PDA

View Full Version : How Old is the Earth



Pages : [1] 2

Barry Morris
01-18-2014, 03:38 PM
Some guy added up the years that everybody supposedly lived and figured the age of the earth was about 6000 years. Mind you, I don't know of too many modern Christians who believe that. In over 40 years of church life, I've NEVER heard it preached on.

But about the passing of time. I did a little calculating. So the earth is 4 1/2 billion years old, OK, lets take off a generous half of that to give it time to cool down. Then we'll figure that our civilization can MAYBE go back a generous 50,000 years.

How many times could a 50,000 year civilization rise up??

How about 45,000 times!!!

So did it?? Or are we the first?? Or did Somebody just maybe plan it??

Any comments??

The Left Sock
01-18-2014, 04:01 PM
While it is obviously an offensive idea to most Christians, and a patently absurd idea to many others, I can't shake loose the idea that human development, and many major religions around the world, are actually the result of alien intervention.

I know, I know, it's an automatic trigger for ridicule, but I've been looking at it quite extensively, formulating a theoretical construct, and if you put aliens in the center of the theory, everything fits neatly into place.

- Jesus the Son of God? An alien hybrid, created by an omnipotent alien, sent down to help humanity. It explains all his healing powers, and special abilities, and his defiance of death.
- The Virgin Birth? An alien transplant, maybe Mary really was a virgin.
- The Angels contacting humans? Aliens working on behalf of the omnipotent alien.
- Judgment Day? The aliens are coming back, to see whether we have progressed as a species. They will bring the best of us to a new world. The rest? Well, not so lucky.

It goes on and on. If you put aliens at the center of the construct, the Bible may actually be a factual story, all the way down from Creation (aliens manipulating our DNA and mixing it with our own to create a more intelligent species), to Revelations.

By even Christian definition, God is an alien. He resides in the Heavens (space), and created our world in a week. New discoveries in space point to billions of possible planets, that may contain life. Maybe God has been busy, building countless worlds, instead of just hanging around, waiting to see what we do.

If you really want to make the Bible a plausible historical account, all you have to do is put aliens at the center of it. It also explains Satan, who was an omnipotent alien, who had a falling out with the boss alien, and while the aliens can't destroy him, they actively seek to control him, and try to guide humans on how to stay out of his way.

Like I said, the possibilities go on and on. I'm not suggesting I'm in possession of the actual truth here, but I find the whole prospect ultimately intriguing.

Barry Morris
01-18-2014, 04:17 PM
I'm not particularly offended by the idea. I read a lot of scifi. And in science fiction, it''s a very old worn out cliche that Adam and Eve were stranded space travelers or such.

I have a few problems with the idea of aliens starting things here, besides my obvious belief in the bible version of events.

With the idea of creation, the idea of aliens doing it only backs up the question one step. Where did the aliens come from?? And if God was an alien, where did He come from?? And who created the universe?? After all, who could create something FROM THE INSIDE??

As I understand it, too, God is not "up" in heaven. He's "outiside" creation, not to mention eveywhere at the same time. How?? I dunno!!

The Left Sock
01-18-2014, 06:12 PM
To the primitive tribes, the imperial nations of the world presented as gods to them. Of course, the novelty wore off, once our human shortcomings became apparent.

Perhaps, the things we view as gods are merely a higher extension of the same thought process. Maybe the initial contacts with a superior species is what spawned most of earth's religions.

What is most fascinating to me, is that ancient civilizations had the same mythological beliefs, the same stories, as the conquerors who came to their lands as strangers.

Something happened here on earth, a very long time ago, that spawned similar tales in every corner of the globe, and the ideas that followed remained with mankind until today.

Something outside of our experience has made its presence known at some point in our history, that much seems certain. What that something was, is still the great mystery. Was it a God? An alien? Multiple species of aliens competing for their own agendas, interfering with man? Multiple Gods? A single God?

Is it our own species, looking back on time at us, and sculpting a new future?

Science fiction is not necessarily fiction. Sometimes it points to the truth.

Barry Morris
01-18-2014, 06:54 PM
A lot of sci-fi writers are atheists, and sometimes get preachy about it!! I sometimes find them pretty funny??

The problem remains about God. IMO, God has to be OUTSIDE this universe, outside of time, present everywhere, all powerful, and all knowing. Anything that diminishes that definition just doesn't make it for me. Any god who is less than that (and scripture does mention them) is NOT God Almighty, the Someone who started EVERYTHING!!

The Berean
01-19-2014, 12:12 AM
"What is most fascinating to me, is that ancient civilizations had the same mythological beliefs, the same stories, as the conquerors who came to their lands as strangers."

And what is most fascinating to me is that the records of almost all these happenings post-date the bible.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-19-2014, 01:54 AM
Some guy added up the years that everybody supposedly lived and figured the age of the earth was about 6000 years. Mind you, I don't know of too many modern Christians who believe that. In over 40 years of church life, I've NEVER heard it preached on.

But about the passing of time. I did a little calculating. So the earth is 4 1/2 billion years old, OK, lets take off a generous half of that to give it time to cool down. Then we'll figure that our civilization can MAYBE go back a generous 50,000 years.

How many times could a 50,000 year civilization rise up??

How about 45,000 times!!!

So did it?? Or are we the first?? Or did Somebody just maybe plan it??

Any comments??

I would suggest you read up on geological history, evolution(specifically human evolution), and the history of civilization.

That would be my only comment on your post.

dancingqueen
01-19-2014, 08:05 AM
A lot of sci-fi writers are atheists, and sometimes get preachy about it!! I sometimes find them pretty funny??

The problem remains about God. IMO, God has to be OUTSIDE this universe, outside of time, present everywhere, all powerful, and all knowing. Anything that diminishes that definition just doesn't make it for me. Any god who is less than that (and scripture does mention them) is NOT God Almighty, the Someone who started EVERYTHING!!

"almighty" is all about perspective, add in that you are carrying this term over from thousands of years ago, so historical perspective is certainly relevant to this term of "almighty"

Barry Morris
01-19-2014, 08:39 AM
I would suggest you read up on geological history, evolution(specifically human evolution), and the history of civilization.

That would be my only comment on your post.

Geological history is interesting. Find out how fast the continent drift and calculate how many times they could have moved clear around the earth. fascinating.

And you mention human evolution. Why would only humans be considered. Technically, Neanderthal wasn't human , or Cro Magnan, as far as I know.

Barry Morris
01-19-2014, 08:41 AM
"almighty" is all about perspective, add in that you are carrying this term over from thousands of years ago, so historical perspective is certainly relevant to this term of "almighty"

It's a descriptive term of what I believe God MUST be, to be God. It's antiquity doesn't matter. On top of which THAT word is only a few hundred years old!!!

All powerful better??

Nihilistic Heathen
01-19-2014, 02:04 PM
Geological history is interesting. Find out how fast the continent drift and calculate how many times they could have moved clear around the earth. fascinating.

And you mention human evolution. Why would only humans be considered. Technically, Neanderthal wasn't human , or Cro Magnan, as far as I know.

This just reinforces my original comment.

There are geologists that have used empirical evidence that explains plate tectonics and how our continents formed. Why should I do any calculations to see how many times they could drifted around the earth based on the earth's age? That is absurd.

The reason I said specifically human evolution is because in the evolution of life on earth, humans arrived approximately five million years ago. Technically Neanderthal was human and was around when homo sapiens appeared around two hundred thousand years ago.

Now going back to your op where you said...


Then we'll figure that our civilization can MAYBE go back a generous 50,000 years.

How many times could a 50,000 year civilization rise up??

How about 45,000 times!!!

So did it?? Or are we the first?? Or did Somebody just maybe plan it??

Civilization is approximately five thousand years old. Even with these numbers it's idiotic to do the type of calculations you are doing, because you are ignoring the big picture. There are a chain of events from the big bang to today that are a prerequisite for our civilization to exist.

Hans
01-19-2014, 02:12 PM
It is called evolution. That is how we end up with what we have today. There is nothing special going on, nothing magical.

The Berean
01-19-2014, 03:44 PM
....Civilization is approximately five thousand years old. Even with these numbers it's idiotic to do the type of calculations you are doing, because you are ignoring the big picture. There are a chain of events from the big bang to today that are a prerequisite for our civilization to exist.

I'd be interested in your input on this chain of events.

The Berean
01-19-2014, 03:45 PM
It is called evolution. That is how we end up with what we have today. There is nothing special going on, nothing magical.

Nothing magical?? Ok, I accept that. Mind you, there's many things I believe evolution has a hard time with. Like how some creatures got to where they are.

Hans
01-19-2014, 04:25 PM
How creatures got to where they are is called evolution. It is the main reason why Madagascar has such a unique animal life.

The Berean
01-19-2014, 04:36 PM
How creatures got to where they are is called evolution. It is the main reason why Madagascar has such a unique animal life.

Including, as I recall, the coelanth, a fish they say had not changed in millions of years.

Explain the evolution of the honeybee.

Hans
01-19-2014, 06:20 PM
Coelanth is an ocean fish that was thought to be extinct, so it is not bound to Madagascar.
As for the evolution of the honey bee (Apis mellifera) based on genome research: http://genome.cshlp.org/site/press/HoneyBeeTipsheet.xhtml

dancingqueen
01-19-2014, 07:05 PM
It's a descriptive term of what I believe God MUST be, to be God. It's antiquity doesn't matter. On top of which THAT word is only a few hundred years old!!!

All powerful better??

The term "God" means "almighty", so that word is satisfactory. What I am saying is that "almighty" can only be measured in terms we understand at the time. What may have been considered an impossible grave to escape from without supernatural powers in one period of time may be quite simple to escape for someone given a unique set of skills, look at Houdini, if he did his tricks in a time with limited popular knowledge and no internet or popular understanding of written word, he may have been perceived as an "almighty" being, certainly supernatural by most.

The Berean
01-19-2014, 07:15 PM
I suppose it might seem supernatural. To a real savage.

But I'm sure that YOU know that all Houdini's tricks had enormous preparation.

If you grabbed him, put him unprepared in a regular coffin, six feet down, he would STILL be there!! In fact, lack of preparation is what led to his death. Look it up.

How does one measure "almighty"?? Can it be limited to terms man can understand?? I don't think so.

The Berean
01-19-2014, 07:25 PM
Coelanth is an ocean fish that was thought to be extinct, so it is not bound to Madagascar.
As for the evolution of the honey bee (Apis mellifera) based on genome research: http://genome.cshlp.org/site/press/HoneyBeeTipsheet.xhtml

A fascinating study of the incredible complexity of the honeybee, which in no way tells us why or how it got to where it is.

Hans
01-19-2014, 09:06 PM
They split from the bumble bee 60 million years ago.
Don't tell me you are going to start again with the "something cannot come from nothing" statement...

The Berean
01-19-2014, 09:25 PM
Guess I don't have to!!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
01-19-2014, 09:53 PM
I think Darwin was wrong on a fundamental level, but in order to prove that, I'm going to have to intellectually choke down his 'Origin of Species', to do a proper job of it. I've downloaded it from the Gutenberg Project, and will get back on this thread, once I have sufficient evidence.

The Berean
01-19-2014, 10:07 PM
I don't think Darwin was completely wrong. Obviously some of the things he proposed are obviously quite true.

One of my biggest complaints is about transitional fossils. They should outnumber complete, fully functional and final creatures at least 10 to one, or more. But they don't.

I look forward to your analysis, translated for us dummies!!! :) :) :)

dancingqueen
01-20-2014, 12:05 AM
I suppose it might seem supernatural. To a real savage.

But I'm sure that YOU know that all Houdini's tricks had enormous preparation.

Who's to say there wasn't massive preparation? besides, Houdini was an exaggerated example. What many scientists do today would have been seen as miracles by people from even a couple hundred years ago. stem cells, turning algae into fossil fuel discovering environmental factors on far away planets etc... Imagine if someone showed you these things without the benefit of reading or seeing how it is done


How does one measure "almighty"?? Can it be limited to terms man can understand?? I don't think so.
exactly, and not being able to understand a term like "almighty" as it relates to a person can go both ways; that person can be seen as more powerful than they are, or less.

Please understand, I am not using my statements as a means to say the Christian God is absolutely not all powerful, I am making these statements as a means to interject historical relevance, indicating that people may have thought Jesus was all powerful, thus giving God the title "the almighty" due to their understanding of what they saw, but what they saw may only have been what could not have been explained at that time.

The Berean
01-20-2014, 12:13 AM
Who's to say there wasn't massive preparation? besides, Houdini was an exaggerated example. What many scientists do today would have been seen as miracles by people from even a couple hundred years ago. stem cells, turning algae into fossil fuel discovering environmental factors on far away planets etc... Imagine if someone showed you these things without the benefit of reading or seeing how it is done


exactly, and not being able to understand a term like "almighty" as it relates to a person can go both ways; that person can be seen as more powerful than they are, or less.

Please understand, I am not using my statements as a means to say the Christian God is absolutely not all powerful, I am making these statements as a means to interject historical relevance, indicating that people may have thought Jesus was all powerful, thus giving God the title "the almighty" due to their understanding of what they saw, but what they saw may only have been what could not have been explained at that time.

And my point remains that what can be explained that easily really doesn't cover what God MUST be to be GOD!!

dancingqueen
01-20-2014, 12:20 AM
And my point remains that what can be explained that easily really doesn't cover what God MUST be to be GOD!!

Unfortunately your point does not remain, it fails to explain anything except your unwillingness to consider any alternative.
and that is fine, but you must accept that your blind faith in this is no different than if I linked an article that followed up it's claim by saying "this article is true because I hereby declare all statements held within this article are true."

Do you see why I would have difficulty accepting such an article?
Certainly you would wouldn't you?

Hans
01-20-2014, 06:19 AM
Guess I don't have to!!! :) :) :)

If that is the case, I am done with the conversation since you always cheat.

Bluesky
01-20-2014, 07:26 AM
I fail to understand why the theory of evolution is always juxtaposed with Creation, as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Random unguided evolution would be, but it is better to argue with spontaneous generation and creation as the two polar opposites.

The Berean
01-20-2014, 08:22 AM
If that is the case, I am done with the conversation since you always cheat.

I asked how evolution could possibly have created as complex a creature as a bumble bee. You gave links that discussed this complexity, but in no way explained how it could happen. AND you quoted the only line from the site that even hinted at it.

Then you (off topic) repeated the one statement that I have never seen a satisfactory, or even slightly plausible response to.

Thanks!!!

The Berean
01-20-2014, 08:28 AM
Unfortunately your point does not remain, it fails to explain anything except your unwillingness to consider any alternative.
and that is fine, but you must accept that your blind faith in this is no different than if I linked an article that followed up it's claim by saying "this article is true because I hereby declare all statements held within this article are true."

Do you see why I would have difficulty accepting such an article?
Certainly you would wouldn't you?

The alternatives you suggest are always below the "standards" I suggest that define what God must be in order to be what He is. it doesn't matter for the sake of that discussion whether you believe it or not. But the general attack posture of the non-beleiver is to make God less.

Even the term "Christian God" does that, because God MUST be God of all, or He would be less.

Hans
01-20-2014, 11:09 AM
I asked how evolution could possibly have created as complex a creature as a bumble bee. You gave links that discussed this complexity, but in no way explained how it could happen. AND you quoted the only line from the site that even hinted at it.

Then you (off topic) repeated the one statement that I have never seen a satisfactory, or even slightly plausible response to.

Thanks!!!

It starts with a single cell, and it becomes more complex as time goes by.
The exact same way as you and I became "complex" over a period of roughly 9 months. That is how all life starts/started.

I think that is the most satisfactory how it could happen answer.

The Berean
01-20-2014, 12:19 PM
Unsatisfactory, IMO.

The complexity of life is way beyond simple chance, in my opinion.

Hans
01-20-2014, 12:50 PM
Are you saying a single human cell can not evolve into a complex life form called a human?
Or are you saying there is some higher process involved in the creation of a human?

The Berean
01-20-2014, 01:04 PM
Are you saying a single human cell can not evolve into a complex life form called a human?
Or are you saying there is some higher process involved in the creation of a human?

You said "It starts with a single cell, ", not "human cell".

But since you mention it, I don't see any explanation either of how the information inherent in a single human cell could have evolved either.

I believe it took direction, and was not the result of chance.

Life did not start by chance, IMO.

Hans
01-20-2014, 04:15 PM
It took direction based on the environment the cell was exposed to and other cells is reacted with together with cross breading amongst species.
This way you end up with more and more complex DNA, giving rise to more complex developments.

The other day I was watching a documentary that showed life in the deep sea, where there is no natural light available.
It was interesting to see creatures that lived in water temperatures well beyond 100 degrees C, and they even had coral reefs in full darkness. Most fish formed some kind of light emitting parts, blue spectrum.

It was not chance, but a good example of evolution based on environment.

The Berean
01-20-2014, 07:55 PM
You aren't showing me much about how it happened.

And makes my other question more pertinent. "Ending up with more complex dna" The only problem is with the transitional creatures. Something will change, some random change in the DNA will occur that is an improvement, or perhaps a change to another type of creature. How do these changes occur?? Perhaps radiation, or random damage to the DNA.

So, where are these fossils with a change in the direction of a new creature, where are the fossils of the creatures that were born with BAD random changes that did NOT give them some advantage in their environment, and so on. There should be, if evolution were true, say a dog like creature, then a slightly larger one, with changes in the direction of say, a horse, then, another one, and another one, until we end up with a creature that most resembles todays horse.

But we can't find them. They should be there, in droves, outnumbering the complete final creature maybe hundreds to one.

dancingqueen
01-20-2014, 08:00 PM
The alternatives you suggest are always below the "standards" I suggest that define what God must be in order to be what He is. it doesn't matter for the sake of that discussion whether you believe it or not. But the general attack posture of the non-beleiver is to make God less.

Even the term "Christian God" does that, because God MUST be God of all, or He would be less.

You are using circular logic and goal post moving to defend your point, thus I have established due to lack of sufficient evidence to disregard your position as valid. You will continue to stick your head in the sand about this, and that is your prerogative, I maintain my belief system but I am left wondering, when God said to put your faith in him and to accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal savior, how do you think he wants you to believe in him? throwing your hands up in the air saying "thinking is too hard or uncomfortable, I'm just gonna blindly trust in what his book says" is really easy... I don't really care what you have to say further unless it is a different record. No one has ever, in the history of life ever won an internet argument, be it ignorance, or pride. I gave you some food for thought, I will leave you to your own devices.

Hans
01-20-2014, 08:04 PM
There is, here is the origin of the domestic dog:

The earliest fossil carnivores that can be linked with some certainty to canids (wolves, foxes and dogs) are the Eocene Miacids some 38 to 56 million years ago. From the miacids evolved the cat-like (Feloidea) and dog-like (Canoidea) carnivores. The canoid line led from the coyote-sized Mesocyon of the Oligocene (38 to 24 million years ago) to the fox-like Leptocyon and the wolf-like Tomarctus that wandered North America some 10 million years ago.[12]
Canis lepophagus, a small, narrow skulled North American canid of the Miocene era, led to the first true wolves at the end of the Blancan North American Stage such as Canis priscolatrans which evolved into Canis etruscus, then Canis mosbachensis,[13] and in turn C. mosbachensis evolved to become Canis lupus, the Gray Wolf—immediate precursor to the domestic dogs.

Now if you want to know where those come from, you can read about here:

http://www.sdnhm.org/archive/exhibits/mystery/fg_timeline.html#pleistocene

The Left Sock
01-20-2014, 08:21 PM
The central problem I have with Darwin's theory remains. I'm still pouring through his work, but one central theme keeps getting repeated and repeated: if a mutation occurs that benefits a species, that mutation will naturally become dominant in the species, through natural selection.

Sounds perfectly reasonable, on a surface level. A batch of baby birds are born with slightly longer beaks, they can reach further to find food, they thrive, and that mutation in the species gets adapted, so future generations of the bird will get longer beaks. Neat and tidy theory!

The problem comes in, and this is the central problem I have, when complex changes occur, that cannot occur in a single generation of deviation.

For example, a lizard that can change colour, to match its environment. Obviously an advantage, is obviously a trait that would dominate the species, once it appears. But here is the problem:

You can't get the complex changes required for an animal to change colour, just from one genetic mutation, in a single generation. These kinds of adaptations are too complex for one animal to magically 'appear' in the species, from a parent who does not possess this capability. It would take many generations of mutation within that species, before the ability to change colour would actually become functional, and benefit the species, in order for the theory of natural selection to hold water.

But, we know that some animals did develop the ability to change colour. There are examples of that on land, and on sea. The really central question is: what force, what explanation can be given, for the DNA of that animal to carry traits that were of no benefit to it or future generations, on the way to developing into a species that could change colour to benefit itself?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Some unseen force preserved the mutations that led to colour change in animals, that allowed that animal to carry the mutation over many generations, so that it could finally benefit from it. Natural selection does not explain this process, it doesn't even attempt to do so.

So, something in the universe allows a species to evolve over many generations, from an animal that could not change colour, into an animal that can change colour. What is this mysterious force?

To carry a species through all the subtle changes required to allow colour change, it takes a plan, a design, a sustained effort to get that species through the many generations necessary, to have the ability to change its own colour at will.

In effect, the only way the process can be described is the result of an intelligent design.

So, it begs the question, where did the design for colour change in animals come from? Random mutations? Not possible. No, something else must explain this. Darwin had the right idea, but missed the big picture.

Hans
01-20-2014, 08:22 PM
This is what was before every life form, as per the chart I provided:

The earliest life forms evolve in the seas. They are the prokaryotes—single-celled organisms with no nucleus—cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). The earliest bacteria obtain energy through chemosynthesis (ingestion of organic molecules).

The Berean
01-20-2014, 08:22 PM
There is, here is the origin of the domestic dog:

The earliest fossil carnivores that can be linked with some certainty to canids (wolves, foxes and dogs) are the Eocene Miacids some 38 to 56 million years ago. From the miacids evolved the cat-like (Feloidea) and dog-like (Canoidea) carnivores. The canoid line led from the coyote-sized Mesocyon of the Oligocene (38 to 24 million years ago) to the fox-like Leptocyon and the wolf-like Tomarctus that wandered North America some 10 million years ago.[12]
Canis lepophagus, a small, narrow skulled North American canid of the Miocene era, led to the first true wolves at the end of the Blancan North American Stage such as Canis priscolatrans which evolved into Canis etruscus, then Canis mosbachensis,[13] and in turn C. mosbachensis evolved to become Canis lupus, the Gray Wolf—immediate precursor to the domestic dogs.

Now if you want to know where those come from, you can read about here:

http://www.sdnhm.org/archive/exhibits/mystery/fg_timeline.html#pleistocene

The dog. Hmmm.

And before??

Surely there was a four legged creature that was the precursor to the dog AND the horse, if evolution is true. Along with the transitional fossils, showing divergence to both animals.

Hans
01-20-2014, 08:23 PM
And I forgot: a horse and a dog do not come from the same tree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horseevolution.png

The Berean
01-20-2014, 08:25 PM
"In effect, the only way the process can be described is the result of an intelligent design.

So, it begs the question, where did the design for colour change in animals come from? Random mutations? Not possible. No, something else must explain this. Darwin had the right idea, but missed the big picture."

THANK you!!!!

And, as I pointed out, the fossils are missing, too, that might show any transitional changes.

The Berean
01-20-2014, 08:27 PM
And I forgot: a horse and a dog do not come from the same tree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horseevolution.png

So you're saying a totally different evolutionary path took place for each?? And where did this path begin?

Hans
01-20-2014, 08:28 PM
The transitional fossils are right there on the chart...

Hans
01-20-2014, 08:29 PM
So you're saying a totally different evolutionary path took place for each?? And where did this path begin?

See post #42 as to where it begun. You can also consult the evolution chart I provided earlier to get a broader overview.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 01:42 AM
The central problem I have with Darwin's theory remains. I'm still pouring through his work, but one central theme keeps getting repeated and repeated: if a mutation occurs that benefits a species, that mutation will naturally become dominant in the species, through natural selection.

Sounds perfectly reasonable, on a surface level. A batch of baby birds are born with slightly longer beaks, they can reach further to find food, they thrive, and that mutation in the species gets adapted, so future generations of the bird will get longer beaks. Neat and tidy theory!

The problem comes in, and this is the central problem I have, when complex changes occur, that cannot occur in a single generation of deviation.

For example, a lizard that can change colour, to match its environment. Obviously an advantage, is obviously a trait that would dominate the species, once it appears. But here is the problem:

You can't get the complex changes required for an animal to change colour, just from one genetic mutation, in a single generation. These kinds of adaptations are too complex for one animal to magically 'appear' in the species, from a parent who does not possess this capability. It would take many generations of mutation within that species, before the ability to change colour would actually become functional, and benefit the species, in order for the theory of natural selection to hold water.

But, we know that some animals did develop the ability to change colour. There are examples of that on land, and on sea. The really central question is: what force, what explanation can be given, for the DNA of that animal to carry traits that were of no benefit to it or future generations, on the way to developing into a species that could change colour to benefit itself?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Some unseen force preserved the mutations that led to colour change in animals, that allowed that animal to carry the mutation over many generations, so that it could finally benefit from it. Natural selection does not explain this process, it doesn't even attempt to do so.

So, something in the universe allows a species to evolve over many generations, from an animal that could not change colour, into an animal that can change colour. What is this mysterious force?

To carry a species through all the subtle changes required to allow colour change, it takes a plan, a design, a sustained effort to get that species through the many generations necessary, to have the ability to change its own colour at will.

In effect, the only way the process can be described is the result of an intelligent design.

So, it begs the question, where did the design for colour change in animals come from? Random mutations? Not possible. No, something else must explain this. Darwin had the right idea, but missed the big picture.

Now that is an intellectually lazy argument. Don't just tell us that colour change in animals is too complex to occur through evolutionary processes. What are you basing this on, other than your own misguided opinion. If your going to choose colour change in animals, at least do some research on it. Explain the biology behind it and check to see if there is any research on its evolution and provide that data. Then give us your argument countering it.

Hans
01-21-2014, 06:13 AM
It is not a mysterious force. Look up deepsea fish, and you will notice they developed very specific due to their environmentals needs.
It is like stating that a blind fish is blind due to a "mysterious force".
Or an albino fish is due to a "mysterious force".

Forgot to mention you should lookup the word "Chromatophore" to find out the mechanics of color morphing.

The Left Sock
01-21-2014, 09:10 AM
Now that is an intellectually lazy argument. Don't just tell us that colour change in animals is too complex to occur through evolutionary processes. What are you basing this on, other than your own misguided opinion. If your going to choose colour change in animals, at least do some research on it. Explain the biology behind it and check to see if there is any research on its evolution and provide that data. Then give us your argument countering it.

Intellectually lazy, huh?

Well, let's exercise our brains a bit, shall we?

Is it physically possible for two lizards, who do not have the power to change colour, to magically give birth to a genetic mutation that does change colour?

The answer is no, it is not possible. Accidents like that simply don't happen, unless you happen to be a fan of Godzilla movies. So therefore, a species of lizard that evolves from not having the ability to change colour, to one that does, requires many generations of adaptation, in order to benefit from such a skill.

But, according to Darwin's theory, only genetic mutations that benefit the species in some tangible way will become the dominant trait, according to Natural Selection.

So, for many, many generations, the genetic structural changes that cause a lizard to develop the ability to change colour will not benefit that species, until this ability has developed into a real advantage.

But this is where the paradox occurs. If a lizard goes through this transformation over many generations, and eventually develops the ability to change colour, and if natural selection cannot explain why these traits remained and continued to develop in the absence of benefiting the species directly, then there must be some other force, some other explanation for why this ability finally manifested, over time.

So, what is this force? How is it, that the genetic information is stored and preserved in consecutive generations of lizard, until it finally sees a tangible benefit to changing its colour?

It is indeed mysterious, and it is not explained by Darwin's theory. It appears, rather, that some genetic blueprint was overlaid on the species, with a beginning, a middle, and an end, that some elaborate design change was implemented over countless generations of the species. And this design is inherently intelligent, because it leads to a complex, rare ability.

You can easily explain why an orange cat with would have an advantage over a white cat in an arid environment. And you can explain why a black cat would have an advantage over an orange cat in a jungle environment. And you can easily see how the mere coloration of a cat would benefit it immediately, and cause that trait to become the dominant trait. And you can easily see why being born the right color cat, in the right environment, would benefit that animal immediately. In this case, Darwin's theory seems completely plausible.

What you can't do, is explain why a lizard would go through a radical process of developing the ability to change color, through many mutations culminating in that ability, and why the mutations continue to be dominant and progressive even though the early stages of such a transformation are of no benefit to the animal.

How do the genes know which way they are heading? How does the internal DNA of the animal progress towards a larger goal? What law explains this? How does the animal know it is on its way to being able to change color?

Intellectually lazy, huh?

Put in some time thinking about these things, then get back to me.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 11:10 AM
Intellectually lazy, huh?

Well, let's exercise our brains a bit, shall we?

Is it physically possible for two lizards, who do not have the power to change colour, to magically give birth to a genetic mutation that does change colour?

The answer is no, it is not possible. Accidents like that simply don't happen, unless you happen to be a fan of Godzilla movies. So therefore, a species of lizard that evolves from not having the ability to change colour, to one that does, requires many generations of adaptation, in order to benefit from such a skill.

But, according to Darwin's theory, only genetic mutations that benefit the species in some tangible way will become the dominant trait, according to Natural Selection.

So, for many, many generations, the genetic structural changes that cause a lizard to develop the ability to change colour will not benefit that species, until this ability has developed into a real advantage.

But this is where the paradox occurs. If a lizard goes through this transformation over many generations, and eventually develops the ability to change colour, and if natural selection cannot explain why these traits remained and continued to develop in the absence of benefiting the species directly, then there must be some other force, some other explanation for why this ability finally manifested, over time.


Unless you explain how colour change occurs, it's advantage and whether or not there is an explanation to how it evolved, there is no paradox. Except for the one you created in your head out of thin air.

Essentially your premise here is based on your ill informed opinion formed in your feeble little mind. You aren't giving the rest of us out here in the real world evidence to support your premise in any way. I can't believe you have the audacity to state that you are going to "intellectually choke down" Darwin's work so you can properly refute it, and this is what you give us...



So, what is this force? How is it, that the genetic information is stored and preserved in consecutive generations of lizard, until it finally sees a tangible benefit to changing its colour?

How do the genes know which way they are heading? How does the internal DNA of the animal progress towards a larger goal? What law explains this? How does the animal know it is on its way to being able to change color?

Intellectually lazy, huh?

Put in some time thinking about these things, then get back to me.

Is anthropomorphising evolution part of your premise here? It appears to me that it is.

Intellectually lazy is an understatement.

The Voice
01-21-2014, 01:01 PM
Unless you explain how colour change occurs, it's advantage and whether or not there is an explanation to how it evolved, there is no paradox. Except for the one you created in your head out of thin air.

Essentially your premise here is based on your ill informed opinion formed in your feeble little mind. You aren't giving the rest of us out here in the real world evidence to support your premise in any way. I can't believe you have the audacity to state that you are going to "intellectually choke down" Darwin's work so you can properly refute it, and this is what you give us...




Is anthropomorphising evolution part of your premise here? It appears to me that it is.

Intellectually lazy is an understatement.

SB told him he is the resident expert,so now he is playing to an audience of one.

What a JOKE.

Darwin took years of study to create his theory and this clown thinks he will dissect and refute it in a few hours.

The Voice
01-21-2014, 01:03 PM
I look forward to your analysis, translated for us dummies!!! :) :) :)


Smiles or no I consider this an insult and I will be reporting it. You may be a Dummie But I am certainly NOT.

dancingqueen
01-21-2014, 02:47 PM
Darwin took years of study to create his theory and this clown thinks he will dissect and refute it in a few hours.

I'm looking for the part where he said he was going to completely dissect and refute Darwin's theory

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 03:13 PM
I'm looking for the part where he said he was going to completely dissect and refute Darwin's theory

It's implied in this post....


I think Darwin was wrong on a fundamental level, but in order to prove that, I'm going to have to intellectually choke down his 'Origin of Species', to do a proper job of it. I've downloaded it from the Gutenberg Project, and will get back on this thread, once I have sufficient evidence.

The Voice
01-21-2014, 03:22 PM
I'm looking for the part where he said he was going to completely dissect and refute Darwin's theory

Try looking here.

"I think Darwin was wrong on a fundamental level, but in order to prove that, I'm going to have to intellectually choke down his 'Origin of Species', to do a proper job of it. I've downloaded it from the Gutenberg Project, and will get back on this thread, once I have sufficient evidence. "


And Voila a few hours later he was back.

dancingqueen
01-21-2014, 03:29 PM
Showing how someone is wrong on a fundamental reason does not require one to completely dissect and refute one's work.

The Voice
01-21-2014, 03:30 PM
Showing how someone is wrong on a fundamental reason does not require one to completely dissect and refute one's work.


Oh ok thanks for pointing that out carry on now.

dancingqueen
01-21-2014, 03:36 PM
Oh ok thanks for pointing that out carry on now.

You're very welcome.

The Left Sock
01-21-2014, 06:28 PM
An interesting article on the 'evolution' of color change, including chameleons, which I have used as a reference point for my fundamental contention with Darwin's theory:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2214820/

You will notice, if you muddle through the scientific-speak of the article, that more than 100 years after Darwin's theory supposedly 'solved' the problem of how life came into being on earth, that these scientists today are still puzzling over how a chameleon actually does what it does.

What you will not find, is anyone in the science world today, even attempting to take a stab at explaining how it came to be that a chameleon can change its color. They don't even speculate on the process of how a lizard can transform from being a creature that couldn't change color at will, to one that does. They don't even attempt to defend Darwin's theory of Natural Selection as the root cause of a chameleon being able to change color.

In other words, the best scientists in the world today, don't have a clue as to how it came to be that a chameleon can change color, and as such, they cannot even begin to defend Darwin's theory that this amazing skill happened as a series of minor modifications from one generation to the next, progressing over time into what we see today.

On this modern world, with all our sophisticated technology, no one on earth has a clue how a chameleon became an animal that can change color. If Darwin's theory was so correct, so well understood, and so obviously sound, you would think by now that the science world could clearly demonstrate how such changes take place. But they can't. Why is that?

Because Darwin's theory cannot explain complex changes over many generations, that build towards a unique ability like being able to change color. It doesn't explain it. There is a big gaping hole in the theory, that hasn't been filled in the 100+ years since Darwin's death.

Science doesn't have a clue how a chameleon developed the ability to change color, yet they are steadfast and certain that Darwin is right. How are these two facts compatible? They are not. Darwin's theory has a huge hole in it, one that science hasn't even begun to fill.

So, by all means, insult away at my questioning the legitimacy of an accepted theory, that can't explain its own fundamental claims. But just bear in mind, you do so out of ignorance.

The Left Sock
01-21-2014, 06:39 PM
An excerpt from the article I linked above:

"For instance, among the more than 150 species of the family Chamaeleonidae, colour change in some is primarily limited to shifts in brightness (e.g., shades of brown), while others show remarkable chromatic change, including striking combinations of blues, greens, oranges, yellows, and black [14]. Despite the animals' marked variation in the ability to change colour, processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy have never been examined."

So here we can see that in 2008, the leading scientists of the world studying evolution, openly admit not only that they don't have a clue how chameleons developed the ability to change color, rather they publicly declare that they have never even taken a look at it!

Now, what does that tell you? Still comfortable that Darwin had it all figured out? Based on what, exactly?

The Left Sock
01-21-2014, 06:48 PM
"Unless you explain how colour change occurs, it's advantage and whether or not there is an explanation to how it evolved, there is no paradox. Except for the one you created in your head out of thin air.

Essentially your premise here is based on your ill informed opinion formed in your feeble little mind. You aren't giving the rest of us out here in the real world evidence to support your premise in any way. I can't believe you have the audacity to state that you are going to "intellectually choke down" Darwin's work so you can properly refute it, and this is what you give us..."

Well, since there is no explanation of how a chameleon evolved the ability to change color, because they have never even examined it, I guess the paradox is back on the table, huh?

So, instead of spending good time and energy on insults, perhaps you can choke down your anger long enough to formulate a cogent response?

How do you defend Darwin's theory of evolution in this context, when you haven't got a single leg to stand on?

The Voice
01-21-2014, 06:57 PM
An interesting article on the 'evolution' of color change, including chameleons, which I have used as a reference point for my fundamental contention with Darwin's theory:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2214820/

You will notice, if you muddle through the scientific-speak of the article, that more than 100 years after Darwin's theory supposedly 'solved' the problem of how life came into being on earth, that these scientists today are still puzzling over how a chameleon actually does what it does.

What you will not find, is anyone in the science world today, even attempting to take a stab at explaining how it came to be that a chameleon can change its color. They don't even speculate on the process of how a lizard can transform from being a creature that couldn't change color at will, to one that does. They don't even attempt to defend Darwin's theory of Natural Selection as the root cause of a chameleon being able to change color.

In other words, the best scientists in the world today, don't have a clue as to how it came to be that a chameleon can change color, and as such, they cannot even begin to defend Darwin's theory that this amazing skill happened as a series of minor modifications from one generation to the next, progressing over time into what we see today.

On this modern world, with all our sophisticated technology, no one on earth has a clue how a chameleon became an animal that can change color. If Darwin's theory was so correct, so well understood, and so obviously sound, you would think by now that the science world could clearly demonstrate how such changes take place. But they can't. Why is that?

Because Darwin's theory cannot explain complex changes over many generations, that build towards a unique ability like being able to change color. It doesn't explain it. There is a big gaping hole in the theory, that hasn't been filled in the 100+ years since Darwin's death.

Science doesn't have a clue how a chameleon developed the ability to change color, yet they are steadfast and certain that Darwin is right. How are these two facts compatible? They are not. Darwin's theory has a huge hole in it, one that science hasn't even begun to fill.

So, by all means, insult away at my questioning the legitimacy of an accepted theory, that can't explain its own fundamental claims. But just bear in mind, you do so out of ignorance.

It doesn't say or support any of this stuff in the article.

You didn't read it did you?

The Voice
01-21-2014, 07:55 PM
An excerpt from the article I linked above:

"For instance, among the more than 150 species of the family Chamaeleonidae, colour change in some is primarily limited to shifts in brightness (e.g., shades of brown), while others show remarkable chromatic change, including striking combinations of blues, greens, oranges, yellows, and black [14]. Despite the animals' marked variation in the ability to change colour, processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy have never been examined."

So here we can see that in 2008, the leading scientists of the world studying evolution, openly admit not only that they don't have a clue how chameleons developed the ability to change color, rather they publicly declare that they have never even taken a look at it!

Now, what does that tell you? Still comfortable that Darwin had it all figured out? Based on what, exactly?

This is not even what the article is about. Try showing us where they mention Darwin at all?

The Berean
01-21-2014, 09:19 PM
Well, at least half of this discussion has some content.

The Left Sock
01-21-2014, 09:34 PM
I'm well into the Origin of Species now, and I must say, reading it is much like watching paint dry.

A lot of discussions about whether something is a species, or a variation of a species. Lots of talk about farm animals and people with green thumbs. There was one particular section that was really dazzling, where a guy spent fifty years raising two groups of sheep from a single pair, and managed to get two distinctly separate types of wool from each group.

So, it becomes obvious that you can change certain parameters of a species by selectively breeding them. You can make them bigger, shorter, heavier, faster, all kinds of things like that. What you can't do, no matter how hard you try, is selectively breed sheep so that you end up with one that changes color at will. You would think that if this trait was something accidental that happened in individual mutations, someone would have picked up on it by now, and you could buy wool sweaters that change color, based on your mood. Oddly, that hasn't happened, despite all the progress in our understanding.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 09:36 PM
An interesting article on the 'evolution' of color change, including chameleons, which I have used as a reference point for my fundamental contention with Darwin's theory:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2214820/

You will notice, if you muddle through the scientific-speak of the article, that more than 100 years after Darwin's theory supposedly 'solved' the problem of how life came into being on earth, that these scientists today are still puzzling over how a chameleon actually does what it does.

Actually, Darwin didn't "solve the problem of how life came into being", he came up with the theory of evolution. It appears not only were you having problems "muddling through" that research papers, it is now painfully obvious you're having problems "muddling through" Darwin's book On the Origins of Species. Unless there's a more sinister reason for you making that claim.

Sock has provided for us is a scientific paper published in a journal titled "Selection for Social Signalling Drives the Evolution of Chameleon Colour Change" yet he claims....

What you will not find, is anyone in the science world today, even attempting to take a stab at explaining how it came to be that a chameleon can change its color. They don't even speculate on the process of how a lizard can transform from being a creature that couldn't change color at will, to one that does. They don't even attempt to defend Darwin's theory of Natural Selection as the root cause of a chameleon being able to change color.

In other words, the best scientists in the world today, don't have a clue as to how it came to be that a chameleon can change color, and as such, they cannot even begin to defend Darwin's theory that this amazing skill happened as a series of minor modifications from one generation to the next, progressing over time into what we see today.

On this modern world, with all our sophisticated technology, no one on earth has a clue how a chameleon became an animal that can change color. If Darwin's theory was so correct, so well understood, and so obviously sound, you would think by now that the science world could clearly demonstrate how such changes take place. But they can't. Why is that?

Contrary to what you are claiming, and you even provided the evidence for that, we do have a clue to a driving force, by natural selection, that influenced the evolution of colour change in chameleons.


Because Darwin's theory cannot explain complex changes over many generations, that build towards a unique ability like being able to change color. It doesn't explain it. There is a big gaping hole in the theory, that hasn't been filled in the 100+ years since Darwin's death.


Summary: Because it doesn't explain it doesn't explain it, so there's a big hole.

I'm not even going to comment on that. It speaks volumes in itself of your logical prowess.


Science doesn't have a clue how a chameleon developed the ability to change color, yet they are steadfast and certain that Darwin is right. How are these two facts compatible? They are not. Darwin's theory has a huge hole in it, one that science hasn't even begun to fill.

Hmmm, This wouldn't be Fallacious (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking) would it?


So, by all means, insult away at my questioning the legitimacy of an accepted theory, that can't explain its own fundamental claims. But just bear in mind, you do so out of ignorance.

Are you saying the theory fails because it fails to explain what it is explaining? or is it because it fails to explain what it is attempting to explain by explaining the failure of what it is explaining by using what it is explaining to explain it failures.

I think I'm starting get the hang of this.

The Berean
01-21-2014, 09:47 PM
"Science doesn't have a clue how a chameleon developed the ability to change color..."

Nihilistic Heathen will now provide links disproving this statement.

The Left Sock
01-21-2014, 09:56 PM
Here NH, I'll simplify things for you. It seems necessary, all things considered.

The theory of Evolution, more specifically Natural Selection, states that: A deviation or mutation in a species, that benefits that species in some way, becomes a dominant trait, that will eventually be adopted by the species. This is Natural Selection, wherein nature selects the mutation as superior, and it becomes a widespread feature of the species.

The ability for a chameleon to change color at will requires massive reconstruction of several major biological systems within the animal; infrastructure that links its brain to its skin, hormones are involved, neurological functions, etc,.. It cannot be accomplished in a single generation, therefore the early stages of the development of this ability will not be able to benefit the animal. Therefore, Natural Selection cannot explain how this process continues and progresses, until the chameleon becomes fully capable of changing a single color cell within itself, in any meaningful way.

All of Darwin's theory is hinged upon the premise that nature selects mutations, based on benefit to the species. Since there is no benefit to the chameleon in the early generations of developing the ability to change color, Darwin's theory fails to explain how this process continues and becomes more complex, until it actually benefits the animal.

If Darwin's theory can't explain how a lizard progresses from being a normal lizard, to being a chameleon, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the theory of Evolution, and the consequent Theory of Natural Selection are not complete explanations for how species develop over time.

In the absence of a complete explanation, there must be an alternative explanation. That alternative explanation, is Intelligent Design. Some force or set of natural laws carries a simple lizard through the process of becoming able to change color, and this process has nothing to do with Natural Selection. Something else is taking place.

It has long been argued that the record is complete, that Darwin's theory is an adequate explanation for how single-celled organisms slithered out of the primordial ooze, and became the dazzlingly bright creatures that spend their evenings typing messages on this forum board. We apparently have the answers, for how life evolved from single-celled organisms, to the elaborate and diverse life-forms we see today. And we see the theorists elaborating on how a 'Big Bang' started the whole process off, how it caused chemicals to mix until there was that sudden spark of life, and we started down Darwin's road, to where we find ourselves today. There is no need for mysticism, or a Creator, or a Higher Intelligence, of any kind. We have it all figured out.

I'm here to tell you that this is all horse-sheet. Nothing worthwhile has ever been explained, and when it comes to the lowly chameleon, mankind hasn't even started to try and figure it out yet. We know very little, if anything, about how life came into being, or transformed into what we see around us today.

As Socrates often said, the first step to real intelligence, is coming to the conclusion that you really don't know anything.

I am there. Where are you?

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 09:59 PM
"Science doesn't have a clue how a chameleon developed the ability to change color..."

Nihilistic Heathen will now provide links disproving this statement.

I won't, because I don't need to.

The Voice
01-21-2014, 10:01 PM
"Science doesn't have a clue how a chameleon developed the ability to change color..."

Nihilistic Heathen will now provide links disproving this statement.

How about you show us where that link that the sock provided even begins to support his theory?

The article is not even about what he is suggesting.

The Left Sock
01-21-2014, 10:01 PM
That's right - just stay in the dark. It feels safer there, doesn't it?

The Berean
01-21-2014, 10:02 PM
I won't, because I don't need to.

I'm not at all surprised.

Your faith is greater than mine!!!

The Voice
01-21-2014, 10:02 PM
Here NH, I'll simplify things for you. It seems necessary, all things considered.

The theory of Evolution, more specifically Natural Selection, states that: A deviation or mutation in a species, that benefits that species in some way, becomes a dominant trait, that will eventually be adopted by the species. This is Natural Selection, wherein nature selects the mutation as superior, and it becomes a widespread feature of the species.

The ability for a chameleon to change color at will requires massive reconstruction of several major biological systems within the animal; infrastructure that links its brain to its skin, hormones are involved, neurological functions, etc,.. It cannot be accomplished in a single generation, therefore the early stages of the development of this ability will not be able to benefit the animal. Therefore, Natural Selection cannot explain how this process continues and progresses, until the chameleon becomes fully capable of changing a single color cell within itself, in any meaningful way.

All of Darwin's theory is hinged upon the premise that nature selects mutations, based on benefit to the species. Since there is no benefit to the chameleon in the early generations of developing the ability to change color, Darwin's theory fails to explain how this process continues and becomes more complex, until it actually benefits the animal.

If Darwin's theory can't explain how a lizard progresses from being a normal lizard, to being a chameleon, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the theory of Evolution, and the consequent Theory of Natural Selection are not complete explanations for how species develop over time.

In the absence of a complete explanation, there must be an alternative explanation. That alternative explanation, is Intelligent Design. Some force or set of natural laws carries a simple lizard through the process of becoming able to change color, and this process has nothing to do with Natural Selection. Something else is taking place.

It has long been argued that the record is complete, that Darwin's theory is an adequate explanation for how single-celled organisms slithered out of the primordial ooze, and became the dazzlingly bright creatures that spend their evenings typing messages on this forum board. We apparently have the answers, for how life evolved from single-celled organisms, to the elaborate and diverse life-forms we see today. And we see the theorists elaborating on how a 'Big Bang' started the whole process off, how it caused chemicals to mix until there was that sudden spark of life, and we started down Darwin's road, to where we find ourselves today. There is no need for mysticism, or a Creator, or a Higher Intelligence, of any kind. We have it all figured out.

I'm here to tell you that this is all horse-sheet. Nothing worthwhile has ever been explained, and when it comes to the lowly chameleon, mankind hasn't even started to try and figure it out yet. We know very little, if anything, about how life came into being, or transformed into what we see around us today.

As Socrates often said, the first step to real intelligence, is coming to the conclusion that you really don't know anything.

I am there. Where are you?

This is your theory but how does the link you provide support this?

The Berean
01-21-2014, 10:03 PM
How about you show us where that link that the sock provided even begins to support his theory?

The article is not even about what he is suggesting.

So what?? If you don't want to address his comments, bail.

The Berean
01-21-2014, 10:04 PM
This is your theory but how does the link you provide support this?

I really don't think links are needed for questions, which is essentially what Socks comments are.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 10:12 PM
Here NH, I'll simplify things for you. It seems necessary, all things considered.

The theory of Evolution, more specifically Natural Selection, states that: A deviation or mutation in a species, that benefits that species in some way, becomes a dominant trait, that will eventually be adopted by the species. This is Natural Selection, wherein nature selects the mutation as superior, and it becomes a widespread feature of the species.

The ability for a chameleon to change color at will requires massive reconstruction of several major biological systems within the animal; infrastructure that links its brain to its skin, hormones are involved, neurological functions, etc,.. It cannot be accomplished in a single generation, therefore the early stages of the development of this ability will not be able to benefit the animal. Therefore, Natural Selection cannot explain how this process continues and progresses, until the chameleon becomes fully capable of changing a single color cell within itself, in any meaningful way.

All of Darwin's theory is hinged upon the premise that nature selects mutations, based on benefit to the species. Since there is no benefit to the chameleon in the early generations of developing the ability to change color, Darwin's theory fails to explain how this process continues and becomes more complex, until it actually benefits the animal.

If Darwin's theory can't explain how a lizard progresses from being a normal lizard, to being a chameleon, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the theory of Evolution, and the consequent Theory of Natural Selection are not complete explanations for how species develop over time.

In the absence of a complete explanation, there must be an alternative explanation. That alternative explanation, is Intelligent Design. Some force or set of natural laws carries a simple lizard through the process of becoming able to change color, and this process has nothing to do with Natural Selection. Something else is taking place.

It has long been argued that the record is complete, that Darwin's theory is an adequate explanation for how single-celled organisms slithered out of the primordial ooze, and became the dazzlingly bright creatures that spend their evenings typing messages on this forum board. We apparently have the answers, for how life evolved from single-celled organisms, to the elaborate and diverse life-forms we see today. And we see the theorists elaborating on how a 'Big Bang' started the whole process off, how it caused chemicals to mix until there was that sudden spark of life, and we started down Darwin's road, to where we find ourselves today. There is no need for mysticism, or a Creator, or a Higher Intelligence, of any kind. We have it all figured out.

I'm here to tell you that this is all horse-sheet. Nothing worthwhile has ever been explained, and when it comes to the lowly chameleon, mankind hasn't even started to try and figure it out yet. We know very little, if anything, about how life came into being, or transformed into what we see around us today.

As Socrates often said, the first step to real intelligence, is coming to the conclusion that you really don't know anything.

I am there. Where are you?

Your argument fails because.... it's a fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking).

I don't deny that we don't have an evolutionary explanation of how chameleons adapted the ability to change colour. That being said I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Charles Darwin

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 10:14 PM
I'm not at all surprised.

Your faith is greater than mine!!!

It has nothing to do with faith, Sock made a claim that he is failing miserably at.

The Berean
01-21-2014, 10:15 PM
It has nothing to do with faith, Sock made a claim that he is failing miserably at.

Sure, and your answers counter them completely!!

:) :) :)

His arguments apply to many creatures.

You have faith that science will know ALL the answers. Simple.

The Left Sock
01-21-2014, 10:27 PM
"Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.""

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Ah, I've been holding on to that quote for a while now!

Mr. Darwin, allow me to introduce Mr. Chameleon.

Mr. Nihilistic Heathen, may I introduce you to intellectual checkmate?

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 10:34 PM
"Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.""

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Ah, I've been holding on to that quote for a while now!

Mr. Darwin, allow me to introduce Mr. Chameleon.

Mr. Nihilistic Heathen, may I introduce you to intellectual checkmate?

Talk about arrogance and ignorance.

You haven't provided any evidence proving that chameleons couldn't have possibly evolved to change colour. So his theory still stands.

The Berean
01-21-2014, 10:39 PM
Talk about arrogance and ignorance.

You haven't provided any evidence proving that chameleons couldn't have possibly evolved to change colour. So his theory still stands.

Will you explain how to prove a negative??

Nihilistic Heathen
01-21-2014, 10:48 PM
Will you explain how to prove a negative??

Chameleons exist thats a fact.

Sock is making the claim that it is impossible for them to have evolved through natural selection. < this is a premise he is claiming is true, in otherwords it's a positive in his argument.

It's up to him to prove that this premise is indeed true in order for his argument to be sound. Which he has failed miserably at.

The Voice
01-21-2014, 11:00 PM
Chameleons exist thats a fact.

Sock is making the claim that it is impossible for them to have evolved through natural selection. < this is a premise he is claiming is true, in otherwords it's a positive in his argument.

It's up to him to prove that this premise is indeed true in order for his argument to be sound. Which he has failed miserably at.

Author Summary

The ability to change colour has evolved in numerous vertebrate and invertebrate groups, the most well-known of which are chameleons and cephalopods (octopuses and their relatives). There is great variation among species, however, in the apparent capacity for colour change, ranging from limited changes in brightness to dramatic changes in hue. What drives the evolution of this remarkable strategy? We addressed this question by using a combination of field-based behavioural trials in which we quantified colour change, models of colour perception, and our knowledge of phylogenetic relationships for 21 distinct lineages of southern African dwarf chameleons. We show that evolutionary changes in the capacity for colour change are consistently associated with the use of social signals that are highly conspicuous to the visual system of chameleons. Moreover, capacity for colour change is unrelated to variation in the environmental backgrounds that chameleons must match in order to be camouflaged. Overall, our results suggest that the evolution of the ability to exhibit striking changes in colour evolved as a strategy to facilitate social signalling and not, as popularly believed, camouflage.


This sure reads like someone who believes in evolution to me?


But what do I know I only read at a University level.

dancingqueen
01-21-2014, 11:43 PM
Sock, before you continue, might I point out one flaw with this endeavor?
(well I'm going to anyways, take it or leave it...)



Any scientific theory that goes anywhere is based off of educated, impartial and logical rebuttals
You really have to look at your target audience, I highly doubt a group of Google warriors that looked up the definition of "research methodologies" will get you the results you are looking for....

The Berean
01-22-2014, 04:32 AM
Author Summary

The ability to change colour has evolved in numerous vertebrate and invertebrate groups, the most well-known of which are chameleons and cephalopods (octopuses and their relatives). There is great variation among species, however, in the apparent capacity for colour change, ranging from limited changes in brightness to dramatic changes in hue. What drives the evolution of this remarkable strategy? We addressed this question by using a combination of field-based behavioural trials in which we quantified colour change, models of colour perception, and our knowledge of phylogenetic relationships for 21 distinct lineages of southern African dwarf chameleons. We show that evolutionary changes in the capacity for colour change are consistently associated with the use of social signals that are highly conspicuous to the visual system of chameleons. Moreover, capacity for colour change is unrelated to variation in the environmental backgrounds that chameleons must match in order to be camouflaged. Overall, our results suggest that the evolution of the ability to exhibit striking changes in colour evolved as a strategy to facilitate social signalling and not, as popularly believed, camouflage.


This sure reads like someone who believes in evolution to me?


But what do I know I only read at a University level.

Sure looks like it. But does nothing to explain the origins of the creature.

The Berean
01-22-2014, 04:34 AM
Chameleons exist thats a fact.

Sock is making the claim that it is impossible for them to have evolved through natural selection. < this is a premise he is claiming is true, in otherwords it's a positive in his argument.

It's up to him to prove that this premise is indeed true in order for his argument to be sound. Which he has failed miserably at.

That is a very slick piece of work. He needs to prove that it's impossible.

Hmmm. That appears to be exactly what I asked about. Proving a negative.

Let's turn it around then.

Chameleons are the result of intelligent design. This is obvious because the complexity of their adaptation could not be the result of successive small changes over time.

Discuss.

Hans
01-22-2014, 06:12 AM
You are obviously wrong on that assumption. If a single human cell can evolve into a complex human being over a timeframe of 9 months, than the chameleon could have easily evolved over a timeframe of millions of years into it's current state.

Bluesky
01-22-2014, 07:30 AM
If a single human cell can evolve into a complex human being over a timeframe of 9 months, than the chameleon could have easily evolved over a timeframe of millions of years into it's current state.
If a single human cell can evolve into a complex human being over a timeframe of 9 months, than the chameleon could have easily evolved over a timeframe of millions of years into it's current state.[/quote]

Whoa! Talk about apples and oranges! And "easily"? REALLY?
Well, I guess all the evo-scientists can go home now, for Hans has settled the matter. That was easy.

The Left Sock
01-22-2014, 07:41 AM
This is breaking news! An egg 'evolves' - and all this time, I just thought it grew!

Now, if someone could give birth to a baby that could change color at will, that would be really something!

The Berean
01-22-2014, 10:34 AM
You are obviously wrong on that assumption. If a single human cell can evolve into a complex human being over a timeframe of 9 months, than the chameleon could have easily evolved over a timeframe of millions of years into it's current state.

The human ova does not evolve. The DNA pattern in it is set at the point of conception. It simply grows.

Bluesky
01-22-2014, 10:34 AM
Evolutionary biologists speak of the Law of Biogenesis. This law, in Latin is omne vivum ex vivo and means, "all life comes from life." Even though evolutionary biologists use this phrase, they mean it in terms of materialism, the view that only matter exists. Didn't Madonna have a song about materialism? Some time back in the 80's. Well, omne vivum ex vivo is a good axiom with which atheists, new and old, and theists of all stripes can agree: all life does indeed come from life.

Now, the question that origin of life researchers simply cannot answer on a materialist account, is where the original, first life came from. Since it is obvious that life had to come from non-life, and that life had to start somewhere, the Law of Biogenesis axiom is apropos, especially for the theist, who believes that the Almighty, who is Life, is the Creator of all things. But even if atheists do not want to submit to the idea of a deity, they should embrace the axiom that "life comes from life," and hoist themselves on the overlook to examine what was required in order for life to arise in the first place.

For the rest of the article see..
http://www.vanallsblog.blogspot.ca/search?updated-max=2013-12-02T20:36:00-05:00&max-results=5

Nihilistic Heathen
01-22-2014, 02:23 PM
That is a very slick piece of work. He needs to prove that it's impossible.

Hmmm. That appears to be exactly what I asked about. Proving a negative.

Let's turn it around then.

Chameleons are the result of intelligent design. This is obvious because the complexity of their adaptation could not be the result of successive small changes over time.

Discuss.

From the point of view of Socks argument, it has to be true that it is impossible for chameleons evolve through Darwins' theory. All I'm saying is he needs to substantiate that. If you are implying that it's impossible for sock to prove this premise because it's not true, well that speaks volumes in itself. Not only about Sock's argument but also about your mentality.

The Berean
01-22-2014, 04:12 PM
From the point of view of Socks argument, it has to be true that it is impossible for chameleons evolve through Darwins' theory. All I'm saying is he needs to substantiate that. If you are implying that it's impossible for sock to prove this premise because it's not true, well that speaks volumes in itself. Not only about Sock's argument but also about your mentality.

Very slick indeed!!

Nice turning around, almost spinning, I'd say.

Oh, well, I didn't really expect a response.

Of course, I DID expect the insult, and was not disappointed!! :) :) :)

Hans
01-22-2014, 05:04 PM
If a single human cell can evolve into a complex human being over a timeframe of 9 months, than the chameleon could have easily evolved over a timeframe of millions of years into it's current state.

Whoa! Talk about apples and oranges! And "easily"? REALLY?
Well, I guess all the evo-scientists can go home now, for Hans has settled the matter. That was easy.[/QUOTE]

How is that apple and oranges? There are mutations that happen during this process, sometimes resulting in birth defects and various diseases.
It is possible that 25 million years from now a baby is born that does have the ability to change color at will, just like the chameleon.

Hans
01-22-2014, 05:06 PM
The human ova does not evolve. The DNA pattern in it is set at the point of conception. It simply grows.

It is not set, hence the reason why birth defects exist. Some of those are due to genetic reasons, others due to unusual development of the embryo or other external factors.

The Berean
01-22-2014, 05:18 PM
It is not set, hence the reason why birth defects exist. Some of those are due to genetic reasons, others due to unusual development of the embryo or other external factors.

Link? Source"

Ova = Half Dad's DNA, half Mum's.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-22-2014, 05:19 PM
Very slick indeed!!

Nice turning around, almost spinning, I'd say.

Oh, well, I didn't really expect a response.

Of course, I DID expect the insult, and was not disappointed!! :) :) :)

I'm not putting any spin on this and it's not up to me prove or disprove anything here. This is what Sock claimed he was going to do.....


I think Darwin was wrong on a fundamental level, but in order to prove that, I'm going to have to intellectually choke down his 'Origin of Species', to do a proper job of it. I've downloaded it from the Gutenberg Project, and will get back on this thread, once I have sufficient evidence.

He then claimed that the ability for chameleons to change colour is too complex to have occurred within the framework of Darwins theory.

His argument is summed up by this post...


"Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.""

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Ah, I've been holding on to that quote for a while now!

Mr. Darwin, allow me to introduce Mr. Chameleon.

Mr. Nihilistic Heathen, may I introduce you to intellectual checkmate?

He hasn't proven that it is impossible for chameleons to have evolved according to Darwin's theory. He's just given us conjecture, nothing to substantiate his claim. Although he did provide a link that counter's what he has claimed. It's one of the most absurd things I've seen on here.

The Berean
01-22-2014, 05:33 PM
...He hasn't proven that it is impossible for chameleons to have evolved according to Darwin's theory. He's just given us conjecture, nothing to substantiate his claim. Although he did provide a link that counter's what he has claimed. It's one of the most absurd things I've seen on here.

No, I guess he's not a scientist. But I believe he raises a good question, one which extrapolates to many different creatures. There is lots of info on the mechanisms that allow creatures to do different things, and even information of the operation of survival of the fittest. I have seen little or no information on how complex changes can occur in any creature to bring forth survival mechanisms such as the one suggested.

Occam's Razor, anyone??

Hans
01-22-2014, 06:23 PM
Link? Source"

Ova = Half Dad's DNA, half Mum's.

ok, I see where you are trying to go with this.
Does an ova have eyes?

Hans
01-22-2014, 06:33 PM
And here is your source: http://www.medicinenet.com/birth_defects/article.htm

The Left Sock
01-22-2014, 06:45 PM
"Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.""

Let's break it down:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed"

- the chameleon exists. It is a complex organism.

"which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications..."

- the chameleon was formed by numerous, slight modifications, but they could not have been successive, according to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, because Nature would not have favored the initial changes that occurred in the chameleon, because these initial changes would have had no direct benefit to the survival of the chameleon.

"my theory would absolutely break down"

Since Darwin's theory cannot explain the successive modifications in the chameleon, by his own admission, his theory breaks down. In other words, it is a false theory.

You don't have to take my word for it. If you trust Darwin's credibility, and you take a look at the chameleon, you will have no alternative but to agree with him that his theory breaks down.

Perhaps this is why scientists have never bothered to even try to investigate how the chameleon developed the ability to change color? They probably fully understand what it would lead to; a complete reversal of Darwin's theory, and an insecure world in which we would have to re-examine the very nature of life, and admit we know very little.

Too many people have too much invested in clinging to Darwin's theory. It's going to take some brave scientists, willing to sacrifice their professional standing, to break this massive illusion.

As for me, I reject Darwin's theory as an adequate explanation for what we see in this world. It's going to take a lot more than a few snipes on a local forum board, to shake me out of that position. But, I will continue to read Darwin's works, and look at the evidence, and make certain of my claims, because that's just what seekers of truth do.

The Berean
01-22-2014, 07:01 PM
It is not set, hence the reason why birth defects exist. Some of those are due to genetic reasons, others due to unusual development of the embryo or other external factors.

Thank you Hans. Let's review, from the site:

"Genetic problems caused when one or more genes doesn't work properly or part of a gene is missing

Problems with chromosomes, such as having an extra chromosome or missing part of a chromosome"


So, what we have is initial damage in the gene or chromosome. The genetic structure of the creature IS set.

You said, "a single human cell can evolve into a complex human being over a timeframe of 9 months".

You further said. "There are mutations that happen during this process, sometimes resulting in birth defects and various diseases.."

Two problems. No evolution happens during the gestation period. And the site refers to birth DEFECTS, none of which improve the creature involved.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-22-2014, 07:50 PM
the chameleon was formed by numerous, slight modifications, but they could not have been successive, according to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, because Nature would not have favored the initial changes that occurred in the chameleon, because these initial changes would have had no direct benefit to the survival of the chameleon.

Perhaps this is why scientists have never bothered to even try to investigate how the chameleon developed the ability to change color? They probably fully understand what it would lead to; a complete reversal of Darwin's theory, and an insecure world in which we would have to re-examine the very nature of life, and admit we know very little.

How can you continue to make these claims after you provided this link...
Selection for Social Signalling Drives the Evolution of Chameleon Colour Change (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2214820/)

And I would suggest actually read Darwins book instead of relying on an out of context quote from a website. You see Darwin is talking about organs not organisms. Here's his quote more in it's original context....
[page] 189 CHAP. VI. ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=207)
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

So I'm gonna take your advice and not take your word for it.

You still haven't demonstrated that it's impossible for chameleons to have evolved. You are just saying it because you think it is. This is what you tell us..

the chameleon was formed by numerous, slight modifications, but they could not have been successive, according to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, because Nature would not have favored the initial changes that occurred in the chameleon, because these initial changes would have had no direct benefit to the survival of the chameleon.

According to the research paper you yourself provided us you are wrong....

"Rapid colour change is a remarkable natural phenomenon that has evolved in several vertebrate and invertebrate lineages. The two principal explanations for the evolution of this adaptive strategy are (1) natural selection for crypsis (camouflage) against a range of different backgrounds and (2) selection for conspicuous social signals that maximise detectability to conspecifics, yet minimise exposure to predators because they are only briefly displayed. Here we show that evolutionary shifts in capacity for colour change in southern African dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.) are associated with increasingly conspicuous signals used in male contests and courtship. To the chameleon visual system, species showing the most dramatic colour change display social signals that contrast most against the environmental background and amongst adjacent body regions. We found no evidence for the crypsis hypothesis, a finding reinforced by visual models of how both chameleons and their avian predators perceive chameleon colour variation. Instead, our results suggest that selection for conspicuous social signals drives the evolution of colour change in this system, supporting the view that transitory display traits should be under strong selection for signal detectability."

Did you even read it? I'm suspecting you didn't like the Voice mentioned earlier. I also suspect you aren't reading Darwin's book.

Hans
01-22-2014, 07:57 PM
Thank you Hans. Let's review, from the site:

"Genetic problems caused when one or more genes doesn't work properly or part of a gene is missing

Problems with chromosomes, such as having an extra chromosome or missing part of a chromosome"


So, what we have is initial damage in the gene or chromosome. The genetic structure of the creature IS set.

You said, "a single human cell can evolve into a complex human being over a timeframe of 9 months".

You further said. "There are mutations that happen during this process, sometimes resulting in birth defects and various diseases.."

Two problems. No evolution happens during the gestation period. And the site refers to birth DEFECTS, none of which improve the creature involved.

Evolution does not always result in "improvements".
I think there is an old discussion on this forum between you and others about the lifespan of humans as described in Genesis. If I remember it correctly, you were not convinced the information was incorrect or impossible and found it plausible that humans at that time could live to become several hundred years old.
If that is the case than we evolved in a "negative" way as we currently can not obtain that lifespan.

The Left Sock
01-22-2014, 08:05 PM
NH: Two thoughts to your latest rant. And a comment.

1. a complex organism has complex organs.

2. stating that 'social signals drives the evolution of colour change' simply speaks to motive. It doesn't even begin to unravel how the chameleon is physically able to change colours. That hasn't even been investigated!

And now, for my comment. Are you really that desperate to discredit me, that you are actually willing to go out on a limb, with no evidence of any kind, and actually accuse me of lying about reading Darwin's Origin of Species? Are you actually that primitive?

Here's a link to the actual work, where I downloaded it several days ago. Feel free to read it as well, and then get back to me:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1228

The story about the sheep farmer who raised two distinct flocks with unique wool that I mentioned in a previous post occurs about a quarter of the way through the book. Or perhaps you think I could Google such a trivial piece of information?

Honestly! Going down this road will get you written off on anything you have to say in the future. Are you comfortable with that?

The Left Sock
01-22-2014, 08:10 PM
Sock, before you continue, might I point out one flaw with this endeavor?
(well I'm going to anyways, take it or leave it...)



Any scientific theory that goes anywhere is based off of educated, impartial and logical rebuttals
You really have to look at your target audience, I highly doubt a group of Google warriors that looked up the definition of "research methodologies" will get you the results you are looking for....

Your sentiments are appreciated, Dancingqueen. Considering some of the reactions here, it does seem like throwing typewriters into a room full of chimps sometimes. But hey, you work with what you got, right?

Or, you make what you got work. I'm not sure which method is better!

The Voice
01-22-2014, 08:36 PM
How can you continue to make these claims after you provided this link...
Selection for Social Signalling Drives the Evolution of Chameleon Colour Change (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2214820/)

And I would suggest actually read Darwins book instead of relying on an out of context quote from a website. You see Darwin is talking about organs not organisms. Here's his quote more in it's original context....
[page] 189 CHAP. VI. ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=207)
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

So I'm gonna take your advice and not take your word for it.

You still haven't demonstrated that it's impossible for chameleons to have evolved. You are just saying it because you think it is. This is what you tell us..


According to the research paper you yourself provided us you are wrong....

"Rapid colour change is a remarkable natural phenomenon that has evolved in several vertebrate and invertebrate lineages. The two principal explanations for the evolution of this adaptive strategy are (1) natural selection for crypsis (camouflage) against a range of different backgrounds and (2) selection for conspicuous social signals that maximise detectability to conspecifics, yet minimise exposure to predators because they are only briefly displayed. Here we show that evolutionary shifts in capacity for colour change in southern African dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.) are associated with increasingly conspicuous signals used in male contests and courtship. To the chameleon visual system, species showing the most dramatic colour change display social signals that contrast most against the environmental background and amongst adjacent body regions. We found no evidence for the crypsis hypothesis, a finding reinforced by visual models of how both chameleons and their avian predators perceive chameleon colour variation. Instead, our results suggest that selection for conspicuous social signals drives the evolution of colour change in this system, supporting the view that transitory display traits should be under strong selection for signal detectability."

Did you even read it? I'm suspecting you didn't like the Voice mentioned earlier. I also suspect you aren't reading Darwin's book.

He didn't read it or he didn't understand it.

I read it twice. Read his synopsis twice. Then I realized that he had taken one paragraph and twisted it's meaning. Now this begs the question, is he doing this on purpose or does he not understand what he is reading?

The Berean
01-22-2014, 09:06 PM
Evolution does not always result in "improvements"....

Quite right, it does not. I might even venture to say, considering "birth defects in general" that the vast majority of changes in the genetic structure do not produce any positive changes.

Just occured. to me Can you point out ONE positive change in man's evolution since homo sapiens came on the scene??

And then there is the problem of a possible positve change occuring. Unfortunately, it will probably only occur in one animal. Which, according to evolutionary theory, goes on, all by itself, to completely replace the entire species. That in itself doesn't seem all that probable.

The Voice
01-22-2014, 09:29 PM
Quite right, it does not. I might even venture to say, considering "birth defects in general" that the vast majority of changes in the genetic structure do not produce any positive changes.

Just occured. to me Can you point out ONE positive change in man's evolution since homo sapiens came on the scene??

And then there is the problem of a possible positve change occuring. Unfortunately, it will probably only occur in one animal. Which, according to evolutionary theory, goes on, all by itself, to completely replace the entire species. That in itself doesn't seem all that probable.

Well I know we are a lot taller for sure.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-22-2014, 09:30 PM
NH: Two thoughts to your latest rant. And a comment.

1. a complex organism has complex organs.

2. stating that 'social signals drives the evolution of colour change' simply speaks to motive. It doesn't even begin to unravel how the chameleon is physically able to change colours. That hasn't even been investigated!


Saying a complex organism has complex organs doesn't change the fact you are taking Darwin's point out of context. You claimed that you were going to read his book in order to properly refute it. You don't properly refute something by taking it out of context.

Biologists do know how chameleons are physically able to change colours...How and why do chameleons change colour? (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2634/) If we go back and look at your argument this is what you say, " Nature would not have favored the initial changes that occurred in the chameleon, because these initial changes would have had no direct benefit to the survival of the chameleon."
You're claiming there is no direct benefit from the initial changes in order to explain the evolution of colour change in chameleons. The research paper you provided gives two possible reasons; "The two principal explanations for the evolution of this adaptive strategy are (1) natural selection for crypsis (camouflage) against a range of different backgrounds and (2) selection for conspicuous social signals that maximise detectability to conspecifics, yet minimise exposure to predators because they are only briefly displayed."

The Left Sock
01-22-2014, 09:54 PM
"You're claiming there is no direct benefit from the initial changes in order to explain the evolution of colour change in chameleons. The research paper you provided gives two possible reasons; "The two principal explanations for the evolution of this adaptive strategy are (1) natural selection for crypsis (camouflage) against a range of different backgrounds and (2) selection for conspicuous social signals that maximise detectability to conspecifics, yet minimise exposure to predators because they are only briefly displayed."

Apples and oranges. Evolution does not explain how the many subtle changes over time would result in a chameleon being able to change color. What you provided was only a possible explanation for why they can do it.

Two totally separate and unrelated issues.

The Voice
01-22-2014, 10:06 PM
"You're claiming there is no direct benefit from the initial changes in order to explain the evolution of colour change in chameleons. The research paper you provided gives two possible reasons; "The two principal explanations for the evolution of this adaptive strategy are (1) natural selection for crypsis (camouflage) against a range of different backgrounds and (2) selection for conspicuous social signals that maximise detectability to conspecifics, yet minimise exposure to predators because they are only briefly displayed."

Apples and oranges. Evolution does not explain how the many subtle changes over time would result in a chameleon being able to change color. What you provided was only a possible explanation for why they can do it.

Two totally separate and unrelated issues.

Classic non-answer.

The Left Sock
01-22-2014, 10:09 PM
NH's line of reasoning:

"Look at the dwarf chameleon! It can change colors at will, to signal a mate, or protect itself!"

"Wow, that's fascinating! How did it happen?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

"Really? How did such a rare and complicated skill get built?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

"Sorry, I didn't ask you 'why', I asked you 'how'?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

The Voice
01-22-2014, 10:13 PM
"Look at the dwarf chameleon! It can change colors at will, to signal a mate, or protect itself!"

"Wow, that's fascinating! How did it happen?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

"Really? How did such a rare and complicated skill get built?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

"Sorry, I didn't ask you 'why', I asked you 'how'?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

Going on a rant over an ignored comment?

The Voice
01-22-2014, 10:29 PM
Going on a rant over an ignored comment?

Or perhaps you were answering yourself?

The Voice
01-22-2014, 10:30 PM
Or perhaps you were answering yourself?

Holly Crap, I'm talking to myself!:):):)

The Berean
01-22-2014, 10:45 PM
Well I know we are a lot taller for sure.

But is that evolution??

Nihilistic Heathen
01-23-2014, 01:39 AM
NH's line of reasoning:

"Look at the dwarf chameleon! It can change colors at will, to signal a mate, or protect itself!"

"Wow, that's fascinating! How did it happen?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

"Really? How did such a rare and complicated skill get built?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

"Sorry, I didn't ask you 'why', I asked you 'how'?"

"Why, evolution of course!"

That's funny let me try....

NH's line of reasoning:


I think Darwin was wrong on a fundamental level, but in order to prove that, I'm going to have to intellectually choke down his 'Origin of Species', to do a proper job of it. I've downloaded it from the Gutenberg Project, and will get back on this thread, once I have sufficient evidence.


me - (to myself) that's a bold statement how is he going to achieve that. Considering it's been 150 years since the book was first published, and it's been a hotly debated subject since then.

Sock - Chameleons are a complex organism that can only be explained by an intelligent designer.

Me- (to myself)Oh great the teleological argument.

Me - you haven't substantiated anything

Sock - Chameleons are a complex organism that can only be explained by an intelligent designer.

Me - you still haven't' substantiated anything

Sock - here's some research that contradicts my claim

me - thanks so uh you still refuting Darwin or what?

Sock - scientists won't touch chameleons with a ten foot pole

me - What about that research you linked

Sock - Chameleons are a complex organism that can only be explained by an intelligent designer and Science doesn't explain the evolutionary process that it would have taken to get there. I win.

me - You haven't provided any evidence proving that chameleons couldn't have possibly evolved to change colour. So his theory still stands.

Sock - Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" and I say Chameleons are a complex organism that can only be explained by an intelligent designer and scientists won't touch chameleons with a ten foot pole so Science doesn't explain the evolutionary process that it would have taken to get there. I win.

me - (to myself)oh he finally quoted something from Darwins book
me - That quote is taken out of context

Sock - Context smomtext, pfff, complex organs, complex organisms none of that matters because Chameleons are a complex organism that can only be explained by an intelligent designer and scientists won't touch chameleons with a ten foot pole so Science doesn't explain the evolutionary process that it would have taken to get there. I win.

me - You claimed that you were going to read his book in order to properly refute it. You don't properly refute something by taking it out of context. And you haven't demonstrated that it's impossible for chameleons to evolve.

Sock - Apples , oranges, Chameleons are a complex organism that can only be explained by an intelli... BANANAS THAT'S IT, BANANAS I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF BANANAS


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igui2YoHXs8

dancingqueen
01-23-2014, 02:44 AM
I'm no expert here, and I most certainly will not claim to be able prove or disprove Darwin, but I believe a false dichotomy is being either presented, or assumed:
that if intelligent design is true, then evolution must not be true.
Thus, as with all matters RE: intelligent design the possibilities are infinite and therefore unable to be substantiated.

The Left Sock
01-23-2014, 04:10 AM
I'm no expert here, and I most certainly will not claim to be able prove or disprove Darwin, but I believe a false dichotomy is being either presented, or assumed:
that if intelligent design is true, then evolution must not be true.
Thus, as with all matters RE: intelligent design the possibilities are infinite and therefore unable to be substantiated.

These are my assertions:

- Darwin's theory is incomplete. There are many examples of complex abilities and attributes in the natural world that cannot be explained by Natural Selection alone.

- By Darwin's own admission, if his theory is incomplete, then it completely breaks down.

- The only way I can rationalize a creature like the chameleon undergoing many generations of progressive alterations that culminate in it having the abiliity to change colors is that it cannot be a random event, or 'accident'.

- If the many subtle changes a chameleon went through built upon previous modifications, all leading to a singular ability, then I assert that this process was an intelligent process.

- For the chameleon to have its brain, nerves, and skin altered over many generations toward a singular goal simultaneously, which led to a skill that employs all of these systems, then I assert that there was a design behind that process, one that cannot be explained by Natural Selection alone.

Therefore, the chameleon developing the ability to change color at will was not the result of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but was the result of some unknown force or process, that can only be described as Intelligent Design.

I'm not suggesting that an omnipotent deity hand-crafted the chameleon, or that the chameleon was given its ability on board an alien spacecraft. I'm not making any speculation with regard to what this force or process might be, only that it was a deliberate progression toward a singular goal, that was not the result of Natural Selection.

Once again, Natural Selection depends upon a species benefitting from mutation or variation, and this benefit propels those animals to thrive, which causes the mutation to become a dominant trait. Nothing that happens in the early stages of a lizard developing the ability to change color matches that description.

So, I stand by my position that Natural Selection is not a complete explanation, and that the alternative explanation, one that fits the process the chameleon went through, can only be described as intelligent design.

I'm comfortable with that. Other people are free to make up their own minds, freak out over the fact that I have made up my mind, or continue to wander around in the dark, blindly believing that mankind has it all figured out, and that the world we live in is nothing more than a bunch of advantageous mistakes.

I'm good with all that.

The Voice
01-23-2014, 09:06 AM
"Science doesn't have a clue how a chameleon developed the ability to change color..."

Nihilistic Heathen will now provide links disproving this statement.

I am still waiting for you to tell the sock that he has to provide proof for his thesis.

Oh right he doesn't have to because he included the phrase intelligent design.

Bluesky
01-23-2014, 09:08 AM
that if intelligent design is true, then evolution must not be true.


Actually, that would be a false dichotomy. A lot of Intelligent Design proponents hold to evolution. But they would see God's hand as guiding those evolutionary sequences. They do not beleive in the random unguided process. So to them, evolutionary model is as miraculous as the creationists' model.

The Voice
01-23-2014, 09:10 AM
But is that evolution??

Well lets see humans have been slowly evolving generation after generation to greater heights, no your probably right it must be intelligent design.

The Berean
01-23-2014, 09:18 AM
I am still waiting for you to tell the sock that he has to provide proof for his thesis.

Oh right he doesn't have to because he included the phrase intelligent design.

And I shall wait forever for you to tell us how to prove a negative.

The Berean
01-23-2014, 09:18 AM
Well lets see humans have been slowly evolving generation after generation to greater heights, no your probably right it must be intelligent design.

Source? Link?

:) :) :)

dancingqueen
01-23-2014, 11:50 AM
Actually, that would be a false dichotomy. A lot of Intelligent Design proponents hold to evolution. But they would see God's hand as guiding those evolutionary sequences. They do not believe in the random unguided process. So to them, evolutionary model is as miraculous as the creationists' model.

That is exactly what I was saying, "that if intelligent design is true, then evolution must not be true." is the statement (made or assumed) that is a false dichotomy.
I am not in a position to argue Sock's position because I also believe that though evolution occurs, it is not the only thing happening, and recognize the likelihood of intelligent design.

dancingqueen
01-23-2014, 11:52 AM
Well lets see humans have been slowly evolving generation after generation to greater heights, no your probably right it must be intelligent design.

from a scientific standpoint intelligent design can neither be proven, nor dis proven, this is where I see a flaw in popular understanding of the theory of evolution. I'll be honest though, I have never taken the time to thoroughly inspect Darwin's theory, so I am not sure what his position on that matter is.

Bluesky
01-23-2014, 12:10 PM
That is exactly what I was saying, "that if intelligent design is true, then evolution must not be true." is the statement (made or assumed) that is a false dichotomy.
I am not in a position to argue Sock's position because I also believe that though evolution occurs, it is not the only thing happening, and recognize the likelihood of intelligent design.

Ahh, agreed.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-23-2014, 01:17 PM
Soc - Darwin's theory is incomplete. There are many examples of complex abilities and attributes in the natural world that cannot be explained by Natural Selection alone.

Me - You are failing to define Darwin's theory, or the fundamental principles his theory is derived from. You just claiming his theory is incomplete is meaningless without showing how you arrive at this conclusion. There are a lot of phenomenon we don't have a scientific explanation for. That doesn't negate science or any of its theories.

Soc - By Darwin's own admission, if his theory is incomplete, then it completely breaks down.

Me - Actually what he says is: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Soc - The only way I can rationalize a creature like the chameleon undergoing many generations of progressive alterations that culminate in it having the abiliity to change colors is that it cannot be a random event, or 'accident'.

Me - You are entitled to your own opinion, I'm not trying to take that away from you. But with that being said, your ethos alone isn't sufficient to convince me of that. You can claim that you arrived at it rationally, I don't see that in your argument, I require something substantial not conjecture.

Soc - If the many subtle changes a chameleon went through built upon previous modifications, all leading to a singular ability, then I assert that this process was an intelligent process.

Me - is this based on Teleology?

Soc - For the chameleon to have its brain, nerves, and skin altered over many generations toward a singular goal simultaneously, which led to a skill that employs all of these systems, then I assert that there was a design behind that process, one that cannot be explained by Natural Selection alone.

Me - That answers my question, yes it is based on teleology. Does natural selection state that the evolutionary goal of chameleons is to develop the ability to change colour? Is there some design that natural selection has in mind. Does natural selection have a mind, one with cognitive capabilities? Wait that's not natural selection that is intelligent design. Nice bait and switch tactic, you almost had me there for second. Natural selection is a natural process with no goals.

Sock- Therefore, the chameleon developing the ability to change color at will was not the result of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but was the result of some unknown force or process, that can only be described as Intelligent Design.

Me - It sounds to me like you are talking in circles. Your argument doesn't start from the premise that you initially made, that is Darwin's theory is wrong on a fundamental level. It starts from intelligent design and works its way back to it.

Sock - I'm not suggesting that an omnipotent deity hand-crafted the chameleon, or that the chameleon was given its ability on board an alien spacecraft. I'm not making any speculation with regard to what this force or process might be, only that it was a deliberate progression toward a singular goal, that was not the result of Natural Selection.

Me - "A deliberate progression toward as singular goal?" This sounds like you are claiming we are here because of the chameleons ability to change colour. That it, the chameleon, was the ultimate goal of the designer you refuse to identify. The ultimate purpose of life on earth, why we are here, the reason the universe exists, has been answered by Sock... So chameleons could change colours.

Sock - Once again, Natural Selection depends upon a species benefitting from mutation or variation, and this benefit propels those animals to thrive, which causes the mutation to become a dominant trait. Nothing that happens in the early stages of a lizard developing the ability to change color matches that description.

Me - Once again more conjecture. Explain the early development of lizards and show me how it doesn't fit in with natural selection, so I know what you are saying is true. Otherwise what you are saying is baseless.

Sock - So, I stand by my position that Natural Selection is not a complete explanation, and that the alternative explanation, one that fits the process the chameleon went through, can only be described as intelligent design.

Me - We know that already, that is what you based your premise from, it's also your conclusion. I would like to point out you haven't defined natural selection yet. You just keep saying that it is dependent on species evolving. This is kinda murky and you need to clarify it a bit more.

Sock - I'm comfortable with that. Other people are free to make up their own minds, freak out over the fact that I have made up my mind, or continue to wander around in the dark, blindly believing that mankind has it all figured out, and that the world we live in is nothing more than a bunch of advantageous mistakes.

Me - The fact you have made up your own mind was evident from beginning. I'm not freaking out over that or anything for that matter. In fact, I'm trying not to argue with you. What I am doing is trying to get you to present you refutation of Darwin's work and in a rational way. Which, to be honest, you haven't really attempted to address yet.

All you have done is provided an alternative theory, and as Dancingqueen pointed out created a false dilemma, then claimed intelligent design was the winner. Now we have Bluesky adding to this dilemma by stating.... "A lot of Intelligent Design proponents hold to evolution." If that's true what implication does it have within your argument, that ID negates evolution. Is ID and evolution compatible?

The Left Sock
01-23-2014, 04:27 PM
As I have said on multiple occasions, Darwin's theory is completely dependent upon changes in a single generation, however slight, being adopted by a species as a dominant trait. This is what propels a species forward, by Natural Selection. I haven't 'dodged' explaining the essence of Darwin's work - I have harped on it repeatedly.

And I have said, on multiple occasions, that it would take many, many modifications over many generations, for a lizard to alter its structure to the point where it could change color at will. There is no other tangible benefit during this process, that would suggest Natural Selection as a factor in this development. It doesn't help the lizard jump higher, run faster, stay cooler or warmer - it would simply be internal changes at first, that have to do with altering the chemical composition of the skin, and things of that nature. It would not give the lizard any survival advantage, so there would be no acceptance of these changes as a dominant trait, according to Darwin.

If a lizard, through a single generation, mutated so radically as to be able to change color, then Darwin's theory might hold. But we know very well that such a radical transformation genetically is simply impossible. Once again, that's where you get ideas for movies like 'Godzilla' - some radically different incipient species, from a singular environmental change (namely, nuclear fallout).

For a lizard to transform into a creature that could change color in one generation, would be just as likely as a 100 foot tall creature eating Manhattan.

Perhaps it is better to take this one step at a time:

Can we agree that the chameleon didn't develop the ability to change color in one step? Can we lock that down as truth? Or is there still some holdout out there, who thinks it did happen?

Can we get a consensus on this? Anyone find fault with the idea that it took many generations of changes for the chameleon to be able to change color?

As I have stated before, Darwin's theory is a workable tool for anyone who wishes to breed show dogs, or raise cattle. You select the best offspring of a species, with the traits you are looking for, and manipulate which of these you will allow to breed. You can cross-breed different dogs, and get very interesting results, using Darwin's principles. What you cannot do, no matter how many dogs you cross-breed, or how many offspring you select, is finally come up with a dog that can change color.

So, as it should be painfully clear to understand, Darwin's theory explains quite a few things, but there are some things that cannot be explained. Since some things cannot be explained by Darwin's theory, it is an incomplete theory. When you encounter an incomplete theory in science, you must start hunting for another theory. Don't take my word for it; it's a basic principle universal to all of science. It's the backbone of how humans learn things.

So, call it what you want - Intelligent design, Divine Intervention, The Force; it doesn't really matter what name you give it, as long as you can admit that Darwin's theory does not completely explain how life came to be what we see around us today.

Hans
01-23-2014, 05:21 PM
Quite right, it does not. I might even venture to say, considering "birth defects in general" that the vast majority of changes in the genetic structure do not produce any positive changes.

Just occured. to me Can you point out ONE positive change in man's evolution since homo sapiens came on the scene??

And then there is the problem of a possible positve change occuring. Unfortunately, it will probably only occur in one animal. Which, according to evolutionary theory, goes on, all by itself, to completely replace the entire species. That in itself doesn't seem all that probable.

I can provide many positive changes in man's evolution since homo sapiens came on the scene: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevop2.shtml
Human kind is all about evolution, as opposed to "growing".

Nihilistic Heathen
01-23-2014, 05:25 PM
Soc - Perhaps it is better to take this one step at a time:

Me- ok we'll ignore all that other rabble and start from here, one step at a time.

Soc - Can we agree that the chameleon didn't develop the ability to change color in one step? Can we lock that down as truth? Or is there still some holdout out there, who thinks it did happen?

me - Yeah, I think we can reach a consensus that chameleons evolved

Soc - Can we get a consensus on this? Anyone find fault with the idea that it took many generations of changes for the chameleon to be able to change color?

Me- I'm already there, with you 100%

Soc - As I have stated before, Darwin's theory is a workable tool for anyone who wishes to breed show dogs, or raise cattle. You select the best offspring of a species, with the traits you are looking for, and manipulate which of these you will allow to breed. You can cross-breed different dogs, and get very interesting results, using Darwin's principles. What you cannot do, no matter how many dogs you cross-breed, or how many offspring you select, is finally come up with a dog that can change color.

Me - Why are we talking about mammals all of sudden? Chameleons are reptiles. They are like two separate classes that have followed different evolutionary paths.

Soc - So, as it should be painfully clear to understand, Darwin's theory explains quite a few things, but there are some things that cannot be explained. Since some things cannot be explained by Darwin's theory, it is an incomplete theory. When you encounter an incomplete theory in science, you must start hunting for another theory. Don't take my word for it; it's a basic principle universal to all of science. It's the backbone of how humans learn things.

Me - ummm... ok.... I would agree Darwin's theory explains quite a bit. I'm almost in total agreement with everything you just said. In fact there are different fields of scientific study that have expanded on Darwin's original theory. From Molecular biology, genetics, paleontology... etc. etc.

Soc - So, call it what you want - Intelligent design, Divine Intervention, The Force; it doesn't really matter what name you give it, as long as you can admit that Darwin's theory does not completely explain how life came to be what we see around us today.

Me - Wait.. What? Call it what I want? I thought we were talking about Darwin's theory of evolution? I thought we were taking things step by step? What does Intelligent design, Divine Intervention, The Force have to do with what we were just discussing? Did I miss a step somewhere?

Hans
01-23-2014, 05:25 PM
As I have said on multiple occasions, Darwin's theory is completely dependent upon changes in a single generation, however slight, being adopted by a species as a dominant trait. This is what propels a species forward, by Natural Selection. I haven't 'dodged' explaining the essence of Darwin's work - I have harped on it repeatedly.

And I have said, on multiple occasions, that it would take many, many modifications over many generations, for a lizard to alter its structure to the point where it could change color at will. There is no other tangible benefit during this process, that would suggest Natural Selection as a factor in this development. It doesn't help the lizard jump higher, run faster, stay cooler or warmer - it would simply be internal changes at first, that have to do with altering the chemical composition of the skin, and things of that nature. It would not give the lizard any survival advantage, so there would be no acceptance of these changes as a dominant trait, according to Darwin.

If a lizard, through a single generation, mutated so radically as to be able to change color, then Darwin's theory might hold. But we know very well that such a radical transformation genetically is simply impossible. Once again, that's where you get ideas for movies like 'Godzilla' - some radically different incipient species, from a singular environmental change (namely, nuclear fallout).

For a lizard to transform into a creature that could change color in one generation, would be just as likely as a 100 foot tall creature eating Manhattan.

Perhaps it is better to take this one step at a time:

Can we agree that the chameleon didn't develop the ability to change color in one step? Can we lock that down as truth? Or is there still some holdout out there, who thinks it did happen?

Can we get a consensus on this? Anyone find fault with the idea that it took many generations of changes for the chameleon to be able to change color?

As I have stated before, Darwin's theory is a workable tool for anyone who wishes to breed show dogs, or raise cattle. You select the best offspring of a species, with the traits you are looking for, and manipulate which of these you will allow to breed. You can cross-breed different dogs, and get very interesting results, using Darwin's principles. What you cannot do, no matter how many dogs you cross-breed, or how many offspring you select, is finally come up with a dog that can change color.

So, as it should be painfully clear to understand, Darwin's theory explains quite a few things, but there are some things that cannot be explained. Since some things cannot be explained by Darwin's theory, it is an incomplete theory. When you encounter an incomplete theory in science, you must start hunting for another theory. Don't take my word for it; it's a basic principle universal to all of science. It's the backbone of how humans learn things.

So, call it what you want - Intelligent design, Divine Intervention, The Force; it doesn't really matter what name you give it, as long as you can admit that Darwin's theory does not completely explain how life came to be what we see around us today.

There are many many lizards around. If they start to develop color changing abilities over a long period of time, there's no reason to think that such a feat is impossible. Over a long period of time more and more offspring will have this dominant trait, and as the total population grows eventually become the dominant form of the species.

The Left Sock
01-23-2014, 05:43 PM
"Me - Wait.. What? Call it what I want? I thought we were talking about Darwin's theory of evolution? I thought we were taking things step by step? What does Intelligent design, Divine Intervention, The Force have to do with what we were just discussing? Did I miss a step somewhere?"

If Darwin's theory is incomplete, then some identifying marker must be designated for that part which is unexplained. In fact, you can even title it the 'unexplained', if that strikes your fancy. I referred to the unexplained part of Evolution as Intelligent Design, or Divine Intervention, because if you take a look around, you will find that these are terms currently being bantered around as an alternative explanation to what is currently accepted as the grand-slam home-run of all explanations, namely, Evolution.

Now that I have sufficiently explained myself, it is my sincere hope that you will no longer feel the need to inject obtuse comments into an otherwise civilized discussion. I thank you in advance for your consideration.

The Berean
01-23-2014, 06:03 PM
I can provide many positive changes in man's evolution since homo sapiens came on the scene: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevop2.shtml
Human kind is all about evolution, as opposed to "growing".

Excuse me, but would you be kind enough to show me precisely where on that page it speaks of, "positive changes in man's evolution since homo sapiens came on the scene".

Hans
01-23-2014, 07:13 PM
1. Before 4 mya: The hominid Australopithecus anamensis walked around what is now Kenya on its hind legs.
2. 100,000 years ago: Human brains reached more or less the current range of sizes. Early Homo sapiens lived in Africa. At the same time, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus lived in other parts of the Old World.

Positive change #1 allowed us to walk erect rather than on all fours. I would also like to point out to a more recent discovery of the Ulas family, where a recessive mutation on chromosome 17p caused them to revert back to walking on all fours.
Positive change #2 allowed is to increase our brain size more or less to its current size. Needless to say this is a highly complex evolutionary change as the brain is considered by many online scientific sources to be the most complex object in the universe.

The Berean
01-23-2014, 09:07 PM
1. Before 4 mya: The hominid Australopithecus anamensis walked around what is now Kenya on its hind legs.
2. 100,000 years ago: Human brains reached more or less the current range of sizes. Early Homo sapiens lived in Africa. At the same time, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus lived in other parts of the Old World.

Positive change #1 allowed us to walk erect rather than on all fours. I would also like to point out to a more recent discovery of the Ulas family, where a recessive mutation on chromosome 17p caused them to revert back to walking on all fours.
Positive change #2 allowed is to increase our brain size more or less to its current size. Needless to say this is a highly complex evolutionary change as the brain is considered by many online scientific sources to be the most complex object in the universe.

So, there have been no, ""positive changes in man's evolution since homo sapiens came on the scene". Alright.

The change that allowed hominids to walk erect supposedly happened well before homo sapiens came along.

The "evolution" of the Ulas family certainly isn't positive.

And I believe that Neandethal had a larger brain, did he not??

So which of those are supposed to be the ancestors of modern man?

As to the "highly complex evolutionary change" there's still no evidence of HOW it happened.

The Left Sock
01-23-2014, 09:12 PM
Still plugging away at Origin of Species. Still no mention of how animals evolve to develop new abilities that involve complex structural changes. Maybe Darwin saved the dazzling bits for the last half of the book?

Hans
01-23-2014, 10:17 PM
So, there have been no, ""positive changes in man's evolution since homo sapiens came on the scene". Alright.

The change that allowed hominids to walk erect supposedly happened well before homo sapiens came along.

The "evolution" of the Ulas family certainly isn't positive.

And I believe that Neandethal had a larger brain, did he not??

So which of those are supposed to be the ancestors of modern man?

As to the "highly complex evolutionary change" there's still no evidence of HOW it happened.

If you can't see that mankind evolved over time, which is evolution, then I am not sure what I can tell you to make you see that.
Maybe I should use a page from your own book, and tell you to just believe this is evolution? This would negate the need for evidence, and solve the issue.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 01:39 AM
Soc - If Darwin's theory is incomplete, then some identifying marker must be designated for that part which is unexplained. In fact, you can even title it the 'unexplained', if that strikes your fancy. I referred to the unexplained part of Evolution as Intelligent Design, or Divine Intervention, because if you take a look around, you will find that these are terms currently being bantered around as an alternative explanation to what is currently accepted as the grand-slam home-run of all explanations, namely, Evolution.

Me - I can see why Soundbear has tried to back you up, he is a major proponent of the god of the gaps fallacy himself. As a christian this type of argument would definitely appeal to him.

Soc - Now that I have sufficiently explained myself, it is my sincere hope that you will no longer feel the need to inject obtuse comments into an otherwise civilized discussion. I thank you in advance for your consideration.

Me - You have definitely explained your position. But you haven't come close to doing what you claimed you were going to do....


I think Darwin was wrong on a fundamental level, but in order to prove that, I'm going to have to intellectually choke down his 'Origin of Species', to do a proper job of it. I've downloaded it from the Gutenberg Project, and will get back on this thread, once I have sufficient evidence.

The Left Sock
01-24-2014, 02:15 AM
You have not brung a single shred of evidence to bear, to suggest that Evolution can explain how a chameleon developed the ability to change color. You haven't made even the slightest attempt.

There's a reason for that. In the 100+ years since Darwin first posed his theory, not a single scientist on planet earth has ever tried to map out the steps involved, or how Natural Selection can apply, to such a process. No one on earth has the first clue.

So, I have indeed accomplished what I intended to do.

Comfort yourself in the fact that a farmer can raise sheep with longer wool. Comfort yourself with the fact that pigeon breeders can develop birds with one extra feather. Comfort yourself that you live in a world that pretends to have the basic answers to life. It's a free world.

But I know there is a greater mystery at play here, one that has not been explained. Mankind hasn't even scratched the surface of this mystery, with all of its science, or its religion.

Some force exists in the world, that builds in complexity, over a long period of time, in the absence of Natural Selection. A profoundly complicated, magnificent force that extends far beyond human capability. It is filled with imagination and wonder, and although I may not understand what that is, I am truly grateful that I was able to shed the veil of ignorance, and get the chance to marvel at the mystery.

You can join me, or stay in the dark. It doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even care what other people think. I'm merely sharing what I think, for whatever it's worth.

I have no need to be right. But I reserve the right to wonder. And that's just what I'm doing.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 03:26 AM
Soc - You have not brung a single shred of evidence to bear, to suggest that Evolution can explain how a chameleon developed the ability to change color. You haven't made even the slightest attempt.

Me - I haven't come here to debate evolution, I have already stated that. I'm just critiquing your argument. I figured that would be obvious by now. My critique still stands, your argument fails to achieve what you claimed it would.

Soc - There's a reason for that. In the 100+ years since Darwin first posed his theory, not a single scientist on planet earth has ever tried to map out the steps involved, or how Natural Selection can apply, to such a process. No one on earth has the first clue.

Me - We have been through this, you have provided a research paper yourself on evolutionary research on the chameleon. But you keep claiming that it doesn't exist.

Soc - So, I have indeed accomplished what I intended to do.

Me - No you haven't.

Soc - Comfort yourself in the fact that a farmer can raise sheep with longer wool. Comfort yourself with the fact that pigeon breeders can develop birds with one extra feather. Comfort yourself that you live in a world that pretends to have the basic answers to life. It's a free world.

Me - That reveals your level of civility.

Soc - But I know there is a greater mystery at play here, one that has not been explained. Mankind hasn't even scratched the surface of this mystery, with all of its science, or its religion.

Me - I would agree that we haven't scratched the surface.

Soc - Some force exists in the world, that builds in complexity, over a long period of time, in the absence of Natural Selection. A profoundly complicated, magnificent force that extends far beyond human capability. It is filled with imagination and wonder, and although I may not understand what that is, I am truly grateful that I was able to shed the veil of ignorance, and get the chance to marvel at the mystery.

You can join me, or stay in the dark. It doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even care what other people think. I'm merely sharing what I think, for whatever it's worth.

Me - Nice spiel, are you claiming to be more enlightened then those who aren't convinced by your argument.

Soc - I have no need to be right. But I reserve the right to wonder. And that's just what I'm doing.

Me - If you have no need to be right, why do you keep insisting that you are right. I am not trying to remove your right to wonder. In fact, I'm trying to get you to think a little deeper about what you are saying. So that you can present a better argument to me. To make me ponder and reevaluate my own position. You haven't been able to do that because your argument is too shoddy.

The Left Sock
01-24-2014, 10:57 AM
"Me - We have been through this, you have provided a research paper yourself on evolutionary research on the chameleon. But you keep claiming that it doesn't exist."

You call taking a guess on whether the dwarf chameleon changes color based on camouflage or social signalling actual research into how the chameleon developed the ability? That's what you're holding on to?

Well, if you remember, that same 'research' paper stated clearly that the actual process hasn't 'been examined yet'.

Honestly, that's what you're clinging to, to keep yourself satisfied that Evolution is a complete theory? Wow....

Bluesky
01-24-2014, 01:28 PM
https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1653627_184609601748584_908574321_n.jpg

Maybe I am an evolutionist after all!

The Voice
01-24-2014, 01:36 PM
An excerpt from the article I linked above:

"For instance, among the more than 150 species of the family Chamaeleonidae, colour change in some is primarily limited to shifts in brightness (e.g., shades of brown), while others show remarkable chromatic change, including striking combinations of blues, greens, oranges, yellows, and black [14]. Despite the animals' marked variation in the ability to change colour, processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy have never been examined."

So here we can see that in 2008, the leading scientists of the world studying evolution, openly admit not only that they don't have a clue how chameleons developed the ability to change color, rather they publicly declare that they have never even taken a look at it!

Now, what does that tell you? Still comfortable that Darwin had it all figured out? Based on what, exactly?

I see the problem you obviously are having trouble reading an article written by and for doctors.

Let me put this into layman's terms for you.

If you read the whole introduction rather than this little snippet it is easier to put into context.

The thing that the author is saying is that they have never studied the differences between the two adaptive strategies. As it were this is the subject matter of this particular study.

Actually quite in contrary to your assertion that they haven't studied it at all, there is a list of 58 studies used as reference material. You should read through it and get back to me.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2214820/

But it gets better. In your frantic google search to find a creditable source to support even part of your theory you stumbled on what you thought was the mother lode. Alas reading comprehension is the bane of your existence.

Can anyone say Epic Fail.

The Voice
01-24-2014, 01:41 PM
Well, if you remember, that same 'research' paper stated clearly that the actual process hasn't 'been examined yet'.


This is not at all what the paper says.

See Post #146

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 02:32 PM
"Me - We have been through this, you have provided a research paper yourself on evolutionary research on the chameleon. But you keep claiming that it doesn't exist."

You call taking a guess on whether the dwarf chameleon changes color based on camouflage or social signalling actual research into how the chameleon developed the ability? That's what you're holding on to?

Well, if you remember, that same 'research' paper stated clearly that the actual process hasn't 'been examined yet'.

Honestly, that's what you're clinging to, to keep yourself satisfied that Evolution is a complete theory? Wow....

Sigh, this is getting tiresome. I'm not clinging to anything. I have been asking for you to substantial and clarify your argument. You are the one that keeps returning to chameleons and ignoring everything else I say. You just have to reread the thread to verify that.

But anyways, just for some amusement, this is the from his fist post on the topic. Read it, in fact read it a couple times and really take a moment and think about what he is saying.


The really central question is: what force, what explanation can be given, for the DNA of that animal to carry traits that were of no benefit to it or future generations, on the way to developing into a species that could change colour to benefit itself?

I'll tell you how I see it, He makes a presupposition, " ...traits that were of no benefit to it or future generations." Ask yourself, what are these traits? He doesn't tell us, we don't know what they are. But he claims that they were of no benefit. Now ask yourself, how can you come to a conclusion that a trait has no benefit when you don't even know what the trait is? Regardless of that notion, he does acknowledge it does evolve into a species that could change colour and that changing colour does have a benefit.

Now I keep saying I'm not here to argue about evolution, or explain how chameleons evolved. I am asking for him to substantiate and clarify his claims, because of posts like that. Some of his statements are, quite frankly, absurd. Here's an example read and ponder....


Because Darwin's theory cannot explain complex changes over many generations, that build towards a unique ability like being able to change color. It doesn't explain it. There is a big gaping hole in the theory

The Left Sock
01-24-2014, 02:35 PM
"I see the problem you obviously are having trouble reading an article written by and for doctors."

I asked you politely to stop injecting obtuse statements into your comments. You obviously ignored that request, so now you are being discarded on a wholesale basis.

I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say. So blather on if you will, I will not consider any points coming from your direction.

You are dismissed as a credible source of conversation.

The Voice
01-24-2014, 02:40 PM
"I see the problem you obviously are having trouble reading an article written by and for doctors."

I asked you politely to stop injecting obtuse statements into your comments. You obviously ignored that request, so now you are being discarded on a wholesale basis.

I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say. So blather on if you will, I will not consider any points coming from your direction.

You are dismissed as a credible source of conversation.

I'll Bet Ya.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 02:52 PM
I'll Bet Ya.

I thought you were on his ignore list, according to his sig, and that post was asking me to stop injecting obtuse statements.

The Voice
01-24-2014, 02:59 PM
I thought you were on his ignore list, according to his sig, and that post was asking me to stop injecting obtuse statements.

Actually so did I.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 03:04 PM
Oh, so we are on the same page.

Now I'm wondering if I'm on his "ignore list".

I also wonder, dare I say, if he will clarify our confusion.

LOL

The Left Sock
01-24-2014, 03:09 PM
"I also wonder, dare I say, if he will clarify our confusion."

That's doubtful - you have been dismissed. What, did you think I was kidding? Don't bother answering.

The Voice
01-24-2014, 03:14 PM
Oh, so we are on the same page.

Now I'm wondering if I'm on his "ignore list".

I also wonder, dare I say, if he will clarify our confusion.

LOL

Welcome to the Tree Fort.

The Voice
01-24-2014, 03:20 PM
"I also wonder, dare I say, if he will clarify our confusion."

That's doubtful - you have been dismissed. What, did you think I was kidding? Don't bother answering.

I think he's confused? Maybe he thinks we are the same person? Me, You and RW a triple split.

The Berean
01-24-2014, 04:32 PM
This is not at all what the paper says.

See Post #146

Why don't you just post what the paper says, re this problem??

The Voice
01-24-2014, 04:40 PM
Why don't you just post what the paper says, re this problem??

Sorry I already explained in Post 146

The Berean
01-24-2014, 04:49 PM
Sorry I already explained in Post 146

Sock quotes, "Despite the animals' marked variation in the ability to change colour, processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy have never been examined."

So you are saying this is not true, and the processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy HAVE been studied.

Perhaps a short snippet of one of those studys would be in order, please.

The Voice
01-24-2014, 05:02 PM
Sock quotes, "Despite the animals' marked variation in the ability to change colour, processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy have never been examined."

So you are saying this is not true, and the processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy HAVE been studied.

Perhaps a short snippet of one of those studys would be in order, please.

You need to reread post 146 because that is not what I said at all.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 05:03 PM
Sock quotes, "Despite the animals' marked variation in the ability to change colour, processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy have never been examined."

So you are saying this is not true, and the processes driving the evolution of this adaptive strategy HAVE been studied.

Perhaps a short snippet of one of those studys would be in order, please.

Ummm, The point both the Voice and I have been trying to get across is that the research paper that is being quoted from does just that. So you can start from there.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 05:25 PM
I have to laugh at you guys. This discussion would have been over in about two posts if you would just quote a few lines.

So either you're just playing the game, or you have nothing. :) :) :)


The Voice and I have quoted from that research paper multiple times showing that. The fact that you think this discussion would have been over in about two posts proves you are having difficulties in comprehending what you are reading, or you haven't been following the discussion.

Maybe you are the one playing the game, Either way you are wrong, look here (http://www.soonet.ca/showthread.php?51727-How-Old-is-the-Earth&p=737738&viewfull=1#post737738)
here (http://www.soonet.ca/showthread.php?51727-How-Old-is-the-Earth&p=737785&viewfull=1#post737785) and here (http://www.soonet.ca/showthread.php?51727-How-Old-is-the-Earth&p=737798&viewfull=1#post737798).

The Berean
01-24-2014, 05:36 PM
The Voice and I have quoted from that research paper multiple times showing that. The fact that you think this discussion would have been over in about two posts proves you are having difficulties in comprehending what you are reading, or you haven't been following the discussion.

Maybe you are the one playing the game, Either way you are wrong, look here (http://www.soonet.ca/showthread.php?51727-How-Old-is-the-Earth&p=737738&viewfull=1#post737738)
here (http://www.soonet.ca/showthread.php?51727-How-Old-is-the-Earth&p=737785&viewfull=1#post737785) and here (http://www.soonet.ca/showthread.php?51727-How-Old-is-the-Earth&p=737798&viewfull=1#post737798).

I suspect that, if one believes exclusively in evolution, one must be able to read things that are not there in the three places you repeat as sources. Not one addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon.

Sorry.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 05:49 PM
I suspect that, if one believes exclusively in evolution, one must be able to read things that are not there in the three places you repeat as sources. Not one addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon.

Sorry.


The two principal explanations for the evolution of this adaptive strategy are (1) natural selection for crypsis (camouflage) against a range of different backgrounds and (2) selection for conspicuous social signals that maximise detectability to conspecifics, yet minimise exposure to predators because they are only briefly displayed.

Personally, I think those two are quite clearly stated.

Barry Morris
01-24-2014, 05:52 PM
The two principal explanations for the evolution of this adaptive strategy are (1) natural selection for crypsis (camouflage) against a range of different backgrounds and (2) selection for conspicuous social signals that maximise detectability to conspecifics, yet minimise exposure to predators because they are only briefly displayed.

Personally, I think those two are quite clearly stated.

Indeed, they ARE quite clearly stated, and perfectly understandable. But that's not my concern.

I said, "Not one addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon."

Personally, I think that was quite clearly stated.

Hans
01-24-2014, 06:00 PM
Are you guys still stuck at the chameleon changing color ability?
Maybe try the evolution of a different thing to prove that evolution does indeed exist?

Try one of these: http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html
Personally I like the atlantic tomcod and the Italian wall lizard as examples of evolution that are happening right now and has been clearly documented.

And if you don't fine those good examples, you can always get scientific and follow up on our own human evolution: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html

The Berean
01-24-2014, 06:12 PM
Are you guys still stuck at the chameleon changing color ability?
Maybe try the evolution of a different thing to prove that evolution does indeed exist?

Try one of these: http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html
Personally I like the atlantic tomcod and the Italian wall lizard as examples of evolution that are happening right now and has been clearly documented.

And if you don't fine those good examples, you can always get scientific and follow up on our own human evolution: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html

Natural selection is not being debated.

The Left Sock
01-24-2014, 06:13 PM
Indeed, they ARE quite clearly stated, and perfectly understandable. But that's not my concern.

I said, "Not one addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon."

Personally, I think that was quite clearly stated.

Even further to that, where did the idea to change color originate? What started the chameleon onto the path of using color change as a means to communicate, or stay safe?

Darwin also talks about the conservation of economy. Animals that use less resources to get a job done, have a higher chance of success than others, and will be naturally selected, while others will be slotted for extinction. But here we have the lowly chameleon, transforming all kinds of internal structures, to achieve something that can be done with simple speed, stealth, or sound.

Arguments about whether the chameleon developed the ability to either communicate or hide are completing ignoring everything to do with how the chameleon became that way.

Evolution doesn't explain a damned thing, about how this ability materialized in the animal world, or why it developed this unique ability, as opposed to countless others that would have benefited it faster, and with less effort. Not a damn thing.

Hans
01-24-2014, 06:17 PM
Natural selection is not being debated.

The atlantic cod evolved in a way that it could survive in toxic water. That is not natural selection. That is evolution, and the mechanism they evolved in described in the information on that site.

Barry Morris
01-24-2014, 06:29 PM
The atlantic cod evolved in a way that it could survive in toxic water. That is not natural selection. That is evolution, and the mechanism they evolved in described in the information on that site.

I don't think so. Evolution in 20 to 50 generations?? Natural selection.

Can't blame you for not mentioning the others.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-24-2014, 06:29 PM
Indeed, they ARE quite clearly stated, and perfectly understandable. But that's not my concern.

I said, "Not one addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon."

Personally, I think that was quite clearly stated.

Actually it isn't clearly stated by you, what you want is for evolution to account for itself in a circular type argument. Evolution isn't supposed to explain or prove itself, it's a theory used to explain phenomenon observed in nature.

Barry Morris
01-24-2014, 06:31 PM
"Evolution isn't supposed to explain or prove itself,"

In other words, faith.

Hans
01-24-2014, 06:35 PM
I don't think so. Evolution in 20 to 50 generations?? Natural selection.

Can't blame you for not mentioning the others.

Could you explain how natural selection results in the following effect:

Most fish have a receptor gene that contains a protein which regulates the effects of toxins. The tomcods have that gene, but over the past few years, their version has dropped six base pairs, the part of the DNA that toxic molecules stick to.

Barry Morris
01-24-2014, 06:49 PM
Could you explain how natural selection results in the following effect:

Most fish have a receptor gene that contains a protein which regulates the effects of toxins. The tomcods have that gene, but over the past few years, their version has dropped six base pairs, the part of the DNA that toxic molecules stick to.

No, probably not. Could be some fish were mutated (the site uses that word) and those survived in that particular place. Are there other places this fish lives that have NOT mutated, I wonder.

But this is a simple, one step change.

Could you explain how evolution results in the chameleon??

Hans
01-24-2014, 07:02 PM
I am not an evolutionary expert, but I believe it starts with an egg that after a certain time hatches into a chameleon.

The Voice
01-25-2014, 07:06 AM
You have not brung a single shred of evidence to bear, to suggest that Evolution can explain how a chameleon developed the ability to change color. You haven't made even the slightest attempt.

There's a reason for that. In the 100+ years since Darwin first posed his theory, not a single scientist on planet earth has ever tried to map out the steps involved, or how Natural Selection can apply, to such a process. No one on earth has the first clue.



If you are going to continue insisting that;

"In the 100+ years since Darwin first posed his theory, not a single scientist on planet earth has ever tried to map out the steps involved, or how Natural Selection can apply, to such a process. No one on earth has the first clue.".

Then you will need to supply a link that backs up this claim.

The Voice
01-25-2014, 07:20 AM
Well, if you remember, that same 'research' paper stated clearly that the actual process hasn't 'been examined yet'.

Actually the Paper clearly stated that the differences between the 2 adaptive strategies had not been studied yet.

And once again for 5hjts and giggles I will point out that at the bottom of the paper there is a list of 58 studies that were used as reference material in that study alone.

The Berean
01-25-2014, 08:39 AM
Actually the Paper clearly stated that the differences between the 2 adaptive strategies had not been studied yet.

And once again for 5hjts and giggles I will point out that at the bottom of the paper there is a list of 58 studies that were used as reference material in that study alone.

And you would be able to win this whole argument, hands down, by finding something that addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon.

It's been an interesting "debate", anyway.

The Left Sock
01-25-2014, 08:48 AM
It should be very simple. If Darwin was right, then his theory should explain all the characteristics and attributes of all species in the natural world. So, here is a species, the chameleon; explain how it learned to change colors. Should be simple enough, right?

Except for one small thing - no scientist on planet earth can begin to explain how it happened. They can speculate on why it happened, point out all the benefits that changing color has for the species, but they can't tell you a damn thing about how the process unfolded, or even how it got started.

If Darwin is right, then it is incumbent upon those who support his theory to defend it against challenges. I challenge anyone to explain how the chameleon developed the ability to change color. Either they give an explanation, or admit failure.

So far, it is a total failure.

The Voice
01-25-2014, 08:53 AM
And you would be able to win this whole argument, hands down, by finding something that addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon.

It's been an interesting "debate", anyway.

In your own words I don't have to prove a negative.

FYI: The debate is about whether the sock has debunked Darwin's theory. He is the one that provided the link that he said proves that the theory can't be supported.

The Berean
01-25-2014, 09:00 AM
In your own words I don't have to prove a negative.

FYI: The debate is about whether the sock has debunked Darwin's theory. He is the one that provided the link that he said proves that the theory can't be supported.

I see that you really don't quite get what it means about the negative.

I might say, There's no such thing as a black dog.

That's a negative.

You would then post a picture of a black dog.

That would be a positive.

Sock has said that nothing addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon.

That's a negative.

You simply post something that clearly addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon.

That would be a positive.

Simple.

The Voice
01-25-2014, 09:53 AM
I suspect that, if one believes exclusively in evolution, one must be able to read things that are not there in the three places you repeat as sources. Not one addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon.

Sorry.

http://sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=842&ContentTypeId=0x010019F8BC5373DFA740B008FC720EA25D E60100514F109D278C9B4A920FB908F74DF421

Here is a link that is irrefutable evidence that indeed the chameleon is indeed a product of evolution and should thereby end all further discussion.

Cut and Paste from above link;

A major DNA analysis of the evolutionary origin and history of the one of the world's most remarkable vertebrates – the chameleon – has shown that it originated in Africa, and not Madagascar as was previously thought.
Today most chameleon species are found in Africa and Madagascar, both of which are fragments of the ancient super-continent Gondwana. But the origin of the family dates back 90 million years, post-dating the Gondwana break-up which happened 120 million years ago.
This means they could have originated in Madagascar, from where they were dispersed on ocean currents to Africa. Until now, the Madagascar-to-Africa theory dominated the debate. Or they could have originated in Africa, and was then dispersed to Madagascar, the Africa-to-Madagascar theory.
But now Dr Krystal Tolley, head of the Molecular Ecology Program at the South African National Botanical Institute and a specialist on chameleon evolution, has turned the tables on the Madagascar-to-Africa theory.
In an article published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Tolley and colleagues write that "…an African origin for chameleons is not only plausible, but is also consistent with the fossil record, present day distributions and oceanographic processes".
Using modern biogeographic methods they determined the evolutionary development and history of 174 different chameleons, representing more than 90% of described species. In scientific terms this is called a 'dated phylogeny'.
This major genetic analysis involved the use of several genetic markers, tens of thousands of DNA base pairs and took more than three years to complete. The results show "an unequivocal African origin for Chamaeleonidae". The study further suggests three separate dispersals out of Africa: 65 million years ago to Madagascar (the genus Brookesia), followed by another dispersal 47 million years ago also to Madagascar (the genera Calumma and Furcifer) and finally a dispersal 34 million years ago to the Seychelles (the genus Archaius).
When looking at the direction of ocean currents during those same time periods, it confirmed the results. According to the article, during the late Cretaceous and the Oligocene currents actually flowed from Africa toward Madagascar, the opposite of today's flow.

The Voice
01-25-2014, 10:15 AM
You have not brung a single shred of evidence to bear, to suggest that Evolution can explain how a chameleon developed the ability to change color. You haven't made even the slightest attempt.

There's a reason for that. In the 100+ years since Darwin first posed his theory, not a single scientist on planet earth has ever tried to map out the steps involved, or how Natural Selection can apply, to such a process. No one on earth has the first clue.

So, I have indeed accomplished what I intended to do.

https://www.google.ca/#q=scientific%20studies%20on%20the%20evolution%20o f%20chameleons

Quite a bit of evidence here to show it has been studied.

http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-april-2013/colour-changing-dragons-reveal-their-secrets.html

Cut And Paste from above link;

"
When she finally returned to the University of Queensland to undertake her PhD, she knew she wanted to work with live reptiles—and preferably colourful ones. “Australia doesn’t have many colourful reptiles. They’re all brown because it’s a brown continent.” She ended up investigating the evolution of colour variation in tawny dragons and red-barred dragons, some of the most colourful lizards the continent had to offer. As part of her studies Devi set up a database of the worldwide family to which the dragons belonged.
She was looking for a link between species richness and sexual differences in size and colouration. And while the Australian representatives of the dragon family were relatively drab, their closest relatives, the chameleons, definitely were not. So she applied and was accepted for a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. And that’s when she won her first L’Oreal fellowship. “The post-doctoral fellowship only paid my salary. The L’Oreal fellowship paid for my research costs.”
It was a good investment. This was the work which not only showed that the real impetus for colour variation in chameleons was not camouflage, but signalling, and it was also where she began to develop many of the ideas and approaches to her research. For instance, she became aware that it is not important how chameleons look to us, but what another chameleon or a predator sees. And both chameleons and their predators can detect colours that humans cannot, such as in the ultra-violet. So her measurements and her models of animal colour communication needed to take that into account.
She and her husband were able to compare the colouration and ability to change colour of 21 groups of southern African dwarf chameleons; how they reacted to males and females of their species; and how they reacted to predators such as birds and snakes. They found the greatest range of colours was exhibited in aggressive male flashing contests, often contrasting rather than blending with background vegetation.
That taught her a lesson she has never forgotten. “Things aren’t always as they seem.” "

The Berean
01-25-2014, 06:12 PM
if you were going to post something, why not post soemthing that "clearly addresses the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the colour changing ability of the chameleon."

EVERYTHING you have posted so far MIGHT have been prefaced with the words, "Chameleons escaped from a starship 100 million years ago", and NOTHING afterwards would have taken issue with it.

Hans
01-25-2014, 06:14 PM
Where did the starship come from?

The Berean
01-25-2014, 06:26 PM
Where did the starship come from?

Thanks for making one of my points!!!

Hans
01-25-2014, 06:29 PM
What would that point be?

The Berean
01-25-2014, 08:22 PM
What would that point be?

That thinking aliens started life on earth only backs up the origin question one step!!! :) :) :)

Hans
01-25-2014, 10:09 PM
And that question is?

The Berean
01-25-2014, 10:26 PM
And that question is?

What is the origin of life on earth?

The Voice
01-26-2014, 09:34 AM
Sorry I thought the definition of Evolution was small successive changes.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evolution

Oh hold on it is?

"the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form."

So tell me how does a study on the evolution of the chameleon not show this?

The Berean
01-26-2014, 01:03 PM
Sorry I thought the definition of Evolution was small successive changes.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evolution

Oh hold on it is?

"the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form."

So tell me how does a study on the evolution of the chameleon not show this?

I' don't know. You'd think an evolutionist could make it quite clear.

This small change added to this small change added to this small change etc etc, and Voila, the chameleon.

I couldn't find that. Not to mention not being able to discover why the first small changes, in and of themselves being of no obvious benefit to the creature, continued to be added to until the end result.

There's all kinds of facinating studies as to WHY the creature does this, and the positive effects of the end result.

Getting there is not mentioned, except for the obvious statement (preaching to the choir!!), "the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form".

The Left Sock
01-26-2014, 02:24 PM
A pretty cool video on the chameleons of Madagascar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt_fIctCHQ

By watching this, I have discovered that scientists don't even know how the chameleon operates its eyes completely independent of each other! These things are far more fascinating than I even imagined, before this thread got started. Well worth the effort, in order to learn something new!

Over an hour worth of obviously expensive film, and they barely touch upon color changes, let alone even attempt to explain how it happened.

Hans
01-26-2014, 02:36 PM
What is the origin of life on earth?

Just on earth?

The Berean
01-26-2014, 06:46 PM
Just on earth?

Not necessarily, but earth is the only place we're sure about.

The Voice
01-27-2014, 08:14 PM
Not necessarily, but earth is the only place we're sure about.

Why is it we are sure? I would be more apt to believe that we don't really know the answers.

The Berean
01-27-2014, 09:04 PM
Why is it we are sure? I would be more apt to believe that we don't really know the answers.

I'm pretty sure there's life on earth. However, if you'd like to discuss it....


:) :) :)

The Voice
01-27-2014, 09:13 PM
I'm pretty sure there's life on earth. However, if you'd like to discuss it....


:) :) :)

Fair enough. I digress.

Bluesky
01-29-2014, 09:13 AM
If anyone's interested - a basic article delineating between the various theories of theistic evolution and Darwinian..
http://equipblog.wpengine.com/thinking-clearly-about-god-and-evolution/

The Left Sock
01-29-2014, 08:15 PM
Well, as mentioned before, Darwin's ideas do work really well for gardeners and farmers. There are definite patterns and practices that can be employed to grow a healthier crop, or raise beefier cattle.

So, Darwin was catching some basic elements to how life functions, there is no doubt about that. However, his ideas fall short of the mark, when it comes to explaining some of the weird and wonderful, fantastic aspects of life here on earth. So, I take exception to his 'Origin of Species' because it really doesn't explain origins at all.

Now, if he would have called his work 'Guidebook For Manipulating Life', I would have never bothered to question him.

So, it reverts back to Creationism. There is some creative force at play in this world, that cooks up the wild idea that little lizards should flash different colors at each other to communicate. It seems that there may be a mad scientist afoot, who engineers this kind of wild diversity in nature.

Or on a simpler level, there does appear to be some natural force that exists here in our world, that propels life into a direction of complexity that exceeds mere survival. Even Darwin marveled at how males and females of the same species differ dramatically in color. He wondered aloud in his works, about how this came to be, and why. And he admitted that it was mysterious, something that didn't fit neatly into his package of Natural Selection.

All living things, once they come into this world, start an inevitable march towards decay. It is contained within the DNA, that all living things have a shelf life, after which, the cells will deconstruct, and return to the elements they were formed from.

But on the other side of life's law for all living things to decay and cease to exist, is another law, one which causes life to spring up, take shape, become amazingly complex and diverse, one that transcends simple existence; life is beautiful.

So the question remains: who or what, put the beauty into life?

Hans
01-29-2014, 08:20 PM
That question is a moot point since it leads to an ever lasting circle of who created life.
So the answer has to lie not into who, but into what.
And the what is a process of evolution, one that we have not been able to replicate. But that does not mean it never will be replicated.

Hans
01-29-2014, 09:08 PM
Studies show fossil bits of Neanderthal DNA influence our hair, skin.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/studies-show-fossil-bits-of-neanderthal-dna-influence-our-hair-skin-1.1661459

Interesting read on the evolution of mankind.

The Left Sock
01-29-2014, 10:51 PM
Thought I would change things up a bit, and look at an animal that makes the chameleon look dull by comparison - enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In7n590GjxU

Note how the scientists touch upon evolution, look at skin structures, but then conveniently gloss over even trying to explain how this development can be explained in terms of Natural Selection.

Nothing that happens here can be explained in a single generation of mutation. And nothing can explain how the absurdly complex structures can be built, while still benefiting the animal enough to satisfy the conditions for Natural Selection.

How many generations of this animal were required, before it could reap a single benefit from this? Don't bother attempting the answer, because no one in the world has a clue.

The Berean
01-29-2014, 10:55 PM
Isn't it obvious?? You just have to have faith!!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
01-29-2014, 11:31 PM
Oh great, it will take me days to get that George Michael song out of my head!

The Left Sock
01-29-2014, 11:54 PM
Speaking of cross-dressers, watch the Youtube video above, and skip to the 25th minute.

Cross-dressing is part of the mating ritual, and it is highly successful!

Bluesky
01-30-2014, 09:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7WwO1iETuw

The Voice
01-30-2014, 06:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKS9SBxFPaE

Nice little Nature nature video that I just found.

An astute individual will notice while watching this video that nowhere in it's contents are the words intelligent design mentioned.

Once again I will point out that this is proof positive that Evolution is a reality.

The Berean
02-01-2014, 06:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKS9SBxFPaE

Nice little Nature nature video that I just found.

An astute individual will notice while watching this video that nowhere in it's contents are the words intelligent design mentioned.

Once again I will point out that this is proof positive that Evolution is a reality.

At what point in the video is it explained the way evolution caused the successive, small changes leading to the color changing ability of the chameleon???

Hans
02-02-2014, 04:13 PM
So because it does or does not explain color changing abilities in chameleons everything else is false?
You guys are seriously stuck at this chameleon thing.

The Berean
02-02-2014, 05:46 PM
So because it does or does not explain color changing abilities in chameleons everything else is false?
You guys are seriously stuck at this chameleon thing.

It's merely one example. And it's obviously a problem.

The missing transitional fossils are a part of this, too. Should be lots, but there aren't.

Hans
02-02-2014, 06:39 PM
Which transitional fossils?

The Berean
02-02-2014, 08:30 PM
Which transitional fossils?

No Hans, you're only allowed to play this game once per thread.

Hans
02-03-2014, 06:08 AM
I thought you knew a lot about transitional fossils since you bring them up all the time. I guess I thought wrong.

The Berean
02-03-2014, 08:59 AM
I thought you knew a lot about transitional fossils since you bring them up all the time. I guess I thought wrong.

Problem is you think they exist, in vast abundance, and just can't consider what the lack might imply!!

Ah, the faith of the atheist is boundless!! :) :) :)

Aristotle
02-03-2014, 09:12 AM
This is getting ugly. Hans has scored about ten points to Berean's zero up to this point.

Hans, it's obvious to anyone you've trapped him. He will yell "transitional fossils" until the cows come home, but he has no idea what it means, or how to use it as supporting evidence.

Let up, it ain't pretty.

Guess Who?
02-03-2014, 10:08 AM
It always intrigues me when religious people challenge an atheists position based on lack of evidence. Events that happened millions of years ago did not have the luxury of humans around to collect artifacts for preservation and future display to prove their point. Theists, on the other hand have had ample opportunity to gather and preserve this proof, yet little exists in comparison. The atheists evidence lay in wait of predatory animals who consumed tissue and bone to survive, and yet you ask for an abundance of evidence.

Any evidence that didn't fall prey to carnivores got covered in silt at the bottom of the ocean or mired in swamps and tar pits, only to be consumed by atheists and theists alike in their greed for fossil fuels. I don't know of any theist who won't acknowledge the source of the very substance they use to heat their churches and drive their church buses, yet THEY ask for proof. They have to look no further than their gas tank.

Theists lived in a time when humans prepared and preserved bodily remains, wrote current books, and created museums. With all of this, they are left with a book written is rhyme and riddle, complied decades and centuries later as their proof. Where are the nails and pieces of wood collected from Calvary Hill,even if it were only from other thieves and beggars crucified? Where is the clothing, sandals, tools, and belongings of Jesus and any disciples which should have been available in great abundance?

Most of the parts of the very computer you are reading this on are created from the fossil remains of our proof, and your bible is printed on paper produced by a technology driven by fossil remains. Is it not ironic that my father's bible remains the holder of a leaf collection I gather as a child, who's inked pages have been replaced with the stains of decaying carbon for some future atheist or theist to ponder why.

Guess Who?
02-03-2014, 10:13 AM
This is getting ugly. Hans has scored about ten points to Berean's zero up to this point.

Hans, it's obvious to anyone you've trapped him. He will yell "transitional fossils" until the cows come home, but he has no idea what it means, or how to use it as supporting evidence.

Let up, it ain't pretty.

He reads too much of Ray Comfort without giving him credit for his words. Read the introduction to the special anniversary edition of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and you will see Comfort's words as they appear in The Berean's posts.

Aristotle
02-03-2014, 10:16 AM
He reads too much of Ray Comfort without giving him credit for his words. Read the introduction to the special anniversary edition of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and you will see Comfort's words as they appear in The Berean's posts.

That would be sad if it is the case. It's normal to repeat what we've learned through various books, but to not acknowledge the source if you're going to practically paraphrase them is a bit disingenuous.

The Berean
02-03-2014, 10:56 AM
It always intrigues me when religious people challenge an atheists position based on lack of evidence. Events that happened millions of years ago did not have the luxury of humans around to collect artifacts for preservation and future display to prove their point. Theists, on the other hand have had ample opportunity to gather and preserve this proof, yet little exists in comparison. The atheists evidence lay in wait of predatory animals who consumed tissue and bone to survive, and yet you ask for an abundance of evidence.

Any evidence that didn't fall prey to carnivores got covered in silt at the bottom of the ocean or mired in swamps and tar pits, only to be consumed by atheists and theists alike in their greed for fossil fuels. I don't know of any theist who won't acknowledge the source of the very substance they use to heat their churches and drive their church buses, yet THEY ask for proof. They have to look no further than their gas tank.

Theists lived in a time when humans prepared and preserved bodily remains, wrote current books, and created museums. With all of this, they are left with a book written is rhyme and riddle, complied decades and centuries later as their proof. Where are the nails and pieces of wood collected from Calvary Hill,even if it were only from other thieves and beggars crucified? Where is the clothing, sandals, tools, and belongings of Jesus and any disciples which should have been available in great abundance?

Most of the parts of the very computer you are reading this on are created from the fossil remains of our proof, and your bible is printed on paper produced by a technology driven by fossil remains. Is it not ironic that my father's bible remains the holder of a leaf collection I gather as a child, who's inked pages have been replaced with the stains of decaying carbon for some future atheist or theist to ponder why.

Interesting. Missed the point, but interesting.

My simple problem is that, even though we have fossils in abundance, we don't seem to have very many transitional fossils. Now, as I understand it, evolution is supposedly the process of one creature slowly changing over millions of years into another. If that were the case, we should see all kinds of fossils of creatures that clearly show the minute changes that finally cumulate in a complete change.

So why do we only see complete creatures??

The Berean
02-03-2014, 11:00 AM
He reads too much of Ray Comfort without giving him credit for his words. Read the introduction to the special anniversary edition of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and you will see Comfort's words as they appear in The Berean's posts.

The fact is, and I don'r give a damn if you believe it or not, this is the first time I have even HEARD the name of Ray Comfort.

Hans
02-03-2014, 04:55 PM
Interesting. Missed the point, but interesting.

My simple problem is that, even though we have fossils in abundance, we don't seem to have very many transitional fossils. Now, as I understand it, evolution is supposedly the process of one creature slowly changing over millions of years into another. If that were the case, we should see all kinds of fossils of creatures that clearly show the minute changes that finally cumulate in a complete change.

So why do we only see complete creatures??

Because a lot of those changes happen to "body parts" that cannot be preserved.
The organs are very rarely preserved, same with skin, brain, eyes, ears etc...

You will not see a recognizable difference between a fossilized record of a chameleon before and after the ability to change color. The fossilized bone structure will be identical, and the mechanics to change skin colors have nothing to do with its bone structure.

So I am not sure what you consider a " missing transitional fossil"?
Can you give an example of what is missing, somewhere?

The Berean
02-03-2014, 05:28 PM
Because a lot of those changes happen to "body parts" that cannot be preserved.
The organs are very rarely preserved, same with skin, brain, eyes, ears etc...

You will not see a recognizable difference between a fossilized record of a chameleon before and after the ability to change color. The fossilized bone structure will be identical, and the mechanics to change skin colors have nothing to do with its bone structure.

So I am not sure what you consider a " missing transitional fossil"?
Can you give an example of what is missing, somewhere?

How do you know about any recognizable difference?? Even if, MAYBE, that one example went from a standard lizard to a chameleon without skeletal changes, you would never know it either. And of course, we are still missing the actaul explanation of how that could happen.

We see the 'origin' of a horse, for instance, and we see the horse. But shouldn't there be fossils of the intermediate stages, and lots of them??

Hans
02-03-2014, 06:05 PM
There are intermediate stages for the horse:

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm

If there is something missing from that fossil record, could you tell me what is missing?

Hans
02-03-2014, 06:09 PM
DNA record of the chameleon:

http://sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=842&ContentTypeId=0x010019F8BC5373DFA740B008FC720EA25D E60100514F109D278C9B4A920FB908F74DF421

I think DNA is a proper marker for determining fossil records, as DNA sequencing is known scientific method that has been verified to be correct.

The Berean
02-04-2014, 09:56 PM
Just a quick one, get back soon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWecPwrQv2c

"There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code."

"Never has it been observed that life can come from non-life."

The Berean
02-04-2014, 10:04 PM
There are intermediate stages for the horse:

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm

If there is something missing from that fossil record, could you tell me what is missing?


What is missing?? I dunno, what's different?? I suppose size is something.

The Berean
02-04-2014, 10:05 PM
dna record of the chameleon:

http://sun.ac.za/english/lists/news/dispform.aspx?id=842&contenttypeid=0x010019f8bc5373dfa740b008fc720ea25d e60100514f109d278c9b4a920fb908f74df421

i think dna is a proper marker for determining fossil records, as dna sequencing is known scientific method that has been verified to be correct.

btdt.

Hans
02-04-2014, 10:16 PM
What is missing?? I dunno, what's different?? I suppose size is something.

Well, you first stated "But shouldn't there be fossils of the intermediate stages, and lots of them??
So when I ask you what you feel is missing, you don't know.

So how do you arrive to the conclusion "that lots of them" are missing?

The Berean
02-04-2014, 10:19 PM
Tell me what the differences are and tell me how they came about.

Those skeletons all look almost identical!!!

Hans
02-04-2014, 10:24 PM
Just a quick one, get back soon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWecPwrQv2c

"There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code."

"Never has it been observed that life can come from non-life."

"There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code."

I suggest you look up the term "genetic engineering". There's a whole field of research where they genetically manipulate cells in order to produce cells with certain desirable qualities.
We also have genetic altered crops used in our food chain.
so I believe the process is well observed and documented, and done on a large scale.


"Never has it been observed that life can come from non-life."

This is observed all the time, unless you want to claim an egg is "alive"?

Hans
02-04-2014, 10:26 PM
Tell me what the differences are and tell me how they came about.

Those skeletons all look almost identical!!!

They came about from evolutionary changes, and if you remember we discussed before how evolution is mostly about small changes over a long period of time.
So it is normal they look almost identical. But that does not mean they are.

The Berean
02-04-2014, 10:28 PM
"There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code."

I suggest you look up the term "genetic engineering". There's a whole field of research where they genetically manipulate cells in order to produce cells with certain desirable qualities.
We also have genetic altered crops used in our food chain.
so I believe the process is well observed and documented, and done on a large scale.

Thank you SO much for the admission that SOMEBODY had to do it!!!! :) :) :)


"Never has it been observed that life can come from non-life."

This is observed all the time, unless you want to claim an egg is "alive"?

It isn't ?? Interesting. I once read that a scientist can assemble all the chemicals and structure of an egg, but it will never hatch!!!

The Berean
02-04-2014, 10:29 PM
They came about from evolutionary changes, and if you remember we discussed before how evolution is mostly about small changes over a long period of time.
So it is normal they look almost identical. But that does not mean they are.

Circular reasoning. Thank you.

Hans
02-04-2014, 10:29 PM
Thank you SO much for the admission that SOMEBODY had to do it!!!! :) :) :)

Yes, we perform genetic engineering all the time. Never heard of genetic engineered corn crops?

It isn't ?? Interesting. I once read that a scientist can assemble all the chemicals and structure of an egg, but it will never hatch!!!

So you are saying an egg is alive?

Well, I guess somehow my answer got inside your quotes.

Hans
02-04-2014, 10:31 PM
Circular reasoning. Thank you.

How would you explain it?

The Berean
02-05-2014, 09:53 AM
So you are saying an egg is alive?

Well, I guess somehow my answer got inside your quotes.

I see no problem with my post. It's easy to split your comments like that.

As to an egg being alive, if it wasn't it could not then be part of a new creature.

Hans
02-05-2014, 06:48 PM
I see no problem with my post. It's easy to split your comments like that.

As to an egg being alive, if it wasn't it could not then be part of a new creature.

So, an egg is a life form?

The Berean
02-05-2014, 08:47 PM
So, an egg is a life form?

Let me put it this way. Can a dead egg, combined with a sperm, reproduce??

hobo
02-06-2014, 09:10 AM
Let me put it this way. Can a dead egg, combined with a sperm, reproduce??

What is a dead egg?

The Berean
02-06-2014, 09:53 AM
What is a dead egg?

What is a live egg?

hobo
02-06-2014, 10:33 AM
What is a live egg?

Living things are those that display the following characteristics

an organized structure, being made up of a cell or cells
requires energy to survive or sustain existence
ability to reproduce
ability to grow
ability to metabolize
ability to respond to stimuli
ability to adapt to the environment
ability to move
ability to respire
Except for the ability to move, which neither a fertilized or unfertilized egg does, I would call both live eggs. (I am thinking of a chicken egg) If an egg were dead it could not become alive unless it was a zombie egg.
An unfertilized egg can produce life by means of cloning but without the essence of life I am not sure if cloning is possible.

The Berean
02-06-2014, 04:44 PM
...Except for the ability to move, which neither a fertilized or unfertilized egg does, I would call both live eggs. ....

Live yes, I agree. But not life forms. BTW, a sperm can move, but still does not quite qualify as a life form. Live, yes.

Hans
02-06-2014, 07:20 PM
What would be the difference between live and life forms?

Bluesky
02-06-2014, 09:47 PM
What is the point of this discussion?
Of course a fertilized egg is a living thing.

The Berean
02-06-2014, 10:45 PM
What is the point of this discussion?
Of course a fertilized egg is a living thing.

It started with this statement: ""Never has it been observed that life can come from non-life."

A fertilized egg is a life form. An unfertilized egg, like a sperm, is life. maybe that's the difference.

But the statement remains true.

Hans
02-07-2014, 06:17 AM
I never mentioned a fertilized egg. All I asked was if an egg is alive, as in the unfertilized egg.
And now we got to the point in the discussion where we ponder the difference between live and a life form.

Bluesky
02-07-2014, 09:51 AM
Hans - the master of death by 1000 qualifications.

Aristotle
02-07-2014, 10:05 AM
Hans - the master of death by 1000 qualifications.

could be worse ways to go, I suppose.

The Left Sock
02-07-2014, 07:30 PM
Hans - the master of death by 1000 qualifications.

More like 'master of dulling threads to death' with inane, pointless questions that just lead to more questions.

It's why I gave up even trying to engage. Goes nowhere.