprising, given the daily liberal application of Super Glue to your eyelids.
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution
No, it is not. Why would you think that? Do you see some animal actually reverting to a previous morphological state? No, of course not. That's what is considered to be so unlikely as to be impossible. And given the number of times you've been corrected on this and similar points already, one must conclude that you continue to make this claim out of irreparable dishonesty.
> decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity. If
First, evolution does not always increase complexity. Second, a dolphin is hardly more complex than it's immediate ancestor.
> If an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
Untrue. And in fact, a moment's reflection (I know, an impossible task for you) would inform a terrestrial animal would almost have to evolve more complex structures in order to live in water. The skin would have to be made waterproof, the respiratory system would have to be drastically altered (and it is, even in air-breathing aquatic organisms like whales) and the digestive system would also need a significant overhaul. That's just three organ systems that would need serious revamping; I am sure there are plenty of others. But if you can, think about it for a minute. Do you think eating and breathing are easier to accomplish on land or under water?
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
All-seeing-I wrote: > complexity increases through evolution?
> I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > please.
You've been shown this evidence many times. Why do you continue to ignore it?
> Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
Evolution doesn't have a direction. Becoming aquatic is not a loss in complexity in any case.
> If > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > its genome then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > complexity by any standard.
How so? Aquatic tetrapods are specialized for their life in the water. It required more evolution, not less.
> I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
When you are building strawmen, you should at least know what straw is made of.
All-Seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 5, 5:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
snip
>> because darwin predicted that organisms not needing an energy >> expensive feature would lose that feature if their environment did >> not need it. and that's EXACTLY what happened. eyes take up a large >> amount of energy. naked mole rats live underground so don't need >> eyes. and, as evolution predicts, it's losing them
> Bull.
Chicken.
Isn't naming random farm animals fun?
> T Rex had tiny arms that look atrophied compared to the rest of the > body and i am sure the Trex would have survived better with full arms.
Why are you sure about that? T. rex appeared to survive quite well without the long arms. Evolution doesn't produce the optimal situation for the animal or plant in question, only enough to survive. In any case, T. rex arms were reduced mostly to balance the size and weight of the head and jaws. The arms weren't used to catch and hold prey.
> According to you Trex was losing the arms.
Actually, the arms were reduced in size to balance the head. They still had function, although it's not known exactly what it used them for.
> Highly unlikely
Why would you consider it to be 'highly unlikely'? Do you have any actual reasoning, or just your own ignorance?
<allseei...@usa.com> wrote: >On Nov 5, 8:13 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote: >> > complexity increases through evolution?
>> No. Complexity can increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on >> what is most advantageous to individuals and what mutations happen.
>> > I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this >> > please.
>> There being no such general principle, you will find no evidence for it.
>> > Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went >> > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the >> > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
>> There is no such thing as forward and backward in evolution. This is not >> the paradox you imagine. Nor does going into the sea necessarily involve >> decreased complexity.
>> > If >> > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of >> > its genome
>> It isn't.
>> > then going back to the sea would be a reduction in >> > complexity by any standard.
>> And that doesn't even follow from your false assumption.
>> > I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find >> > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much >> > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
>> You are ill-equipped to recognize conflict, since you have so little >> understanding of evolution. I have a car. I can drive it north, and I >> can also drive it south. Is that a conflict in the theory of automobiles?
>Gould seems to disagree. He did quite the paper on complexity.
What was the title, what journal was it published in, and can you summarize what Gould had to say on the topic? I find it highly unlikely that you've even read a paper by him on the topic, much less understood it.
> All-seeing-I wrote: > > complexity increases through evolution?
> No. Complexity can increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on > what is most advantageous to individuals and what mutations happen.
> > I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this > > please.
> There being no such general principle, you will find no evidence for it.
> > Also. If fish gave rise to land animals but some land animals went > > back to the sea, then that is backward evolution decreasing the > > complexity and not a forward evolution increasing the complexity.
> There is no such thing as forward and backward in evolution. This is not > the paradox you imagine. Nor does going into the sea necessarily involve > decreased complexity.
> > If > > an organism's complexity is a reflection of the physical complexity of > > its genome
> It isn't.
> > then going back to the sea would be a reduction in > > complexity by any standard.
> And that doesn't even follow from your false assumption.
> > I wish evolution would make up it's mind. Because one can always find > > parts of evolution to conflict with other parts of evolution in much > > the same way a McD burger will conflict with your metabolism.
> You are ill-equipped to recognize conflict, since you have so little > understanding of evolution. I have a car. I can drive it north, and I > can also drive it south. Is that a conflict in the theory of automobiles?
"Gould seems to disagree. He did quite the paper on complexity.
Have you done one? I'll read it."
There is no drive toward complexity, only reproduction.
|
