19th December 2005, 4:53 AM
Okay let's go to back to this subject.
Let's display the theory:
All living things mutate randomly and without purpose over time. The mutations that benefit the animal stay, while nonbeneficial mutations are weeded out through natural selection.
That is the theory presented. And you are using this to describe how all evolution works. I have no intention of trying to get you to see it my way or have an understanding from my perspective, do not think for a moment that you have proved anything to me either. You are stagnant and refuse to answer your own questions.
...what?
Yes, they will have two eyes. very good. Now explain why all mammals, lizards, raptors, etc evolved eyes on the side of their head or eyes in the front. You're going to say 'They mutated and caught on" to which I will say "If this is true, then mutation is boundless and cause any radical changes in any gene it wants" When this is known not to be true.
I am arguing that mutation is not the cause of evolution but an effect of it. The alligator will have to change its way of life in order to change its structure. The alligator remains unchanged for millions of years and yet the only differences that are found are regional based on particular hunting patterns, nutrition and environmental differences. Based on your 'mutation is random' scenario, we would have some record of all species on this planet going through major and distinct changes such as a carnivore with 2-D vision which does not exist. We do have records of herbivores with 3-D vision (Koalas) but in every single case these animals have no large predatory threat or need 3-D vision in other apsects of its life (climbing trees). Further more, using your random idea, how is it that an animal on an island continent mutated itself a pouch to hold its young while other animals on other continents in completely different circumstances (some are predatory/carivorous, some are nocturnal, etc) still manage to come up with the same idea? Please explain to me how in a completely random event did we evolve special flaps of fluid around our eyes during the ice age? You simply do not see a much larger picture.
Dawkins is an unfortunately an idiot, not only does he base his work on other people without permission or atleast credit, he's also hell-bent on denouncing anything that has anything to do with the idea of any kind of higher power or that anything is beyond the reach of man. He was big in the 70's and i've read all his books years ago. His big claim to fame was a theory that all people are inherently evil and want to kill eachother over ideals. big discovery there. I completely agree with his views on natural selection, in fact it's proven. But to buy in to HIS ideal, you have to assume that mutation is random which is just dumb. Again, if it were, you would think that after a total of 4 million years you would see some human beings that dont look like human beings, whether they died without offspring or not.
......you're using conversations about CD's and the NES zapper to.... stregthen your claims of mutation?
1.) The pits are of different lengths, perhaps you didn't know this or I didn't explain it in enough (or too much) detail.
2.) Electrons create light, or more specifically, what cause light in a tube television. The gun would detect (like a camera) if it was looking at a white box or not. I only used the reference of electrons to be more technical. Though now that I think about it, i do remember reading up on why the zapper doesn't work on projection televisions and that one web page talked about the lack of electrons being shot at the screen and that's why it doesn't work. You are also wrong that electrons do not pass beyond the phosphurs, there's a reason your eye sight gets weaker and your skin takes on a pasty glow. Though it's probably more due to lack of physical activity and being a potato.
3.) Quoting a child-like view of evolution, admitting to not furthering your research and then bringing up past debates that have nothing to do with the current conversation only proves that this conversation is dead. As I have said many times, I am not your teacher, do the research yourself. If you choose not to do the research, than why am I talking to you in the first place? Did you go out and do any research on the structure of walking sticks and the how's and why's it evolved? did you find anything else out about cellular structure? I'm guessing no.
Say what you want, believe what you want (it means nothing to me). Just let me know when you deicde to actually do some research and create a better understanding of what you're talking about. It is amazing to me that you trying to persuade me to your views on a subject that has yet to be proven in HOW it works. We know it does, we see it. But we dont know how it does it, and you think you found the answer because you read a few web pages?
I dont see a reason to continue this dicussion if you're going to stay so closed minded and/or believe that you have found answers when the top minds of this entire century can only make working theories at best and out of all the working theories out there you choose the one with the most holes as your strongest opinion? Gosh! You have sucked all the fun out of this DJ.
Let's display the theory:
All living things mutate randomly and without purpose over time. The mutations that benefit the animal stay, while nonbeneficial mutations are weeded out through natural selection.
That is the theory presented. And you are using this to describe how all evolution works. I have no intention of trying to get you to see it my way or have an understanding from my perspective, do not think for a moment that you have proved anything to me either. You are stagnant and refuse to answer your own questions.
Quote:Why do you think I didn't bother doing research?
...what?
Quote:Since all mammels have a common ancestor, and that ancestor had two eyes, it FOLLOWS that our eyes are going to be very similar across species.
Yes, they will have two eyes. very good. Now explain why all mammals, lizards, raptors, etc evolved eyes on the side of their head or eyes in the front. You're going to say 'They mutated and caught on" to which I will say "If this is true, then mutation is boundless and cause any radical changes in any gene it wants" When this is known not to be true.
Quote:The idea that all creatures are going to "mutate" at will is what you are arguing.
I am arguing that mutation is not the cause of evolution but an effect of it. The alligator will have to change its way of life in order to change its structure. The alligator remains unchanged for millions of years and yet the only differences that are found are regional based on particular hunting patterns, nutrition and environmental differences. Based on your 'mutation is random' scenario, we would have some record of all species on this planet going through major and distinct changes such as a carnivore with 2-D vision which does not exist. We do have records of herbivores with 3-D vision (Koalas) but in every single case these animals have no large predatory threat or need 3-D vision in other apsects of its life (climbing trees). Further more, using your random idea, how is it that an animal on an island continent mutated itself a pouch to hold its young while other animals on other continents in completely different circumstances (some are predatory/carivorous, some are nocturnal, etc) still manage to come up with the same idea? Please explain to me how in a completely random event did we evolve special flaps of fluid around our eyes during the ice age? You simply do not see a much larger picture.
Dawkins is an unfortunately an idiot, not only does he base his work on other people without permission or atleast credit, he's also hell-bent on denouncing anything that has anything to do with the idea of any kind of higher power or that anything is beyond the reach of man. He was big in the 70's and i've read all his books years ago. His big claim to fame was a theory that all people are inherently evil and want to kill eachother over ideals. big discovery there. I completely agree with his views on natural selection, in fact it's proven. But to buy in to HIS ideal, you have to assume that mutation is random which is just dumb. Again, if it were, you would think that after a total of 4 million years you would see some human beings that dont look like human beings, whether they died without offspring or not.
Quote:it's happened when I tried explaining how optical disks work (they only have "pit" or "not a pit" status, not multiple gradients of levels). It's happened when I tried explaining how a light gun works (no, they don't actually detect the electrons, that's physically impossible because the electrons are absorbed by the phosphors coating the screen, which release LIGHT as the reaction, plus the reason the tube in a CTR screen is a vacuum is because air would scatter the electrons anyway, so even if they did get past the screen, they would never reach your eyes). And now, it's happened with the method of introducing new genes into the process of natural selection.
......you're using conversations about CD's and the NES zapper to.... stregthen your claims of mutation?
1.) The pits are of different lengths, perhaps you didn't know this or I didn't explain it in enough (or too much) detail.
2.) Electrons create light, or more specifically, what cause light in a tube television. The gun would detect (like a camera) if it was looking at a white box or not. I only used the reference of electrons to be more technical. Though now that I think about it, i do remember reading up on why the zapper doesn't work on projection televisions and that one web page talked about the lack of electrons being shot at the screen and that's why it doesn't work. You are also wrong that electrons do not pass beyond the phosphurs, there's a reason your eye sight gets weaker and your skin takes on a pasty glow. Though it's probably more due to lack of physical activity and being a potato.
3.) Quoting a child-like view of evolution, admitting to not furthering your research and then bringing up past debates that have nothing to do with the current conversation only proves that this conversation is dead. As I have said many times, I am not your teacher, do the research yourself. If you choose not to do the research, than why am I talking to you in the first place? Did you go out and do any research on the structure of walking sticks and the how's and why's it evolved? did you find anything else out about cellular structure? I'm guessing no.
Say what you want, believe what you want (it means nothing to me). Just let me know when you deicde to actually do some research and create a better understanding of what you're talking about. It is amazing to me that you trying to persuade me to your views on a subject that has yet to be proven in HOW it works. We know it does, we see it. But we dont know how it does it, and you think you found the answer because you read a few web pages?
I dont see a reason to continue this dicussion if you're going to stay so closed minded and/or believe that you have found answers when the top minds of this entire century can only make working theories at best and out of all the working theories out there you choose the one with the most holes as your strongest opinion? Gosh! You have sucked all the fun out of this DJ.