Woodpeckers are proof of God

[mummymonkey]

Oh yes they are.


http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=24


The woodpecker is very specially constructed, exhibiting design and purpose. So unique is the woodpecker that it is difficult to accept that it is the product of purposeless evolutionary forces.

I'm planning on going to listen to Dawkins' lecture this coming week. Maybe I'll stun him with this 'proof' if he takes questions.

[EdipisReks]

whoah! so, like, agent smith designed the woodpecker in the matrix?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
Oh yes they are.


http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=24




I'm planning on going to listen to Dawkins' lecture this coming week. Maybe I'll stun him with this 'proof' if he takes questions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

[Kopji]

With the thick heads I'm surprised someone has not suggested they adopt it as a mascot.

I suppose I have...

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html Thanks.

[hgc]

Our Lord and Savior:

http://www.toontracker.com/woody/guesswho.jpg

[Zep]

So the argument goes like this?

1) There are woodpeckers.
2) Therefore God exists in all his glory.

I'm SURE there's something missing in the middle...

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[lifegazer]

The author is trying to show that certain attributes of the woodpecker would have had to come about instantaneously. I thought he did a good job.
However, if everyone is going to laugh at the author - and woodpeckers - then I would like to change the subject slightly:-

... Still "evolution". But instead of woodpeckers, 'gender'.

... Reproduction involving gender requires two completely different complex-forms of the same species that can, somehow, interact to reproduce.
My question: How does assexual reproduction evolve, in small steps, towards sexual reproduction?

I think this is impossible, in micro-steps. The leap from assexual reproduction to sexual reproduction has to be instantaneous. Surely?

Educate me. What does Dawkins, for instance, say about this?

[Vortex]

Plug the words "evolution" and "sexual" into Google and read to your heart's content.

[Zep]

LG, what does your nearest scientific LIBRARY have to say about this. Any reasonable biology section ofa university library will have all the explanation you require about the evolution of gender and sexuality.

And the article about woodpeckers being "designed" is simply a "God made it, just so" story. There is NO argument beyond argument from ignorance. The writer cannot conceive of it happening, so it MUST have been God that did it. Never mind that the writer is possibly just misguided and totally unimaginative.

Woodpeckers did indeed evolve from earlier variants of birds that has shorter thicker beaks and tongues, less shock-absorbant heads, less strong flying capability, and feet and limbs less useful for climbing trees. And those birds evolved from birds that were less so again. And going forward, it's quite possible that the woodpeckers of millions of years in the future will have abilities that will make today's woodpeckers look quite primitive indeed. Perhaps they may carry chainsaws, I don't know.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zep
LG, what does your nearest scientific LIBRARY have to say about this.
Well anybody could respond like this to ANY question posed on this forum. The point is that we individuals are supposed to discuss specific issues and see if we can generate interesting or original thought. That's the point of a discussion board.

If you think that there are sound answers to my questions, then please respond.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Zep
So the argument goes like this?

1) There are woodpeckers.
2) Therefore God exists in all his glory.

I'm SURE there's something missing in the middle...

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Actually you are right, something IS missing. The argument goes like this:

1) There are woodpeckers.

2) Argument from incredulity.

3) Therefore God exists in all his glory.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The author is trying to show that certain attributes of the woodpecker would have had to come about instantaneously. I thought he did a good job.
However, if everyone is going to laugh at the author - and woodpeckers - then I would like to change the subject slightly:-

... Still "evolution". But instead of woodpeckers, 'gender'.

... Reproduction involving gender requires two completely different complex-forms of the same species that can, somehow, interact to reproduce.
My question: How does assexual reproduction evolve, in small steps, towards sexual reproduction?

I think this is impossible, in micro-steps. The leap from assexual reproduction to sexual reproduction has to be instantaneous. Surely?

Educate me. What does Dawkins, for instance, say about this?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

[KingMerv00]

For future reference, I suggest all creationist run a search on talkorigins.org.

I don't think I've ever seen a creationist claim I couldn't find on there.

[lifegazer]

Tell you what - you post your links and I'll post mine.
Let's have a link war... and avoid meaningful discussion altogether.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Tell you what - you post your links and I'll post mine.
Let's have a link war... and avoid meaningful discussion altogether.

Oh please. Just read it.

You wanted an answer...there it is. What difference does it make if you have click on the link?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The author is trying to show that certain attributes of the woodpecker would have had to come about instantaneously. I thought he did a good job.

Really? I read it a while ago and thought it was a load of *********.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Oh please. Just read it.

You wanted an answer...there it is. What difference does it make if you have click on the link?
Okay. Just for you, I will. This is it:

The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages.

Hold on!!! There is either assexual reproduction or sexual reproduction. There are no inbetweens!

As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations,

You - and whoever wrote this nonsense - seems to be missing the point... which I made above. Assexual reproduction is assexual reproduction, until it is sexual reproduction.
... That's an instantaneous step. There are no "intermediate steps" between the two states.

The link you took me to was brief and devoid of answers. You have some talinkg to do.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Okay. Just for you, I will. This is it:

The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages.

Hold on!!! There is either assexual reproduction or sexual reproduction. There are no inbetweens!

As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations,

You - and whoever wrote this nonsense - seems to be missing the point... which I made above. Assexual reproduction is assexual reproduction, until it is sexual reproduction.
... That's an instantaneous step. There are no "intermediate steps" between the two states.

The link you took me to was brief and devoid of answers. You have some talinkg to do.

The above quote citations are dishonest cherry picking. Here is the paragraph in full

The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against

For a single paragraph, this is a good intro to the subject. LG's cherry picking gives a misleading impression.

Of course, the page itself provides additional information and good links and references to additional material for the interested reader. Apparently that does not include LG.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by SezMe
Of course, the page itself provides additional information and good links and references to additional material for the interested reader. Apparently that does not include LG.
That link does not explain the - what must be an instantaneous - leap from assexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. I.e., that link does not explain the instantaneous leap to a state of gender.

I'm interested in having a discussion with the people here. After all, most of you are atheists or agnostics. I'd like to see how you justify your beliefs (about evolution) when presented by questions like the one I asked regarding gender.
Somebody here must have an explanation.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That link does not explain the - what must be an instantaneous - leap from assexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. I.e., that link does not explain the instantaneous leap to a state of gender.
Sheesh, LG, it is a one paragraph intro to the subject of woodpecker anatomy. If your attention span is one paragraph long, then it cannot be explained and your frustration is understandable. Conversely, if you want to learn about the "instantaneous leap to a state of gender" you are going to have to do some in-depth studying. Short, snappy answers aren't going to cut it.

After you do this background study, if you then come back citing specific references and problem sections, I am sure we'd all be delighted to engage in the very type of discussion you yearn for.

[Donks]

Lifegazer:
Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Please consider I haven't taken a biology course in close to 15 years.

I think you may be thinking of complex creatures and ten trying to figure out how sexual reproduction could evolve in them. Look at what creatures have sexual reproduction: plants, animals, and others. There are two choices, either sexual reproduction evolved several times, or it evolved once, in the common ancestor of all of these. All of these are eucaryotes. The ancestor of eucaryotes are prokaryotes, which are single celled organisms. They do not have sexual reproduction, but they do swap DNA. Multicellular eucaryotes reproduce sexually.
Now imagine the first multicellular eucaryotes. They were probably simply clumps of cells with the same DNA (growing by mitosis). All of these cells would be able to trade DNA with other individuals. Some would be able to do this easier because of small differences.
So you have to individuals that meet, touch at one point (a cell from each), and those cells trade DNA. Now those two cells are both different from the rest of the individual. When they grow, they grow into a new individual.
Sexual reproduction offers some advantages, so individuals that had cells that would recombine easier would probably be breed more and adapt easier. Eventually some speciallization would begin, and one type of cells would have an easier time trading DNA. The sexes would differentiate when some individuals developed mechanisms to protect the new individual (females). Other individuals wouldn't need that, but being able to deliver their DNA more effectively would better for them (males).

Now, I don't claim that any of this is accurate. This is off the top of my head, form what I remember from elementary and highschool biology. But since you don't want outside links, you'll have to settle for this.

Edited for spelling.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

From thematrix:
Category 1: Science and technology
...
For starters, the Creator has greatly reinforced ...
...
The Creator has given it ...
...
The Creator has provided a unique solution ...
...
... as the Book of Genesis says birds were.
Science at its best.

~~ Paul

[Zep]

Originally posted by lifegazer
After all, most of you are atheists or agnostics. I'd like to see how you justify your beliefs (about evolution) when presented by questions like the one I asked regarding gender. Whoops, back up one step there, buddy!

Scientists do not have belief in evolution. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of confidence in a working theory. So far, as with all good theories (and this is very general), it fits the evidence available and makes predictions that are subsequently supported by new evidence. Should startling new and irrefutable evidence emerge that invalidates evolution as a theory then it will perforce be changed. But so far, none has emerged and this change doesn't look like happening. Rather, more and more evidence continues to emerge that supports the theory of evolution.

So we don't have to "justify our belief in evolution" at all. And your question on gender has been more than adequately answered by many people whose books we will not bother quoting in full here just to satisfy your short attention span and lack of application - YOU have to go read them yourself.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hold on!!! There is either assexual reproduction or sexual reproduction. There are no inbetweens!

Actually lifegazer, there are inbetweens.

For example, some fungi are isogamous. They do not have clearly distinguished sexes, and they do not have clearly dimorphic gametes. But fertilisation occurs and gene exchange in fertilised gametes occurs. Isogamy is partway between asexual and sexual.

(I learned this the other day by reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Zep
Woodpeckers did indeed evolve from earlier variants of birds that has shorter thicker beaks and tongues, less shock-absorbant heads, less strong flying capability, and feet and limbs less useful for climbing trees. And those birds evolved from birds that were less so again. And going forward, it's quite possible that the woodpeckers of millions of years in the future will have abilities that will make today's woodpeckers look quite primitive indeed. Perhaps they may carry chainsaws, I don't know.

Exactly. I don't know what's so hard about the concept.

Some bird stood around on branches, eating bugs crawling around on the bark. Some bugs were down in cracks and some birds were better than others at wiggling their beaks in there. Some kept at it determinedly, and chipped away some bark by accident. Some did this better than others. Some got headaches, some not, or at least, not so bad. Fast forward a million years or so, and bamf! Woodpecker.

In fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't multiple woodpecker types that were otherwise completely unrelated species, so useful would be the behavior.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Beerina
In fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't multiple woodpecker types that were otherwise completely unrelated species, so useful would be the behavior. Besides, god being merciful would not create something that made such a god awful racket.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hold on!!! There is either assexual reproduction or sexual reproduction. There are no inbetweens!

This is simply wrong. For example, many plants contain both "male" and "female" parts on the same plant, and are therefore capable of self-fertilizing or of exo-fertlizing -- but the plants themselves do not have gender. Other plants -- holly and fig trees are examples -- do actually have gender; a holly tree is either male or female, but not both. This genderless exo-fertillization is an example of an inbetween. Lots of creatures are known that are hermaphroditic, and in some cases sequentially so -- so males becomes females (or vice versa) at some point in their life-cycle.

Another example of an inbetween is in the freshwater snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum, which has both "sexual" and "asexual" snails, not only within the species, but within interreproducing populations in the same area. To quote from an article in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, "Sexual and asexual individuals coexist in stable frequencies in many ‘mixed’ populations; genetic data indicate that clones from these mixed populations originated from the local population of sexual individuals without interspecific hybridization."

Again, a clear-cut inbetween.

Another example of an inbetween is meitotic reproduction of females (instead of apomixis). In this process, normal meitosis occurs within the female, who then combines two eggs to produce a new individual who is NOT a clone of the parent. This is technically sexual reproduction (the daughter is not a clone), but involves no males, no gender, and no sperm. Another clear-cut inbetween.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Beerina

In fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't multiple woodpecker types that were otherwise completely unrelated species, so useful would be the behavior.

Be surprised, then. I believe all woodpecker types are of the same Family Picidae.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Be surprised, then. I believe all woodpecker types are of the same Family Picidae. I think that's right. Some unrelated birds do share features with woodpeckers though. Off the top of my head:
Long tongue - hummingbirds
Opposable toes - parrots
Stiff supporting tails - treecreeper
I suppose one reason why there aren't really any 'woodpecker-like' birds is that woodpeckers are found all over the world. Only Australasia and Madagascar remain woodpecker free. In Australasia they have tree-creepers (not related to Holarctic treecreepers) and parrots which seem to do the woodpeckers job. In Madagascar the woodpecker niche is filled by a primate; the marvellous aye-aye.
On the Galapagos islands is found the Woodpecker finch; which scorns the head banging, tongue probing approach and uses cactus spines instead.

[arthwollipot]

Thanks, new drkitten, for going further on a topic that I know only a little about. Lifegazer is wrong when he states that sexual-asexual is a binary choice. There are also the haplodiploid species of insect which fall partway between sexual and asexual (I couldn't find the reference last night).

It's just the old creationist argument about "no transitionals" again. Just watch as Lifegazer tries to claim that isogamy and haplodiploidy are firmly in either the sexual or the asexual camp. Then come the demands for the intermediates between isogamy and true sexual reproduction.

I've seen it all before...

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by new drkitten
This is simply wrong. For example...

... Another clear-cut inbetween.
And then there's other curious things like clown fish that change gender at will according to their social status I believe.
If I remember correctly, nemo's dad should have become a woman after the death of his wife.
This isn't much of an inbetween, but does show that gender is not as clear cut as lifegazer or Walt Disney would like it to be.

[MRC_Hans]

And we duly note that having his arguments shredded (again), Lifegauzer has hurriedly left the building :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Tricky]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
Thanks, new drkitten, for going further on a topic that I know only a little about. Lifegazer is wrong when he states that sexual-asexual is a binary choice. There are also the haplodiploid species of insect which fall partway between sexual and asexual (I couldn't find the reference last night).

It's just the old creationist argument about "no transitionals" again. Just watch as Lifegazer tries to claim that isogamy and haplodiploidy are firmly in either the sexual or the asexual camp. Then come the demands for the intermediates between isogamy and true sexual reproduction.

I've seen it all before...
Not to mention that many species, such as ferns, have a complex life cycle that includes both asexual (spores) and sexual (gametes) phases.

Also, Paramecia, which normally divide by mitosis, occasionally engage in exchange of genetic material through conjugation (http://www.microscopyu.com/galleries/phasecontrast/parameciumsmall.html). It is difficult to call this sexual, since Paramecia do not have gender, but it is another solution to the problems that strict asexual reproduction poses for evolution of a species.

http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/zoolab/Table_of_Contents/Lab-2b/Paramecium_conjugation/Lab_2b-13a.jpg

[H'ethetheth]

Redundantly posted by H'ethetheth
And then there's other curious things like ... Oops, I see that hermafroditism was covered in drkitten's post. So much for actually adding something to the discussion.:bricks:

[KingMerv00]

Lifegazer? You there?

We miss you.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
And we duly note that having his arguments shredded (again), Lifegauzer has hurriedly left the building :rolleyes:.


I feel so.... unsporting.

Really, that was rather like sandblasting a soup cracker.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I feel so.... unsporting.

Really, that was rather like sandblasting a soup cracker.

It's not even a genuinely valid comparision; evolution has been running for billions of years, who says it needn't have settled upon a preference for 2 main means of reproduction by now? You don't need to show intermediate species in the present... you only need to show that they've existed in the past, so you could get to where we are today. It's like pointing to a bare Oak tree in winter and claiming that proves there were never acorns! No, Evolution might rather enjoy self love and sex, and not care too much for cloning and all that, which is why we don't see it today. The fact that we DO see it just makes Lifegazer's (and the creationists in general) argument even more silly. But hey, is anyone here surprised that LG doesn't believe in evolution either?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where do creationists and intelligent designers learn their evolution? Why do we always have to say things like "This is simply wrong." Why don't they Google stuff before they stick their foots in their mouthses?

~~ Paul

[lifegazer]

Okay, let me present the issue in a different format:-

There was once a time when the reproduction of a species occured entirely via the individual. Then, one day, for the first time (and there had to be a first time), a species reproduced via the interaction of two individuals instead of one.

My point is that there seems to be no slowwwwww way to get from the first state-of-affairs to the latter.
You must appreciate that the reproduction process between two individuals requires a high degree of co-operative complexity - even at it's most basic.

So, in the interest of promoting interesting discussion, can somebody explain this sudden MACRO leap?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
evolution has been running for billions of years,

What is time, except a value - like space - existing within awareness?
You proclaim to be a philosopher, so don't assume that time is an absolute (read some Einstein) which exists beyond the awareness of it.

But hey, is anyone here surprised that LG doesn't believe in evolution either?
I never said that I don't believe in evolution (= 'change'). But I would argue that change itself requires a driving force. And I would argue that some changes that have occured to 'life' are evidence supporting the fact that this force is supra-intelligent.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Okay, let me present the issue in a different format:-

There was once a time when the reproduction of a species occured entirely via the individual. Then, one day, for the first time (and there had to be a first time), a species reproduced via the interaction of two individuals instead of one.

My point is that there seems to be no slowwwwww way to get from the first state-of-affairs to the latter.
You must appreciate that the reproduction process between two individuals requires a high degree of co-operative complexity - even at it's most basic.

So, in the interest of promoting interesting discussion, can somebody explain this sudden MACRO leap?

Have you ever seen bacteria?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Have you ever seen bacteria?
What if I have?
Ever seen the pyramids?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What is time, except a value - like space - existing within awareness?
You proclaim to be a philosopher, so don't assume that time is an absolute (read some Einstein) which exists beyond the awareness of it.


You need to read something besides Albert E., LG. As much as I admire the man, things have progressed a bit beyond his work - but the arrow of time concept existed as far back as a metaphor used by Arther Eddington for the first time in 1927. You're hung up on the psychological arrow of time. Try looking at the thermodynamic, cosmological or even electromagnetic arrows.

Hell, just consider the overall concept of entropy, which is probably the best indicator that time is a one-way street. The bottom line is that time exists whether or not there's someone to observe it - it's not simply a value in our awareness.

[lifegazer]

I want some answers to my last post at the bottom of page 1.
If I don't get some answers, I shall assume that there are none to be had. And if that is the case, then many a sheep need to nullify their baa's.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by jmercer
The bottom line is that time exists whether or not there's someone to observe it - it's not simply a value in our awareness.
That's nonsense.
Einstein proved that the value of time is a variant within the awareness of an individual. There is no such thing as "absolute time".

[drkitten]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Okay, let me present the issue in a different format:-

There was once a time when the reproduction of a species occured entirely via the individual. Then, one day, for the first time (and there had to be a first time), a species reproduced via the interaction of two individuals instead of one.

My point is that there seems to be no slowwwwww way to get from the first state-of-affairs to the latter.


Already answered above. In fact, there's a relatively easy path
shown in the examples given above.

Start out with strict asexual ("cloning") reproduction, where the children are genetically identical to their parents. Assume that members of these species have monochromosomal genes, as well.

Now duplicate genes (in pairs) to aid in ability to repair transcription errors. (If one gene is faulty, the other will still work.)

Add the capacity for meitosis, the ability to create and combine monochromosomal cells. Now children (we can now call them daughters) will still be produced by a single parent, but the daughters will not be the genetic clones of their parent.

Now allow two different individuals to exchange these monochromosomal cells. This allows isogamy, where two "mothers" can cooperate to produce a "daughter" with genes from both parents.

Now allow for meitosis to produce two different sized gametes -- a larger (egg) and smaller (sperm) cell. Smaller sperm cells are easier to transport, making exofertilization more practical. Each organism produces both egg and sperm cells and are hermaphroditic "mothers."

Now allow specialization so that some organisms produce only eggs (we will call them female) and some produce only sperm (we will call them male). Behold. We have now produced "sexual reproduction" by a series of small steps.

Each of the intermediate steps is not only theoretically viable, but is documented somewhere in the biological world.

[AK-Dave]

Here is a good description of a primative form of sexual reproduction in the otherwise asexual paramecium(which were first mentioned byTricky).
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/classics/Paramecium/paramecium4.html
It does not take much of an imagination to see how this could evolve into sexual reproduction as performed by more familiar methods. Of course, you have to want to see how it may be possible...

[jmercer]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's nonsense.
Einstein proved that the value of time is a variant within the awareness of an individual. There is no such thing as "absolute time".

Edited to clarify - there's no "awareness" involved. Experiments with atomic clocks on high-speed jets have been done. Realitivity isn't about "awareness", it's about special frames of reference.

Sheesh.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There is no such thing as "absolute time". Correct. Glad to see you're starting to pay attention.
Einstein proved that the value of time is a variant within the awareness of an individual. Incorrect. If only you would stop cherry picking your information.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Incorrect. If only you would stop cherry picking your information.

Now now...take it easy on him.

Maybe he has figured out to travel at 186,282.4 miles per second.

I figure LG is at least smart enough to hit 100,000.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I want some answers to my last post at the bottom of page 1.
If I don't get some answers, I shall assume that there are none to be had. And if that is the case, then many a sheep need to nullify their baa's. I'm agahst! How many questions have you refused to answer? How many times have I beged you to answer a single question:

How can an omnicient being not know that his belief is wrong?

Perhaps you should nullify your baa's.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What is time, except a value - like space - existing within awareness?
You proclaim to be a philosopher, so don't assume that time is an absolute (read some Einstein) which exists beyond the awareness of it.

This would be the Einstein whose Quantum Mechanics you keep abusing, and then being taken to the cleaners over, by the far more wise people than you here at JREF, would it? That Einstein? Just checking...

And no, Time doesn't exist within awareness... because time, and change exists for inanimate matter too. Kindly resist poking your insane theories of God into everything.

I never said that I don't believe in evolution (= 'change'). But I would argue that change itself requires a driving force. And I would argue that some changes that have occured to 'life' are evidence supporting the fact that this force is supra-intelligent. [/B]

There is indeed a driving force: the completely unintelligent, unconscious process of natural selection acting upon differing populations is the driving force. Do try and read some Dawkins, Lifegazer me old plonker.
That's the bloke you asked your ideas to be submitted too earlier, because for some insane reason you thought he might be impressed by them. That's Dawkins, the committed atheiest, and far more knowledgeable on Evolution than you-person.

Oh, and are you going to admit how utterly, utterly wrong you were about reproduction? You know, that bit where you got slapped from here to eternity with all kinds of intermediate and differing ways to reproduce other than the 2 you thought were the only existing methods?

Ahah ha ha, but no, of course not, here we see you are again asserting it must have been an enormous leap towards male-female coupling... Call yourself a philosopher?! I've seen more wisdom on the back of cereal packets than you come out with.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by jmercer
Edited to clarify - there's no "awareness" involved. Experiments with atomic clocks on high-speed jets have been done. Realitivity isn't about "awareness", it's about special frames of reference.

Sheesh.
Those atomic clocks were seen within the awareness of the scientists doing the measurements.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
And no, Time doesn't exist within awareness... because time, and change exists for inanimate matter too.

You have no way of proving that 'inanimate matter' exists beyond your awareness of it. And as I said, the value of time is relative for each observer - observed within awareness - so that all 'inanimate matter' is observed to change at different rates by different awarenesses, especially where [the perception of moving at] extremely-high velocities is involved.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"Einstein proved that the value of time is a variant within the awareness of an individual."

Incorrect. If only you would stop cherry picking your information.
Incorrect? Do you realise that the opposite to what I have said is:

Einstein proved that the value of time is absolute within the awareness of an individual.

... Now that's incorrect.

I think I can smell another relativity thread on the horizon.:D

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Incorrect? Do you realise that the opposite to what I have said is:

Einstein proved that the value of time is absolute within the awareness of an individual.

... Now that's incorrect.

I think I can smell another relativity thread on the horizon.:D I can just smell another fallacy (I'm shure it has a name): Showing that the opposite of A is wrong does not show that A is right.

Is my car white? The opposite of white is black, and my car shure ain't black. Does that prove it is white?

:dio: :rolleyes: :nope:

Hans

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by AK-Dave
Here is a good description of a primative form of sexual reproduction in the otherwise asexual paramecium(which were first mentioned byTricky).
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/classics/Paramecium/paramecium4.html
It does not take much of an imagination to see how this could evolve into sexual reproduction as performed by more familiar methods. Of course, you have to want to see how it may be possible...
That was a good link Dave.
I'm assuming that you think this is a very simple process, but it isn't.
That's the thing about slowwww evolution - it ALL has to be explained in very small and very simple steps if we are to believe that the guy with the grey beard aint pullin' the strings.

Like I said to PSA, I have no problem with evolution as a theory in itself. My issue is how these changes come about.
I find myself unable to accept the idea that there are no MACRO leaps and that the complex structures of all complex species can be explained with very simple and very small steps - all of which provide a function for the species at the particular time that they evolve.
If there are macro-leaps, then there is good reason to side with intelligent design.
The problem with your link Dave, is that I see immense complexity involved within the process of conjugation. When you analyse the two processes carefully - fission and conjugation - there's a world of difference between them.
So it doesn't really answer my question.

[Zep]

Just because YOU can't accept things, LG, doesn't mean it isn't so. It most likely means you haven't understood, or refuse to understand.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zep
Just because YOU can't accept things, LG, doesn't mean it isn't so. It most likely means you haven't understood, or refuse to understand.
Answer this:
Do you believe that from the absolute origin of life in it's simplest form (which is far from "simple"), to the complexity and diversity that we observe today, that ALL the evolutionary-steps inbetween have come about via small/simple and useful steps/changes?

That's the issue.

[Zep]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Answer this:
Do you believe that from the absolute origin of life in it's simplest form (which is far from "simple"), to the complexity and diversity that we observe today, that ALL the evolutionary-steps in between have come about via small/simple and useful steps/changes?

That's the issue. Not "belief", evidence. ANd I note you haven't answered MY question first. However...

Do you know anything about Chaos Theory? There's a simple example of chaos being produced from simple steps.

Take the following simple equation: P₁=RP₀(1-P₀)
Set R to be a value, say = 1, and set P₀ to be an initial value, say = 1.
Calculate P₁.
Set P₀ equal to P₁, and repeat (i.e. feed the result back into the equation).
Repeat again many times (hint: use a computer!).
What happens to the value of P₁? (hint: it stabilises)
Now change the value of R to 1.1, and repeat the whole process.
What happens to the value of P₁? (hint: it stabilises at a different value)
Keep changing the value of R upwards by 0.1, and repeating the process.
What happens to the value of P₁? (hint: watch out when R gets to about 2.5 or more...)
Now try plotting the results or R versus P₁...a VERY interesting graph results.

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~hermanowicz/e101/study/fbt.gif

Result: Simple mathematical model, simple mathematical process, very complex result. And, for YOUR benefit, note the "sudden macro change" in the graph at one point.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Answer this:
Do you believe that from the absolute origin of life in it's simplest form (which is far from "simple"), to the complexity and diversity that we observe today, that ALL the evolutionary-steps inbetween have come about via small/simple and useful steps/changes?

That's the issue. Yes but also by non-useful and detrimental small changes. Since this creates the differences by which the environment may select the fittest organisms. That is what evolution theory contends.

Why do you ask?

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You have no way of proving that 'inanimate matter' exists beyond your awareness of it. And as I said, the value of time is relative for each observer - observed within awareness - so that all 'inanimate matter' is observed to change at different rates by different awarenesses, especially where [the perception of moving at] extremely-high velocities is involved.

Except for light, which maintains the exact same speed, irrespective of the relative velocity of the observer. Did I say speed? Yes Speed which, you insanely ignorant buffoon, is defined by the most simple of physical formula, one which is learnt in primary school these days, Speed = Distance Over Time. S = D/T. Time, Lifegazer. TIME. Time is part of the very structure of even inanimate things. Without time, you cannot even measure the changing of events. And the same amount of time, every time, and distance, for anywhere in the universe, is crossed and used by Light. Always.

We may have different perceptions of time in awareness; for instance when reading your threads time always slows to a damnable crawl as you bore the pants off us once more, but Time does exists outside of us. And that doesn't change even if we embrace your insanity, because all it means is that God has chosen to universally imagine the speed of Light everywhere too. It's true for "All" God too. Except where God chooses to perform miracles... which he hasn't. Which reminds me... I have a new thread to make!

And as has already been pointed out, just because you don't understand evolution, doesn't mean that it's not true. And you've still not admitted you were utterly, utterly wrong about alternative forms of reproduction. You've just, as we all expected, changed the argument for why you still think you are right.

Plonker.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I can just smell another fallacy (I'm shure it has a name): Showing that the opposite of A is wrong does not show that A is right.It has a couple of names. 1) Strawman: lifegazer's take is not what I'm saying. In fact, I explicitly agreed that there was no such thing as "absolute time". 2) False Dilema: There are more options other than lifegazer's version of "the opposite".

The alternative I had in mind was more along the lines of:

Einstein proved that the value of time is a variant between reference frames, irregardless of awareness of it.

And there is no need to start a new thread on relativity, lifegazer. We hashed all of this out previously where I provided evidence for you that Einstien's theories are in no way dependent upon awareness and is actually invarient amonst two or more awarenesses (i.e. observers) within the same inertial reference frame. You're just putting words in other people's mouths.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zep
Do you know anything about Chaos Theory? There's a simple example of chaos being produced from simple steps.

It's a mathematical game with numbers.

Result: Simple mathematical model, simple mathematical process, very complex result. And, for YOUR benefit, note the "sudden macro change" in the graph at one point.
What you presented was pointless. Why? Because evolution is a theory of ever-increasing complexity of order, not a theory that reduces order to chaos.

[Morwen]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
I'm planning on going to listen to Dawkins' lecture this coming week.
I envy you. Oh how I envy you.

Please keep us posted on what transpires. Bring a recorder. Two recorders. Get his aura. Whatever.

I wish Dawkins would come here someday.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Yes but also by non-useful and detrimental small changes. Since this creates the differences by which the environment may select the fittest organisms. That is what evolution theory contends.

I know, which is why "non-useful and detrimental small changes" are weeded-out.

Why do you ask?
Because there are many examples of species; organs; systems within entities; traits of entities; etc., which (in my opinion) cannot occur without MACRO leaps.

I spoke of gender but realised it was better to speak in terms of individual reproduction as opposed to reproduction due to 2+ individuals (apparently, ants have 3 parents).
Dave showed me a link that explained how Paramecium reproduce either individually or as pairs. What struck me, however, was the complexity involved - even in such a "simple creature" - for the Paramecium to reproduce in pairs... so that even this ability to reproduce in pairs cannot be said to be a "micro leap" from the inability to reproduce as a pair.

The problem is that, biologically, all creatures and their internal mechanisms are really very complex things. So, when we speak of evolution, we are speaking of the introduction of new systems of complex order. On a continual basis.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Except for light, which maintains the exact same speed, irrespective of the relative velocity of the observer.

The speed of light is a value which is measured within awareness, through perceived space and perceived time.
Again, you cannot prove that light exists beyond your awareness or sense of it. Same as matter.

Time is part of the very structure of even inanimate things. Without time, you cannot even measure the changing of events. And the same amount of time, every time, and distance, for anywhere in the universe, is crossed and used by Light. Always.

The light we sense is moving through our inner-awareness of space and our inner-awareness of time.
The qualitative value of inner-space and inner-time is a variant (that's what relativity tells us). Therefore, my perceived value of time T is not the exact-same as your perceived value of time T. Similarly for distance D.
Hence, to acknowledge these variations, the measurement of speed should be regarded as:
Speed = D(lg)/T(lg) ... where "lg" is an acknowledgent of the fact that these values are as perceived by myself.
Similarly, your measurement of speed should read:
Speed=D(psa)/T(psa)

Now, the interesting thing here is that when we compare our values for the speed of light, we have:
Lg:- SOL (in a vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(lg)/second(lg)
PSA:- SOL (vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(psa)/second(psa)

... The problem is that the parameters are different/variant. Therefore, the values we assign to the SOL are not the same. Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Einstein proved that the value of time is a variant between reference frames, irregardless of awareness of it.

How can Einstein prove something that nobody is aware of?
You can only measure something within your awareness. You are wrong.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The speed of light is a value which is measured within awareness, through perceived space and perceived time.
Again, you cannot prove that light exists beyond your awareness or sense of it. Same as matter.


And that proves / means what, exactly?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I know, which is why "non-useful and detrimental small changes" are weeded-out.

Because there are many examples of species; organs; systems within entities; traits of entities; etc., which (in my opinion) cannot occur without MACRO leaps.

I spoke of gender but realised it was better to speak in terms of individual reproduction as opposed to reproduction due to 2+ individuals (apparently, ants have 3 parents).
Dave showed me a link that explained how Paramecium reproduce either individually or as pairs. What struck me, however, was the complexity involved - even in such a "simple creature" - for the Paramecium to reproduce in pairs... so that even this ability to reproduce in pairs cannot be said to be a "micro leap" from the inability to reproduce as a pair.

The problem is that, biologically, all creatures and their internal mechanisms are really very complex things. So, when we speak of evolution, we are speaking of the introduction of new systems of complex order. On a continual basis.

Well, that's your opinion. The evidence demonstrates both 'micro changes' and 'macro changes'.

Have you ever heard of 'mutation', lg? This is a macro change in an organism which, unfortunately, usually is fatal or results in sterility; in some cases, this is the result of one gene or set of genes suddenly being incorrectly coded or oddly altered from either parent. What causes mutation? Chemical imbalances in the environment, exposure to radiation of many forms, sudden changes in environment or diet.

This is one simple macro change which can occur, and doesn't require intelligence to happen.

Some forms of radiation feature particle/waves so minute, that they usually pass through space unhindered by other matter (think of the raw amount of space within every atom, for example); but on the rare occasion when these particle/waves actually do hit something, the results are usually vast changes. To organisms, this usually results in genetic disruption, but can, occasionally, lead to positive or negative mutation - 'macro change'.

But, for the most part, we can demonstrate series of reproductive systems, and theorize at others - and there's no problem at all for qualified biologists to demonstrate the series of micro changes that led from self-reproduction to two-member reproduction.

Given billions of years of evolution, the modern complexity of organisms is a must, and easily encompassed in endless, continual micro-changes. We are witness to micro-changes every day, though I doubt we realize their value - certainly not within two or three lifetimes - and won't until our grandchildren's children look back through the evidence and spot where the micro-change that led to current complexity was first recorded.

....

The simple fact is, lifegazer, you can't conceive of or understand much of anything at all. You are wrong in every single subject you have ever approached - relativity, infinite spaces, evolution, quantum mechanics, theology, philosophy, logic, mathematics, biology, evolution, Christian studies - and probably a heck of a lot more.

Or, to put it simply and rudely, you're stupid, lifegazer - willfully stupid. You CHOOSE to be an ignoramus, because education would shatter your philosophy to shards, and the regret of wasting years of your life would be too much for you to bear.

If you want to believe this philosophical model, you go right ahead and do so - but don't waste any more time posting ignorance on message boards. Go out and give God some enjoyment through your experiences. Do your PERSONAL best to do right by God. Use your miraculous God-powers to improve the world directly.

A loaf of bread does more good than a million lectures on the nature of God.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And that proves / means what, exactly?
Read my post to PSA, today, which explains why lightspeed is not an absolute.
I contend that Einstein proved - without knowing it - that the world exists within us... not "out there".
Space and time can only exist within awareness.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The speed of light is a value which is measured within awareness, through perceived space and perceived time.
Again, you cannot prove that light exists beyond your awareness or sense of it. Same as matter.

The light we sense is moving through our inner-awareness of space and our inner-awareness of time.
The qualitative value of inner-space and inner-time is a variant (that's what relativity tells us). Therefore, my perceived value of time T is not the exact-same as your perceived value of time T. Similarly for distance D.
Hence, to acknowledge these variations, the measurement of speed should be regarded as:
Speed = D(lg)/T(lg) ... where "lg" is an acknowledgent of the fact that these values are as perceived by myself.
Similarly, your measurement of speed should read:
Speed=D(psa)/T(psa)

Now, the interesting thing here is that when we compare our values for the speed of light, we have:
Lg:- SOL (in a vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(lg)/second(lg)
PSA:- SOL (vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(psa)/second(psa)

... The problem is that the parameters are different/variant. Therefore, the values we assign to the SOL are not the same. Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute.

:dl:

Can't Breathe! Laughing too hard!!

Oh, what humour!

SOL is absolute - this has been explained again and again and again. Perception of speed may be relative, but not due to light, but due to the perceptor.

There is no 'light' within awareness - there is the value of 'light' as compared to the value of other things within sensory awareness.

There is no 'space' within awareness. There are no 'things' within awareness. There is data - raw, simple data - as translated through sensors, nerves, and the brain.

I notice you've dropped another thread that you've been traumatically bashed in - and are now looping back to material you think has been forgotten.

Can't you ever finish a fight? Either admit you're wrong, or keep battling with new material. Of course, you can't - you just poke and run, poke and run.

BTW

Still waiting for my bread.

[lifegazer]

Am starting a thread on relativity since this thread is supposed to be about woodpeckers and evolution.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Okay, let me present the issue in a different format:-

There was once a time when the reproduction of a species occured entirely via the individual. Then, one day, for the first time (and there had to be a first time), a species reproduced via the interaction of two individuals instead of one.

My point is that there seems to be no slowwwwww way to get from the first state-of-affairs to the latter.
You must appreciate that the reproduction process between two individuals requires a high degree of co-operative complexity - even at it's most basic.

So, in the interest of promoting interesting discussion, can somebody explain this sudden MACRO leap?

Considering that such a first time would necessarily have occured at a time when all life was unicelluallar (or simpler):

And if that first time occurred at a point where the interacting chemicals could barely be called life, much less a species of life?

Or if the first instance of recombination was within a single organism, which eventually evolved into self-fertilization?

Or if the original instance involved contamination after ingesting a prey organism?

None of these possible first times requires "a high degree of co-operative complexity - even at it's most basic."

Neither do they preclude other unrelated instances at more complex levels from being new to any other particular evolutionary line.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Dave showed me a link that explained how Paramecium reproduce either individually or as pairs. What struck me, however, was the complexity involved - even in such a "simple creature" - for the Paramecium to reproduce in pairs... so that even this ability to reproduce in pairs cannot be said to be a "micro leap" from the inability to reproduce as a pair.


Despite the fact that I posted a set of microleaps from asexual reproduction to the ability to reproduce in pairs.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

From Zep: Do you know anything about Chaos Theory?

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's a mathematical game with numbers.

What you presented was pointless. Why? Because evolution is a theory of ever-increasing complexity of order, not a theory that reduces order to chaos.

Evolution is a theory of fitness, not necessarily of order. (Although competition within the framework of fitness has caused greater comlexity.)

And chaos theory is not a theory of randomness ("reducing order to chaos"), but of unpredictability: even relatively uncomplicated systems can give rise to structures that cannot be intuitively predicted.

The point is that the complexity and unpredictability of life is a natural consequence of relatively simple "rules." It is not necessary for a "Designer" to continually tweak Nature to produce what we have seen.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Because there are many examples of species; organs; systems within entities; traits of entities; etc., which (in my opinion) cannot occur without MACRO leaps. On what do you base this opinion? Research? Evidence? Also, macro leaps are not prohibited by evolution theory, they're just really really rare, so most changes occur by gradual changes in form and function of existing structures.

The problem is that, biologically, all creatures and their internal mechanisms are really very complex things. So, when we speak of evolution, we are speaking of the introduction of new systems of complex order. On a continual basis. The real problem is that you reject a buttload of evidence and years of well documented research, simply because you cannot believe that this is possible. If you're sure it's not possible, do the math and write a book. You're not going to change biology if you stay here on the JREF forums.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What if I have?
Ever seen the pyramids?

bacteria exchange small amounts of genetic material from time to time, a precursor to sexual reproduction. Perhaps you should study them and discover.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's nonsense.
Einstein proved that the value of time is a variant within the awareness of an individual. There is no such thing as "absolute time".


Um, no, relativity talks about reference frames, not individuals. An electron in your CRT has its own reference frame.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Those atomic clocks were seen within the awareness of the scientists doing the measurements.

If physics follows a set of immunable laws, it doesn't matter who's awareness they occur in.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Answer this:
Do you believe that from the absolute origin of life in it's simplest form (which is far from "simple"), to the complexity and diversity that we observe today, that ALL the evolutionary-steps inbetween have come about via small/simple and useful steps/changes?

That's the issue.

Most genetic changes are not usefull, some combination of changes that are not uselful, may prove to be benifitial, in fact, some changes that can be viewed as harmful, when combined with other changes or environmental situations, can be positivie (see, sickle cell anemia)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I know, which is why "non-useful and detrimental small changes" are weeded-out.


Ever hear of "natural selection"?


Because there are many examples of species; organs; systems within entities; traits of entities; etc., which (in my opinion) cannot occur without MACRO leaps.


Like what? Are you in a position to make judgements about what is and is not too complex? Have you studied evolution, molecular biology, etc?


I spoke of gender but realised it was better to speak in terms of individual reproduction as opposed to reproduction due to 2+ individuals (apparently, ants have 3 parents).


Where do you get your information? How can you make claims to your philosophy based on biology when you are so incredibly misinformed. Ants have 2 genetic parents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant


Dave showed me a link that explained how Paramecium reproduce either individually or as pairs. What struck me, however, was the complexity involved - even in such a "simple creature" - for the Paramecium to reproduce in pairs... so that even this ability to reproduce in pairs cannot be said to be a "micro leap" from the inability to reproduce as a pair.


It's an example of a form of reproduction that isn't asexual, and it isn't quite sexual either, its an intermediate form of reproduction.

Also, don't forget bacteria, which have an even more primitive form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria

However, independent of sexual reproduction, genetic variations can occur within individual cells through recombinant events such as mutation (random genetic change within a cell's own genetic code). Similar to more complex organisms, bacteria also have mechanisms for exchanging genetic material. Although not equivalent to sexual reproduction, the end result is that a bacterium contains a combination of traits from two different parental cells. Three different modes of exchange have thus far been identified in bacteria:

1. transformation (the transfer of naked DNA from one bacterial cell to another in solution, this can include dead bacteria),
2. transduction (the transfer of viral, bacterial, or both bacterial and viral DNA from one cell to another via bacteriophage) and;
3. bacterial conjugation (the transfer of DNA from one bacterial cell to another via a special protein structure called a conjugation pilus).




The problem is that, biologically, all creatures and their internal mechanisms are really very complex things. So, when we speak of evolution, we are speaking of the introduction of new systems of complex order. On a continual basis.

No, the gradual, the changes are all very gradual, you would not be able to tell the difference from generation to generation. I'm not sure you realize how long 4 billion years is.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can Einstein prove something that nobody is aware of?
You can only measure something within your awareness. You are wrong.

You measure something that already occured, ie, an event that people were not aware was occuring. Or you could measure an event with machines alone, and then later, look at the results.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Where do you get your information? How can you make claims to your philosophy based on biology when you are so incredibly misinformed. Ants have 2 genetic parents:

http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020183

"In a recently discovered hybrid system within the harvester ant genus Pogonomyrmex, queens must mate with two types of males to produce both reproductive individuals and workers (Figure 3). These ants are the first species known which truly has more than two sexes—with colonies effectively having three parents."

If it's not true, shout at them.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020183

"In a recently discovered hybrid system within the harvester ant genus Pogonomyrmex, queens must mate with two types of males to produce both reproductive individuals and workers (Figure 3). These ants are the first species known which truly has more than two sexes—with colonies effectively having three parents."

If it's not true, shout at them.

I'm sorry, next time, be more specific. Anyway, the quote is misleading. Three sets of genetic information is not combined to form one offspring.

Basically, there are just two different sets of male chromosomes. I'm not sure what your point is, other than to show evolution at work.

[P.S.A.]

Can I just second that :dl: there?

You got one slight thing wrong there though old pal plonker; What you meant to say was this;


Now, the interesting thing here is that when we compare our values for the speed of light, we have:

PSA, Science, every sensible scientific person in the world, all objective measurements etc.:- SOL (vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters/second()

Lg:- SOL (in a vacuum) = God.

... The problem is that the parameters are different/variant. One of the observers is a lunatic. Therefore, the values we assign to the SOL are not the same. Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute, because insanity diverges from reality[/B]

:dl:

But well done on refusing to admit that Time is indeed the fourth dimension in observable space. It's no more a feature of perception than width is. Unless you are a lunatic. And one boring us to death, natch.

[rppa]

Originally posted by lifegazer
These ants are the first species known which truly has more than two sexes—with colonies effectively having three parents."

If it's not true, shout at them. [/B]

How do you go from "This ant species is the first species known which has three parents" to "All ants have three parents"?

The passage you cite does not bolster your previous claim about "Apparently, ants have three parents", so it would be incorrect to blame these authors for your misstatement.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Am starting a thread on relativity since this thread is supposed to be about woodpeckers and evolution.

LG, if there's a woodpecker in this thread, you need to buy a helmet for protection.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by rppa
How do you go from "This ant species is the first species known which has three parents" to "All ants have three parents"?

The passage you cite does not bolster your previous claim about "Apparently, ants have three parents", so it would be incorrect to blame these authors for your misstatement.

like I said though, the colony has three parents, just like a remarried family may have three parents. None of the ants have three parents.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Unless you are a lunatic. And one boring us to death, natch.
I'm slightly confused. Why would you obsessively chase me around this forum to hound me with insult if I were insane and stupid and boring and... etc.?

Seems to me that there's something about me or my thinking that worries you, for I personally would not even bother to participate in a single thread of such a person. In fact, if I held such a low opinion of somebody and really believed that he/she was so useless, I wouldn't even need to bother.

I think you must be sweating about something.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by jmercer
LG, if there's a woodpecker in this thread, you need to buy a helmet for protection.
P.S.A. thinks I'm a tree. He even puts dynamite in his beak.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by rppa
How do you go from "This ant species is the first species known which has three parents" to "All ants have three parents"?

The passage you cite does not bolster your previous claim about "Apparently, ants have three parents", so it would be incorrect to blame these authors for your misstatement.
Fair enough. If my statement infered that ALL ants have 3 parents, I apologise. But it's not really important within the context of the discussion at-hand.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Fair enough. If my statement infered that ALL ants have 3 parents, I apologise. But it's not really important within the context of the discussion at-hand.

You inferred that some ants have three parents, which is completely untrue. There is not a single ant that has three parents.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
You inferred that some ants have three parents, which is completely untrue. There is not a single ant that has three parents.
That quote said the opposite. If it's wrong, then as I said "Shout at them.". If I misread it, then I apologise. Can't be fairer than that, can I?

[P.S.A.]

Micro-evolution ALONE. I.e., I think macro evolution - on a regular basis - must have occured.

Just thought you'd like to see this guys; LG has changed his arguments over in his relativity thread. He now admits that micro evolution does occur... he just won't do it here, because that means admitting flaws, and he's too arrogant to do so.

I'm slightly confused. Why would you obsessively chase me around this forum to hound me with insult if I were insane and stupid and boring and... etc.?

Because you are insane and stupid and boring. And because you've obsessively posted on endless boards the same nonsense for year after year. Because you are an arrogant plonker. Because you refuse to learn. Because I hate your God and wish to see him dead. Because I enjoy baiting self centred fools like you. Because it amuses me to see how far I can get you to change your Ulitmate Truth due to my own superior will... and then watch you try and claim to be not one of the sheep afterwards. Because ultimately Lifegazer, someone who can't even see why people might not like someone who is insane and stupid and boring, but insists he Gods Own Prophet is absolutely begging to be made sport of.

And the really funny thing? It's not just you either. I've got Interesting Ian to throw his dummy out of the pram twice now, and Open Mind to make a tit of himself endlessly too. You just think it's all about you because you are a shameless narcissist.

Seems to me that there's something about me or my thinking that worries you, for I personally would not even bother to participate in a single thread of such a person. In fact, if I held such a low opinion of somebody and really believed that he/she was so useless, I wouldn't even need to bother.

See what I mean? "Something about my thinking that worries you"...? Yeah, I agree actually; what worries me is that NHS support for the mentally ill has been abandoned to the point whereby people like you are left to decay ever further into insanity. That there's no help for you, even if you were sane enough to realise you need it. But what you meant to say was "I'm scared that you are right". No, arrogant asshat, not even slightly. I know you are wrong. And you are only going to get wronger. That's what worries me; just how much lower you've got to sink.

P.S.A. thinks I'm a tree. He even puts dynamite in his beak.

Like this. What the :j2: does that even mean? I think you are a tree? Where did I even say that? Dynamite in my beak? This is just another insane comment like your cow one. It's a metaphor which has no relevance to anything but your broken mind. YOU ARE LOSING IT LIFEGAZER. For the love of God, of yourself, get help. The only thing your "philosophy" brings is broken thought patterns, and bemused tolerance from others at best... intense dislike for your arrogance and idiocy on average. How many times do I have to point this out to you? How many times must I repeat you can't even practice what you preach (no miracles still, I see) let alone persuade anyone else they should follow you? You are not only not worthy of loving, you throw love away to follow this incoherant and ever changing delusion of yours... And then berate us all as sheep and worthless because we won't follow you. No Lifegazer, we won't: It's not even taking much of my time to comment after you here... See that screenshot in my own thread? I'm actually playing Medieval Madness in between quickly leaving comments for you. The Great Philosopher, unable to even answer questions made between ball 1 going down the drain and ball 2 arriving at the plunger... GIVE IT UP, YOU DELUDED FOOL. Not for any of us; you'll NEVER convert anyone else. But for your own mental health. Time to get the punchline to all my jokes Lifegazer. And do something about it, whilst you still can.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That quote said the opposite. If it's wrong, then as I said "Shout at them.". If I misread it, then I apologise. Can't be fairer than that, can I?

Nope, just realize that the information is all out there, and you can learn as much or little of it as you want.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
LG has changed his arguments over in his relativity thread. He now admits that micro evolution does occur... he just won't do it here, because that means admitting flaws, and he's too arrogant to do so.

I never said that it didn't. My point was that micro-evolution ALONE can't get us from the origins of life to what it is now. Wake up.

Because you are insane and stupid and boring. And because you've obsessively posted on endless boards the same nonsense for year after year.

Actually, that's 3 boards, one after the other, for 3+ years. I don't post anywhere else but here. I've made a few-dozen posts at
some place else too (not recently), but don't count that.

Because you are an arrogant plonker.

Would you call God arrogant for proclaiming it's omnipotence? No, it's just a fact of reality. Likewise, my philosophy - of God. Deal with it.

Like this. What the :j2: does that even mean? I think you are a tree? Where did I even say that? Dynamite in my beak? This is just another insane comment like your cow one. It's a metaphor which has no relevance to anything but your broken mind.

You peck at me as though I were a tree - like a starving woodpecker desperate for sustenance.
Your life will be destroyed by me, and you know it. Like a desperate woodpecker, you put self-damaging ammunition in your beak (mouth... words) as a last-ditch defence to sustain your life and open the bark of the tree (destroy 'lifegazer' and P.S.A. continues to live).

You're a fool. You're one step below the bully who uses actual violence to get his own way. Short of that facility, you use violent/abusive language instead. Unfortunately for you, violent/abusive language does not make for intelligent progress. In other words, your words are only going to attract dimwits who also like to think that bullying is a rewarding past-time.

You have a philosophy degree. Use it.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I never said that it didn't. My point was that micro-evolution ALONE can't get us from the origins of life to what it is now. Wake up.


How about providing an argument? Have you ever considered how many (not forms, pure number of beings) multicelular lifeforms have existed on the planet earth? How about bacteria? How about all other forms of life?


Your life will be destroyed by me, and you know it. Like a desperate woodpecker, you put self-damaging ammunition in your beak (mouth... words) as a last-ditch defence to sustain your life and open the bark of the tree (destroy 'lifegazer' and P.S.A. continues to live).


Oh no, I might end up some middle age english guy who sits around, plays bridge, and complains about the establishment, I really hope that never happens to me, don't destroy my life lifegazer


You're a fool. You're one step below the bully who uses actual violence to get his own way. Short of that facility, you use violent/abusive language instead. Unfortunately for you, violent/abusive language does not make for intelligent progress. In other words, your words are only going to attract dimwits who also like to think that bullying is a rewarding past-time.



Alright Mr. "I'm going to destroy your life"

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill

Alright Mr. "I'm going to destroy your life"
Get it right Russ. I don't aim to extinguish your life: my aim is to extinguish your beliefs pertaining to who you are... and by so-doing, to free you from death to being, as chosen.
In other words, I'm the good guy.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Get it right Russ. I don't aim to extinguish your life: my aim is to extinguish your beliefs pertaining to who you are... and by so-doing, to free you from death to being, as chosen.
In other words, I'm the good guy.

Nope, sorry, I like being an individual, if there was the philosophical equivelent of the borg collective, I wouldn't want to be a member.

[BTW, interesting how lifegazer takes any perceived insults as personal, but has no problem launching his on ad hominem attacks, and then excusing them because he is god, and you are a lesser being because you don't yet realize you are god.]

[SezMe]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Fair enough. If my statement infered that ALL ants have 3 parents, I apologise. But it's not really important within the context of the discussion at-hand.
"Implied" not "infered" [sic], you idiot. If you're going to be god, at least learn some English and some spelling so you can communicate with your subjects.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I never said that it didn't. My point was that micro-evolution ALONE can't get us from the origins of life to what it is now. Wake up.

It has. You don't understand it. You are a fool.

Actually, that's 3 boards, one after the other, for 3+ years. I don't post anywhere else but here. I've made a few-dozen posts at
some place else too (not recently), but don't count that.

So the fact that, even though I didn't mention other boards because I don't post there, that you are in fact insane to 3 times the level I referred to, is an argument in your favour is it? Fool.

Would you call God arrogant for proclaiming it's omnipotence? No, it's just a fact of reality. Likewise, my philosophy - of God. Deal with it.

No, I call a man, a mortal man who cannot even prove he has gained the benefits his belief system supposedly gives, such as inner peace and the ability to perform miracles, arrogant. You are going to die, unloved and unsung. Deal with it, insecure and scared little child.

You peck at me as though I were a tree - like a starving woodpecker desperate for sustenance.

No Lifegazer, woodpeckers peck at trees all the time, not just out of desperation... It's what they do.

Your life will be destroyed by me, and you know it.

Ha ha ha haaaaa... No I don't Lifegazer. Because even if I thought you had anything worth believing in, which you don't, you've already told me I live for ever. Remember this?

:j2:

And how about how the happier I am here, the less my sufferings in Hell? Well Lifegazer, I genuinely DO enjoy laughing at you. So no Hell for me. Eternal pleasurable existance is going to be my lot. According to you, that is.

And how many times have I pointed out that God cannot kill me without limiting his own experience, power and knowledge of the "All"?

Honestly; you might be able to persuade yourself with these lies, but you can't lie to me about what I actually feel, even with regards to what you've said.

Like a desperate woodpecker, you put self-damaging ammunition in your beak (mouth... words)

Oh such glorious insanity! The Woodpecker SUSTAINS itself with it's beak, you deluded fool!

as a last-ditch defence to sustain your life and open the bark of the tree (destroy 'lifegazer' and P.S.A. continues to live).

But it doesnt happen like that... at least, not if we accept your Philosophy! Hooo boy, you are totally hatstand! If I "know" you are right, then I also know that it doesn't matter what happens to Lifegazer. You said so. I die, or go to Hell, depending on how I've got you to squirm and lie that day, irrespective of YOUR fate. "It's all your choice", remember?! Destroying you makes no difference to me in your belief system (at the moment). So I can't possibly think this if I "know" you are right at all!

Ha ha ha haaaaaa...!

You're a fool. You're one step below the bully who uses actual violence to get his own way. Short of that facility, you use violent/abusive language instead.

What, like the sort of insane, arrogant bully who uses the violent language of Hell to scare everyone into worship his own outrageously inflated ego? The sort of bully who goes on, for year after year after year, demanding you all accept he is better than you "sheep"? No Lifegazer, the only bully is you... lashing out at a world which doesn't love you, cannot understand you, and will never, ever worship you. Come and join us in the human race, and we'll treat you like a person. But this lonely hell of yours, which you tried to terrify us all with, is of your own building not ours. You do it to yourself.

Respect is earned, not just given on demand Lifegazer. You haven't earned it. Those to whom arrogance is done get arrogance in return.

Unfortunately for you, violent/abusive language does not make for intelligent progress.

And here comes Mr Irony...

In other words, your words are only going to attract dimwits who also like to think that bullying is a rewarding past-time.

AND YOUR "PHILOSOPHY" HAS ATTRACTED HOW MANY PEOPLE, MR MAGNIFICENCE?
I'll give you a clue... I've got infinitely more admirers than you do.

Nope, there is NO intelligent progress to be made with you. I prefer to make such progress where it actually can be achieved, and where it counts for something. With you, I use you for the only thing you are good for... laughing at the insane arrogance of the willfully self deluded. And enjoying making the Prophet of God dance to my tune. That's always good for a laugh too.

You have a philosophy degree. Use it. [/B]

I thought you didn't appreciate such degrees? You hardly recognise when people DO use genuine Philosophy in debate with you... and you wouldn't even accept Wittgenstein's criticism of your "philosophy", would you? Shall I cast my own pearls before swine? No, I really don't think so. Instead, you get this;

:dl:

It's all you'll ever deserve, and it's all you'll ever get, as long as you continue with this insane delusion of yours.

Now, do carry on bantering, and thus disprove your claims of inner peace and intelligence ever more... or try and ignore what you've just done, try and persuade yourself that just because you doublethink it out of existance, no one else can remember what you said either. But it's all the same in the end... you lose either way.

[arthwollipot]

*yawn*

Can we get back to woodpeckers please?

[Zep]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's a mathematical game with numbers.

What you presented was pointless. Why? Because evolution is a theory of ever-increasing complexity of order, not a theory that reduces order to chaos. Wrong. Quite wrong. Very wrong, in fact. This went straight over your head, didn't it. PLOP! Straight into the wall opposite, and ran down into a heap at your feet.

It's a VERY SIMPLE MECHANISM that produces INCREASINGLY COMPLEX ORDER. It's an ANALOGY for how evolution works, and so defies your very basic premise that "ever-increasing complexity of order" cannot happen naturally. I demonstrated that it can.

Sheesh, what's the point. I hope your brain-cell doesn't die - you won't be able to feed without it...

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Originally posted by Zep
Wrong. Quite wrong. Very wrong, in fact. This went straight over your head, didn't it. PLOP! Straight into the wall opposite, and ran down into a heap at your feet.

It's a VERY SIMPLE MECHANISM that produces INCREASINGLY COMPLEX ORDER. It's an ANALOGY for how evolution works, and so defies your very basic premise that "ever-increasing complexity of order" cannot happen naturally. I demonstrated that it can.

Sheesh, what's the point. I hope your brain-cell doesn't die - you won't be able to feed without it...

LifeGazer:

Have you ever heard the story how for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost?

Normally we expect that a change, if it seems minor will produce little or no real change: if a horseshoe is held on by five nails instead of six, normally it will still hold. But sometimes, the effect is large enough to matter: the shoe will be thrown. Sometimes the larger effect will itself have a larger effect: the horse will be crippled. Which then leads to even greater effects: the cavalry will be under-manned and unable to rout the the enemy; this minor skirmish will decimate the army to the extent that it cannot regroup before the enemy's big push; the kingdom is over-run.

While we know that such out-of-proprtion results are possible, it hurts our sense of "Divine Justice" for them to be anything but the rarest of occurances. In many macroscopic venues of life that is all they are. There are just a few "tipping points" where a small change produces a huge, unpredictable result.

Chaos Theory, however shows that these "unpredictably rare" tipping points are in some places far more common than our intuition expects. Even with simple rules limiting the amount and direction of change in, for example a DNA molecule, the possible changes on the level of the living organism can be huge. So the Chaos Theory includes what you called "macro jumps."

There is nothing to prevent , for example, a change in a paramecium such that it is willing to exchange genetic material with another parmecium. If there are no other paramecia around able or willing to make the exchange, the mutation may die out. But if there are, it will probably spread through the colony over the course of several generations, and begin to evolve.

The "miracle" that you need the Designer for is not the mutation, but the coincidence that there were others with the same or compatable mutations. Or do you need Him for even that? Most mutations begin as recessive to the trait from which they mutated. It may take several generations before the trait coded by the mutation manifests. By then, there should be several -- mostly cousins to one another -- in which it manifests.

[Iamme]

Well, the godly aren't over here on this thread, *are* they? I swear, you guys. Those who accuse others of being egomaniacs or other like words, are egomaniacs also. Everyone wants to be right...to have the final authoratative word that *they* are right. In years of visiting this board, it's the same old same old, and it never ceases. It's not a heck of a lot different from how kids go back and forth with the "did too!", "did not!" thing.

Now that I got that off my chest, I have a question I was wondering... if the most learned of you can answer:

*WHY* does change (you can call it evolution if you like) occur, such that everything began from gaseous matter at a certain point in distant time (like 15 billion years ago), and has now turned into...(pause) reflect with your surroundings right now...what do you see?..I see a computer keyboard, sophisticated computer...monitor...mouse...cordlesstelephone...a nswering machine...speakers...lightbulbs...papers...pens... a table with formica top...lighters...packets of sugar...walls...with paint on them...carpeted floor...a cane...some eyeglasses....cigarettes...clothes...trays...spoon s...a clock...the tv...on and on and on. *WHY*? *HOW*?

Is the only intelligent answer as to how this was all possible, simply..."Why not?" Is that going to be your intelligent answer, that I am kind of expecting?

That due to heat and pressure (ewh y was there heat and presure, even?), on simple gas, that happened to have this amazing property of having an atom with one (whatever) whirling about, somehow transformed itself for no reason whatsoever, due to heat, pressure, perhaps gravity(then or at some latter stage), perhaps magnetism (then or at some latter stage), to turn into helium...and then...and then into more complex atoms, which them somehow thru luck, bonded with each other to in turn form more complex things...etc., etc., until we finally wind up with the things I describe. And I might add..with no purpose behind it whatsoever.!

Because, once you start to enter the word "purpose" into the argument, you are now possibly creating an argument for a supreme being.

Why is it so hard for us to even consider there might be a supreme being? Do you think *you* are the end product (currently) of this *luck*? Why is it so hard to even consider a supreme being when if you look at the order of man, you see: individual, manager, company, conglomerate...Wal-Mart...China

:D (just a little humor while making my point). Or: Earth, solar system, galaxy, universe, possible other universes ours is part of...to infinity. We consider this. We consider higher order with *these* things...but not when it comes to the creation process.

[P.S.A.]

Is the only intelligent answer as to how this was all possible, simply..."Why not?" Is that going to be your intelligent answer, that I am kind of expecting?

No, the intelligent answer is found in books of evolution. It's found in the methodology of science which gave you all those amazing things you look around and see. Just because you don't like the answer it gives, doesn't mean that an answer doesn't exist. And just because people don't bother giving someone an answer they are clearly not going to accept, doesn't mean they don't have an intelligent answer.

But if you really must have an answer; here's one.

Hold up a pencil. See the graphite? One of the properties of some things is the ability to mindlessly replicate shape; That bit sticks to this bit which sticks to that bit which sticks to this bit which... Graphite is made up of lots of self repeating lines of carbon; one could almost state graphite grabs passing carbon and reproduces itself with it. Diamond is pure carbon too, but reproducing itself in a different shape...

Now; Imagine a hill, next to the ocean. Now imagine that the wind comes and blows over the hill. Some rocks in the soil are jaggedy, some are less jaggedy. The less jaggedy rocks roll slightly better, and so get blown into the ocean quicker, where they slowly are worn away. CONGRATULATIONS! You've just discovered natural selection for rocks. Or how about our pal carbon again? Those atoms in Diamond are very lucky atoms... they get to be stored and treasured and cared for... where as poor old Graphite finds itself shoved into pencils, and chewed upon, and worn away bit by bit until he's nothing.

So we now have reproduction of matter, combined with natural selection, which is... wait for it... Evolution!

The end.

Except evolution never really ends. It just took mankind a very, very long time to understand something which is really rather simple.

[Z]

Simple.

Out of countless atoms of 'stuff' out there, how much of it 'organized' into humanity?

Probably well under 1/1000 of 1%.

Probably a heck of a lot less. But whatever number you give it, I'd venture to say, is consistent with a natural process effect as described by PSA.

Or, to put it simply, we're the Shakespearean play among the billions of monkeys.

It'll happen, given enough source material.

[P.S.A.]

Or, to put it simply, we're the Shakespearean play among the billions of monkeys.

It'll happen, given enough source material. [/B]

My monkeys are on 22 letters of As You Like It

http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/index.html

That's the thing about evolution too, you see... it has a phenominal amount of time, which means a a phenominal amount of monkeys, to get that Shakespearean play, and unlike the random letter banging monkeys, it can remember what the last key it pressed was, and can judge whether it's sufficiently Shakespearean enough. Oh, not consciously of course... Evolution doesn't think in those terms. It just has an awful lot of dead monkeys who pressed the wrong key... which all adds up to the same thing in the end.

[Flex]

Originally posted by Iamme
Why is it so hard for us to even consider there might be a supreme being? Do you think *you* are the end product (currently) of this *luck*? Why is it so hard to even consider a supreme being when if you look at the order of man, you see: individual, manager, company, conglomerate...Wal-Mart...China

Actually I think most of us have considered that there might be a supreme being. But now that many of us are conversant with the various other theories of development, and there are plenty, we feel there is no _need_ for a supreme being to explain how everything developed. There are even evolutionary theorists who feel that evolution does have a direction, a purpose if you will, without feeling the need to impose a supreme being.

Once you have removed the need for a non-physical creature to direct everything into orderly paths, maybe you should start considering that the non-physical creature doesn't really exist.

Cheers,

-Flex

[jmercer]

What's interesting about the entire ID versus evolution argument is the ultimate basis for it.

When you get right down to it, aren't evolutionists (I count myself among them) really claiming that - given the size and lifespan of the universe - anything that can happen, must eventually happen somewhere? :)

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by jmercer
What's interesting about the entire ID versus evolution argument is the ultimate basis for it.

When you get right down to it, aren't evolutionists (I count myself among them) really claiming that - given the size and lifespan of the universe - anything that can happen, must eventually happen somewhere? :)

Not quite. All we are saying is that anything that can happen, um, can happen. Tautological as it sounds, probability is just that. If something has a one-in-a-million chance, given a million opportunities, that something will most likely happen. We're just saying that a one-in-a-million chance is not zero. Even the very unlikely may happen. Not must but may.