All-Seeing-I 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.
Can you cite where Gould claimed that evolution was directional? Can you cite anywhere that Gould claimed that returning to the sea was 'backwards' evolution? What paper do you imagine Gould wrote that made these claims?
This article contradicts your claim about Gould and complexity: http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=30 "Granted: in terms of biomass, surface animals are insignificant. But are they not significantly more complex than bacteria? Does not this suggest a trend, of sorts, in evolution - a direction?
Not at all, suggests Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. Sure, he admits, to begin with, life randomly got complex more often then it got simpler; there was no other direction to go. Life could not get any simpler and still function. Eventually, however, things steadied out, and life randomly got simpler as often as it got more complex. Bottom line: Nowheresville for evolution.
In fact, Gould suggests with some justification, complex life actually has a built-in disadvantage: its very complexity makes it easy prey to the mass extinctions that periodically plague the planet. Life might get more complex for a while, but then, whamo, a meteor or other mass extinction snuffs out the latest prideful, oversized surface fluff, setting things right again. Big, boastful life comes and goes. It was trilobites one time, then dinosaurs. Now it is humans. Next time, who knows, it might be giant cockroaches!"
" The basic theory of natural selection talks not about predictable universal progress, or any inherent direction of evolution. It's only a theory of adaptation to changing local environments. That's really all it is. The parasite that becomes morphologically simplified, living inside the body of its host, is as well adapted to its environment as the complex bird flying through the air. That's all it is: a theory of adaptation to changing local environments."
> Have you done one? I'll read it.
John has several published scientific papers. I doubt you'd be able to read any of them.
Another one of your "arguments" has blown up in your face.
On Nov 5, 5:57 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> complexity increases through evolution?
First, you have failed to supply us with an operational definition of "complexity", which makes it impossible to test or confirm whatever it is that you think you are saying. Regardless of the definition used, neither complexity nor simplicity is the "goal" of evolution. Only reproductive success under local conditions. If a population gets greater reproductive success in an environment by increasing complexity, complexity will increase. If population gets greater reproductive success in an environment by decreasing complexity, it will decrease.
By certain definitions of "complexity", the big event producing a net increase in "complexity" was the generation of a multicellular integrated organism with specialized tissues. One can also measure "complexity" by counting the number of different tissues in an organism over a lifetime.
> 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.
You have not provided us with a way to determine whether or not there has been an increase or decrease in complexity in this event. Can you provide us with the evidence you use to declare that a whale is significantly less complex, overall, than a hippopotamus? And why you think that, for biologists studying evolution, the *goal* of evolution is supposed to be a a secular increase in complexity regardless of what will lead to increased reproductive success?
But why don't you start with giving us a real testable definition of "complexity". Then explain why evolution is expected to always produce more "complexity" according to the theory. Then, and only then, should you provide us with examples that conflict with evolutionary theory *as understood by real scientists*.
> 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 Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:10:10 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <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.
Gould did write about complexity in his book "Full House". From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Full_House:_The_Spread_of_Excellence_from_Plato_to_Darwin>:
"... Gould points out that many people wrongly believe that the process of evolution has a preferred direction—a tendency to make organisms more complex and more sophisticated as time goes by. Those who believe in evolution's drive towards progress often demonstrate it with a series of organisms that appeared in different eons, with increasing complexity, e.g., "bacteria, fern, dinosaurs, dog, man". Gould explains how these increasingly complex organisms are just one hand of the complexity distribution, and why looking only at them misses the entire picture—the "full house". He explains that by any measure, the most common organisms have always been, and still are, the bacteria. The complexity distribution is bounded at one side (a living organism cannot be much simpler than bacteria), so an unbiased random walk by evolution, sometimes going in the complexity direction and sometimes going towards simplicity (without having an intrinsic preference to either), will create a distribution with a small, but longer and longer tail at the high complexity end."
Mind you, what Gould actually has to say about complexity doesn't accord with what [L]unatic thinks that Gould said about it.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 02:57:34 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>complexity increases through evolution?
Who said?
>I see no evidence for this anywhere. Where is the evidence for this >please.
Well, though your claim is basically wrong, complexity in life is all around you.
>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.
Where does complexity come into it again?
>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.
Whales are mammals, please explain where you think they are less complex that any other mammal?
>I wish evolution would make up it's mind.
At least, unlike you, we have 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.
Rubbish.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't.
On Nov 5, 4:57 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.
What is your metric for complexity? Number of genes? Number of moving parts? Size?
For instance, suppose a gene is duplicated. Each copy perfoms a subset of its original function (such that both copies are needed to perform all the original function), but in addition each copy independently performs some *new* function. Would this not count as an increase in complexity? There are plenty of Google hits for papers describing exactly that process as it relates to evolution.
> 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.
In what ways are dolphins and whales less complex than their non- aquatic ancestors? In what ways were their non-aquatic ancestors more complex than fish?
> 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.
Why? Whales and dolphins developed new abilities that both their non- aquatic ancestors and fish lack (such as sonar). To me, that offsets the loss of their hind limbs.
> 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.
The only conflict is between what evolution really is and the cartoon version of it promoted by creationists.
> 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:
1) That the bioluminescence in this paper (the one you cited) "The Evolution of Bioluminescent Oxygen Consumption as an Ancient Oxygen Detoxification Mechanism (2000)" Is accredited to A DEFENCE AGAINST the build up of toxic oxygen in the *ATMOSPHERE*.
2) You do realise that the deep ocean floor is not the *ATMOSPHERE*?
> 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).
You do realise that
1) A photoreactivation reaction requires an enzyme called Photolyase. 2) Photolyase protects against UV radiation & is activated by light 3) There is *NO* light on the ocean floor so; a) Life forms down there shouldn't have the Photolyase enzyme, to be stimulated by UV in the first place. b) WHY OH WHY would a *SURFACE* bacteria that has Photolyase, require faint migins of biolumiscent light to stimulate Photolyase when there is a *BIG DOCKING* UV source in the sky called the SUN?
Now that the evolution of your *PHOTOEMMITERS* have been *debunked*
What is your explanation for evolving eyes, in a *VERY VERY VERY VERY* dark ocean floor? Especially in the light of your naked surface rats theory.
> > Have a think about it! You might learn something.
> i did think about it. and you're right; i learned something
No you didn't.
You learned to be tricked by "SLIGHT OF HAND" once again.
> > > 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.
So why are you ignoring my question about the eyes?
On Nov 5, 1:03 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:52 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
. .
> 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.
I see the big picture, you don't.
*HERE* in this thread, you claim the bacteria are surface bacteria, that sank.
In *ANOTHER* THREAD, you claim the bacteria evolved on the sea floor, to avoid the UV.
Yet, *HERE* in this thread, it is claimed moles lost their eyes because it was dark. So why havent the ocean floor fish?
> On Nov 5, 12:32 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> 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.
> > ONE reason for bioluminescence is that it's a by product of other > > chemical reactions:
> 1) That the bioluminescence in this paper (the one you cited) > "The Evolution of Bioluminescent Oxygen Consumption as an Ancient > Oxygen Detoxification Mechanism (2000)" > Is accredited to A DEFENCE AGAINST the build up of toxic oxygen in the > *ATMOSPHERE*.
IOW bioluminscence is a process that occurs for reasons OTHER than sight...
as YOU thought it did.
thanks. i already knew that. YOU thought it was for optical reasons. it's not.
> 2) You do realise that the deep ocean floor is not the *ATMOSPHERE*?
> > 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).
> You do realise that
> 1) A photoreactivation reaction requires an enzyme called Photolyase. > 2) Photolyase protects against UV radiation & is activated by light > 3) There is *NO* light on the ocean floor so;
again, irrelevant. the issue is, as YOU asked
WHY IS THERE BIOLUMINSCENCE WHEN ANIMALS CANT SEE IT
NOW you're moving the goalposts, aren't you?
> Now that the evolution of your *PHOTOEMMITERS* have been *debunked*
> What is your explanation for evolving eyes, in a *VERY VERY VERY VERY* > dark ocean floor? > Especially in the light of your naked surface rats theory.
why do you think bioluminscense has ANYTHING to do with eyes at all?
and since i have answered YOUR question, why CANT you answer mine?
WHERE IS THE CREATIONIST EXPLANATION FOR THIS?
answer: there is none.
so you made an IMPROPER assumption
you got your ass handed to you
you then moved the goalposts
AND refused to answer ANY questions about creationism at all....
typical creationist
> So why are you ignoring my question about the eyes?-
your question WASNT about eyes...it was about BIOLUMINSCENCE
when you got your ASS kicked on that you moved the goalposts to DODGE having to answer questions on creatinism
no surprise. creationism has been a 2000 year old failure.
> On Nov 5, 3:45 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 12:32 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> 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.
> > > ONE reason for bioluminescence is that it's a by product of other > > > chemical reactions:
> > 1) That the bioluminescence in this paper (the one you cited) > > "The Evolution of Bioluminescent Oxygen Consumption as an Ancient > > Oxygen Detoxification Mechanism (2000)" > > Is accredited to A DEFENCE AGAINST the build up of toxic oxygen in the > > *ATMOSPHERE*.
> IOW bioluminscence is a process that occurs for reasons OTHER than > sight...
Not in deep sea life it's not.
> as YOU thought it did.
No, I asked why develop eyes that can't see in the dark.
And since there are thousands of papers *claiming* that *DEEP SEA* bioluminescence evolved so that potential mates could find them, and you found 1 paper, that has *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DEEP SEA LIFE*, my question is still unanswered.
1) If your *moles* lost their eyes because it was dark, why do deep sea fish have eyes?
2) If your answer is to see bioluminescence, you have *NO* mechanism to evolve bioluminescence on the ocean floor, as the enzyme that protects against UV, isn't required down there, nore (for your other excuse) is there toxic oxygen down there either.
So your back to square 1.
1) It's too dark to require (& or) evolve eyes. (As your mole comment implies) 2) NONE of your suggested mechanisms for the evolution of bioluminescence work at deep sea levels.
In short.
You know NORT 'bout though speaketh abouts!
> > 2) You do realise that the deep ocean floor is not the *ATMOSPHERE*?
> irrelevant. absolutely irrelevant.
Oh dear. I see you *DIDN'T* read your second paper.
TYPICAL, just TYPICAl. (the moron can't read)
CLUE: TOXIC OXYGEN ATMOSPHERE!!!!
Now, stop skimming google & quoting gibberish, and do some research, and appologise.
> > > > and THIS paper addresses your question directly:
> > 1) A photoreactivation reaction requires an enzyme called Photolyase. > > 2) Photolyase protects against UV radiation & is activated by light > > 3) There is *NO* light on the ocean floor so;
> again, irrelevant.
TYPICAL, just TYPICAL. (THE MORON NEVER READ YET AGAIN).
1) UV stimulates photolyase, which repairs DNA.
2) There is *NO* UV on the ocean floor, so them critters won't have photolyase.
3) The paper *CLAIMS* the light of bioluminescence (IN TINY TINY QUANTITIES) stimulates photolyase. 3a) WHY WOULD YOU NEED THAT TINY LIGHT, when you have a BIG DOCKING SUN, as a source of light? 3b) HOW COULD BIOLUMINESCENCE IN CRITTERS ON THE OCEAN FLOOR STIMULATER AN ENZYME THEY *******DON'T******* HAVE?
YOU UTTER SPASDICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > Now that the evolution of your *PHOTOEMMITERS* have been *debunked*
> > What is your explanation for evolving eyes, in a *VERY VERY VERY VERY* > > dark ocean floor? > > Especially in the light of your naked surface rats theory.
> why do you think bioluminscense has ANYTHING to do with eyes at all?
So why do critters on the seabed have eyes at all?
It's dark, they shouldn't have evolved them.
And *ACCORDING TO YOU* moles lost their eyes because it was *DARK*.
So
a) Why haven't these sea creatures on the PITCH BLACK OCEAN FLOOR lost their eyes? b) Why did they evolve them in the first place?
> and since i have answered YOUR question, why CANT you answer mine?
> WHERE IS THE CREATIONIST EXPLANATION FOR THIS?
A question is not an answer. So I'll ask again.
Why have deep sea creatures got eyes, when you claim moles lost theirs because it was dark?
On Nov 5, 3:08 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 4:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
. .
> Huh. I always thought those fish were bioluminescene so they could > find mates in the dark sparsely populated deep sea.
Yes, evolutionists tried that fairy tail, until they realised what people like myself had been telling them for years.
You can't see 1 pixel-diode light with a 1 pixel eye-camera.
So both would be selected out.
So *NOW* R2DTARD, *THINKS* he's found a solution.
Only the **RETARD** doesn't realise that all his solutions are redundant.
Ergo.
1) A scientist claims that the VERY VERY VERY faint light given off by the first bioluminescant pixel/protein, may stimulate a certain enzyme that repairs DNA.
What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is that the UV that actually stimulates this enzyme;
a) Gives billions of times more stimulation that the first bioluminescent pixel/protein ever could. so it (the protein) would be redundant. b) DEEP SEA CRITTERS WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROTEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE AS IT GUARDS AGAINST UV, AND THERE IS NONE DOWN THERE.
2) Another scientist claims, bioluminescence is a byproduct of metabolising a toxic oxygen atmosphere.
What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is there is ***NO** toxic oxygen in the deep ocean.
IN SHORT.
R2DTARDS THEORIES ARE DEBUNKED/MUTE/REDUNDANT/USELESS/ GIBBERISH!!!!!!!!!!
All-Seeing-I 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.
Accent on "seemed". You are not equipped to understand what Gould said. He would not disagree with what I said. What paper on complexity are you thinking of here? (Year, title, journal, and page numbers, please.)
> Have you done one? I'll read it.
Was that actually attempt to argue from S. J. Gould's authority? Bizarre.
On Nov 5, 5:19 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 3:08 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 4:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> . > .
> > Huh. I always thought those fish were bioluminescene so they could > > find mates in the dark sparsely populated deep sea.
> Yes, evolutionists tried that fairy tail, until they realised what > people like myself had been telling them for years.
uh huh. just like you've been telling us for 2000 years that sacrificing goats stops disease and that ghosts cause the wind to blow
creationists think the world is populated by wizards
> You can't see 1 pixel-diode light with a 1 pixel eye-camera.
> So both would be selected out.
> So *NOW* R2DTARD, *THINKS* he's found a solution.
> Only the **RETARD** doesn't realise that all his solutions are > redundant.
uh huh. 'god did it' explains everything.
spinny gets out his ouija board and consults it for the latest advances in science
> Ergo.
> 1) A scientist claims that the VERY VERY VERY faint light given off by > the first bioluminescant pixel/protein, may stimulate a certain enzyme > that repairs DNA.
> What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is that the UV that actually > stimulates this enzyme;
what the idiot doesnt realize is that SCIENTISTS discovered:
-DNA -Enzymes other proteins
creationists? still thinking that demons cause disease
notice the creationist has NO answer for how life develops? it's proven that bioluminescence developed to reduce the presence of oxygen in systems...
yet HE thought they developed so organisms with eyes could see them
THEN he moves the goalposts to ask how eyes develop
MORE creationist handwaving
> a) Gives billions of times more stimulation that the first > bioluminescent pixel/protein ever could. > so it (the protein) would be redundant. > b) DEEP SEA CRITTERS WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROTEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE AS > IT GUARDS AGAINST UV, AND THERE IS NONE DOWN THERE.
> 2) Another scientist claims, bioluminescence is a byproduct of > metabolising a toxic oxygen atmosphere.
> What the **RETARD** doesn't realise is there is ***NO** toxic oxygen > in the deep ocean.
what the idiot doesn't realize is that organisms evolved this mechanism in SHALLOW waters THEN populated deeper waters...
IOW creationism flails for an explanation, requiring scientists to answer EVERY question
while they themselves say nothing.
so go ahead, creationist, tell us how 'god did it' explains anything.
we'll wait. you've been vomiting your lies for 2000 years so we'll give you a few more days for your wizard of oz approach to science
> IN SHORT.
> R2DTARDS THEORIES ARE DEBUNKED/MUTE/REDUNDANT/USELESS/ > GIBBERISH!!!!!!!!!!
On Nov 5, 5:08 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:02 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > IOW bioluminscence is a process that occurs for reasons OTHER than > > sight...
> Not in deep sea life it's not.
proof?
ah. none.
> > as YOU thought it did.
> No, I asked why develop eyes that can't see in the dark.
uh no...you asked why bioluminescence developed. here, i'll refresh your memory for you, m'kay? here are YOUR words, verbatim:
"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. "
do you see YOUR words? YOU stated that all marine life was BLIND THEN asked how bioluminescence could develop
so are you lying NOW or were you lying THEN?
and AGAIN...where is the CREATIONIST answer??
you REFUSE to address the failure of creationism to provide ANY answer at all
> And since there are thousands of papers *claiming* that *DEEP SEA* > bioluminescence evolved so that potential mates could find them, and > you found 1 paper, that has *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DEEP SEA > LIFE*, my question is still unanswered.
your question HAS been answered. you moved the goalposts. AND you refused to answer HOW creationism accounts for this
> 1) If your *moles* lost their eyes because it was dark, why do deep > sea fish have eyes?
uh perhaps you need a refresher course in reading. what i said was naked mole rats are a TRANSITIONAL FORM in the PROCESS of losing their eyes...AS EVOLUTION PREDICTS
creationism? it has NO answer as to why these rats are losing their eyes. demons? ghosts? goblins?
> > irrelevant. absolutely irrelevant.
> Oh dear. I see you *DIDN'T* read your second paper.
> TYPICAL, just TYPICAl. (the moron can't read)
> CLUE: TOXIC OXYGEN ATMOSPHERE!!!!
CLUE!!!
LIFE EVOLVES...yessirre folks. life evolved in the shallow waters THEN moved to deeper waters
EVOLUTION PREDICTS CHANGES WILL HAPPEN...
creationism? 'lets sacrifice another goat and maybe god will give us an answer'
> Now, stop skimming google & quoting gibberish, and do some research, > and appologise.
research? this is a 4 letter word to creationists. when's the last time you did any research? when's the last time a creationist did any research at all??
> > again, irrelevant.
> TYPICAL, just TYPICAL. (THE MORON NEVER READ YET AGAIN).
> 1) UV stimulates photolyase, which repairs DNA.
> 2) There is *NO* UV on the ocean floor, so them critters won't have > photolyase.
i guess he doesn't realize fish can swim...they can swim from shallow waters...where there IS UV...to deeper waters...
yep. ANOTHER failure of creatoinism
> > why do you think bioluminscense has ANYTHING to do with eyes at all?
> So why do critters on the seabed have eyes at all?
you said they didn't. i left your words above
and how does creationism answer this question? in fact, if evolution is true we'd EXPECT deep sea creatures to have eyes for the same reason naked mole rats do
but creationists? no answer. no answer at all.
2000 years. no answers. that's why creationists BEG AND PLEAD with LAWYERS rather than scientists to be admitted to the public square as equals.
> It's dark, they shouldn't have evolved them.
> And *ACCORDING TO YOU* moles lost their eyes because it was *DARK*.
> So
> a) Why haven't these sea creatures on the PITCH BLACK OCEAN FLOOR lost > their eyes?
gee. have the nake mole rats lost their eyes?
nope. they are EVOLVING to do so but haven't yet
> b) Why did they evolve them in the first place?
because they EVOLVED FROM CREATURES THAT HAD EYES
and creationism
betcha he doesn't even TRY to answer how creationism addresses this.
> > and since i have answered YOUR question, why CANT you answer mine?
> > WHERE IS THE CREATIONIST EXPLANATION FOR THIS?
> A question is not an answer. So I'll ask again.
> Why have deep sea creatures got eyes, when you claim moles lost theirs > because it was dark?-
i NEVER said naked mole rats lost their eyes.
now, then. answer the question, creationist. you're a failure
>On Nov 5, 5:25 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >> 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.
They had grown smaller during its evolution. Why not?
>Highly unlikely
And yet the same thing is happening to kangaroos for example.
-- Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will always remember just how bright you made them feel.
On Nov 5, 10:48 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:19 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
*****************
> uh huh. just like you've been telling us for 2000 years that > sacrificing goats stops disease and that ghosts cause the wind to blow > creationists think the world is populated by wizards > uh huh. 'god did it' explains everything. > spinny gets out his ouija board and consults it for the latest > advances in science > creationists? still thinking that demons cause disease > yet HE thought they developed so organisms with eyes could see them > THEN he moves the goalposts to ask how eyes develop > MORE creationist handwaving > says the guy who thinks ghosts make the wind blow
*********************
Now that all your lies are in one place.
You come back, when you want to discuss the science. (Although I doub't you'd understand)
Until then, Iv'e told you why your gibberish is wrong.
When you stop foaming at the mouth and having seizures on the floor.
Give me a bell and I'll tell you why & where your gibberish doesn't add up.
Till then, my genuine arguments as to why your *GOOGLEDCRAP* is wrong is up there for anyone interested to read.
You on the other hand are a complete loonball, and it's pointless talking to loonballs!.
>On Nov 5, 11:14 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:10:10 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <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.
>Gould did write about complexity in his book "Full House". From ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >Full_House:_The_Spread_of_Excellence_from_Plato_to_Darwin>:
>"... Gould points out that many people wrongly believe that the >process of evolution has a preferred direction—a tendency to make >organisms more complex and more sophisticated as time goes by. Those >who believe in evolution's drive towards progress often demonstrate it >with a series of organisms that appeared in different eons, with >increasing complexity, e.g., "bacteria, fern, dinosaurs, dog, man". >Gould explains how these increasingly complex organisms are just one >hand of the complexity distribution, and why looking only at them >misses the entire picture—the "full house". He explains that by any >measure, the most common organisms have always been, and still are, >the bacteria. The complexity distribution is bounded at one side (a >living organism cannot be much simpler than bacteria), so an unbiased >random walk by evolution, sometimes going in the complexity direction >and sometimes going towards simplicity (without having an intrinsic >preference to either), will create a distribution with a small, but >longer and longer tail at the high complexity end."
>Mind you, what Gould actually has to say about complexity doesn't >accord with what [L]unatic thinks that Gould said about it.
I had an idea that if Mudbrain was claiming something then the reverse would turn out to be true.
-- Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think that explains everything.
> 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?
> 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?
> Chris
And you think evolution is responsible for ALL that you just described....
> On Nov 5, 11:14 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:10:10 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > <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.
> Gould did write about complexity in his book "Full House". From > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Full_House:_The_Spread_of_Excellence_from_Plato_to_Darwin>:
> "... Gould points out that many people wrongly believe that the > process of evolution has a preferred direction—a tendency to make > organisms more complex and more sophisticated as time goes by. Those > who believe in evolution's drive towards progress often demonstrate it > with a series of organisms that appeared in different eons, with > increasing complexity, e.g., "bacteria, fern, dinosaurs, dog, man". > Gould explains how these increasingly complex organisms are just one > hand of the complexity distribution, and why looking only at them > misses the entire picture—the "full house". He explains that by any > measure, the most common organisms have always been, and still are, > the bacteria. The complexity distribution is bounded at one side (a > living organism cannot be much simpler than bacteria), so an unbiased > random walk by evolution, sometimes going in the complexity direction > and sometimes going towards simplicity (without having an intrinsic > preference to either), will create a distribution with a small, but > longer and longer tail at the high complexity end."
> Mind you, what Gould actually has to say about complexity doesn't > accord with what [L]unatic thinks that Gould said about it.
> > >Have you done one? I'll read it.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
What you are missing is the fact that the evolutionists originally claimed evolution leads toward the more the complex. When that was found to be incorrect the kings of evolution had to make a mad dash with new made up stories.
> On Nov 5, 4:57 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.
> What is your metric for complexity? Number of genes? Number of > moving parts? Size?
> For instance, suppose a gene is duplicated. Each copy perfoms a > subset of its original function (such that both copies are needed to > perform all the original function), but in addition each copy > independently performs some *new* function. Would this not count as > an increase in complexity? There are plenty of Google hits for papers > describing exactly that process as it relates to evolution.
> > 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.
> In what ways are dolphins and whales less complex than their non- > aquatic ancestors? In what ways were their non-aquatic ancestors more > complex than fish?
> > 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.
> Why? Whales and dolphins developed new abilities that both their non- > aquatic ancestors and fish lack (such as sonar). To me, that offsets > the loss of their hind limbs.
> > 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.
> The only conflict is between what evolution really is and the cartoon > version of it promoted by creationists.
I beg to differ. The cartoon version of evolution is, evolution itself
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 02:57:34 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com> wrote: > complexity increases through evolution?
Define "complexity," and produce a metric for it.
Oh, wait: you're a Creationist fucktard who doesn't know anything. Well, run alaong: the adults are talking.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
All-seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 5, 9:23 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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?
>> Chris
> And you think evolution is responsible for ALL that you just > described....
|
