06 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustwatch the movie deevolution, explains how stupid the human race are in todays evolved society.
I think your timeframe is a bit short.
Faith has been around for at least 5000 years.
Christianity, in spite of a few hiccups like Copernicus and Luther, hasn't changed fundamentally in the last five hundred.
I doubt whether the basics will change much during the next thousand.
07 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaYou didn't get the gist of my post. I said 'interesting choice of name' because you clearly worship him, enough to take his nametag for your second appearance here. Why did you abandon your first name here?
Cremo has travelled the world investigating all archaeological sites and has seen all the evidence first hand (or lack of)
You cannot attempt to discredit this person just because he has revealed the truth of modern archaeological methods as dubious because its like not trusting your doctor for telling you that you have a cancer.
Michael Cremo will tell i ...[text shortened]... verything first hand and has seen other artefacts that the world has not been privileged to see.
07 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHi Twhitehead,
I see that you are having another freezing weekend in Cape Town - hope the cold front dissipates a bit before it reaches Pretoria.
In general, I have no problems with your basic premises, here are some comments, though:
Theory of Evolution
Sure, one can't put it in a sentence or phrase - it covers a lot of separate subjects. Yes, it includes the postulation of a common ancestor for all life, etc etc. My main point was merely to separate the ToE from the Theory of ORIGIN of life, as you also have pointed out. The two are distinct and separate. We agree on this.
Reproduction: Remember that sexual reproduction probably originated in single celled life forms. 'pregnancy' would be the wrong term altogether. Simply not knowing how sexual reproduction started is not a 'difficulty' for the Theory of Evolution
Maybe I did not make myself clear enough. This one is most definitely a difficult nut to crack, not quite as simplistic as you make out - even Francis Collins admits that we do not as yet have an adequate answer. Let me try to explain a bit more:
All successful evolutionary developments can be traced along a line - small changes caused by copying errors, followed by survival of those that provide survival benefits (OK so far?) So, to follow the development of, say, feathers and wings, we would have to be able to place into a "line of progression" (my term) all the minute changes progressively so that each provides advantages and finally end up in something else. (And which, I hasten to add, scientists are right now busy doing with exactly such things as feathers. And, also, which is still proceeding and may end up in what we know not yet! I am NOT using this as an argument for ID and "Irreduceable Complexity"😉.
Coming now to reproduction: we see in nature very many, maybe hundreds, different modes of reproduction, starting with (as you rightly say) unicellular division. Some of these are non-sexual, some are unisexual, the whole gamut is mindblowing.
However, here's the rub: Each of these must have developed from something else before it, all the way back to the single cell. But how could one even theoretically postulate intermediate stages to such changes? For example, IF mammalian bisexual reproduction developed from something like egg-laying reptiles (which I DON'T say it did, but merely for the sake of this argument! You could postulate any one of another myriad models) then how did the first mammalian embryo get formed? What could possibly have been any one of the many intermediate stages? Can one even theoretically try to describe what it COULD have been?
This is why I said "you cannot be half-pregnant!"
Btw, Richard Dawkins wrote a popular treatise on the "Chicken and Egg" problem: what came first? His conclusion (very unsatisfactory, I have to say) was that it must have been a chicken that laid the first egg. Which is a HUGE step from whatever birthed that chicken, out of something that was NOT an egg!
I cannot explain this problem any clearer, and if you still don't see it, then I can't help it.
Let me close by saying that I do not see this as an insurmountable problem totally disproving the ToE, because, as I said before, there are many other pointers that are very convincing, and I have no doubt that we will be surprised by the answer when we finally get it!
However, what I DO say by this argument is that there are still many serious questions to be answered. The Creationists still have some very serious guns in their armory which we should not ridicule.
I recently had a discussion with a 14 year old boy who claimed that the Pyramids were conclusive proof that God exists, because he can't think of any other explanation for how they were built. Such obviously flawed thinking is surprisingly common.
Frankly, I'm surprised that you end your argument with such an amusing anecdote, as if this in any way applies to what I said (in which case, I take it as an insult! 😉 ) Many people hold crazy and infantile ideas, on both sides of all fences, but let's stick to a serious discussion.
Finally, I hope you enjoy your weekend. No weather for the beach, granted, so OK to spend it in front of your warm computer! I'm going to a braai, back around 18:00 to see if you're still there.
In peace
CJ
07 Aug 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSorry, you are also missing the entire point!
The discussion about how the sexes evolved is an interesting one but not really relevant for the validity of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution depends on a few core concepts, and it would be still be valid had the sexes never evolved at all.
Nobody is (in this instance) arguing about the validity of the ToE - it is accepted!
The only point I am making is that GIVEN the ToE, how does the ToE explain the origins of reproduction?
Of course it would still be valid even without sexes. That was never the issue.
It is merely to me a mental challenge to figure out HOW it could have happened. Clearly, there are many people who are not bothered with such small details, and call it "interesting, but not really relevant"...
07 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustHmm. Well, there are two aspects about evolution.
Sorry, you are also missing the entire point!
Nobody is (in this instance) arguing about the validity of the ToE - it is accepted!
The only point I am making is that GIVEN the ToE, how does the ToE explain the origins of reproduction?
Of course it would still be valid even without sexes. That was never the issue.
It is merely to me a mental chall ...[text shortened]... re not bothered with such small details, and call it "interesting, but not really relevant"...
A) The core concepts of evolution; reproduction, mutation and natural selection. Nothing much to debate here, everyone with the ability to read will accept these.
B) The history of evolution.
Obviously a lot less is known and certain about B). How did sexual reproduction evolve? Presumably sexual reproduction evolved from non-sexually reproducing lifeforms. A possible mechanism for this is for the possibility of sexual reproduction to arise alongside non-sexual reproduction. At first there would be only very small differences between the sexes, but after some time one could imagine the possibility for non-sexual reproduction to disappear and the differences between the sexes to enlarge.
07 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustThis is an interesting question. I've done a bit of reading around, and it seems to me that the theory 'viral eukaryogenesis' proposes an elegant explanation.
Sorry, you are also missing the entire point!
Nobody is (in this instance) arguing about the validity of the ToE - it is accepted!
The only point I am making is that GIVEN the ToE, how does the ToE explain the origins of reproduction?
Of course it would still be valid even without sexes. That was never the issue.
It is merely to me a mental chall ...[text shortened]... re not bothered with such small details, and call it "interesting, but not really relevant"...
07 Aug 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHi PhD student in pysics,
How did sexual reproduction evolve? Presumably sexual reproduction evolved from non-sexually reproducing lifeforms.
That much is clear. Non-sex came first.
At first there would be only very small differences between the sexes, but after some time one could imagine the possibility for non-sexual reproduction to disappear
Can't you see that this is just a string of meaningless words?!
In this long line of "very small differences", one stage, let's call it stage N, a "female" for the very first time lays and "egg".
What does Stage N-1 look like? Remember, this "female" was not born from an egg......
Let's call off this whole thing.
If the best brains in Biology cannot solve this problem, why should RHP posters be able to do so? What just totally frustrates me, is that people trivialise this issue and say silly things like the above.
ðŸ˜
07 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJust[/b]The N-1 stage is without sexes. I don't see the issue, really.
Hi PhD student in pysics,
[b]How did sexual reproduction evolve? Presumably sexual reproduction evolved from non-sexually reproducing lifeforms.
That much is clear. Non-sex came first.
At first there would be only very small differences between the sexes, but after some time one could imagine the possibility for non-sexual reproduction to dis s me, is that people trivialise this issue and say silly things like the above.
ðŸ˜
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction
07 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustI fully agree the it may be difficult to figure out how sexual reproduction began. But our ignorance of the matter and our difficulty in correcting that ignorance does not, in any way, reflect badly on the Theory of Evolution. As I stated earlier, the only way it would have a negative impact on the Theory of Evolution is if we were not ignorant, but rather had significant knowledge of the subject to the extent that we could prove that it couldn't have happened via evolutionary processes.
This one is most definitely a difficult nut to crack, not quite as simplistic as you make out - even Francis Collins admits that we do not as yet have an adequate answer.
All successful evolutionary developments can be traced along a line - small changes caused by copying errors, followed by survival of those that provide survival benefits (OK so far?)
Actually it can get more complicated than that. Genes often get transferred horizontally from species to species, and some changes are quite major. Many specification events involve the addition or loss of whole chromosomes, and in some cases the doubling of all chromosomes. And then there is hybridization which involves significant portions of two species being combined.
In the world of single celled life forms, which is where sexual reproduction began, there was even cases of one life form being absorbed into another to create part of the cellular machinery.
However, here's the rub: Each of these must have developed from something else before it, all the way back to the single cell. But how could one even theoretically postulate intermediate stages to such changes? For example, IF mammalian bisexual reproduction developed from something like egg-laying reptiles (which I DON'T say it did, but merely for the sake of this argument! You could postulate any one of another myriad models) then how did the first mammalian embryo get formed? What could possibly have been any one of the many intermediate stages? Can one even theoretically try to describe what it COULD have been?
Yes, of course on can theoretically try to describe what it COULD have been. In fact, we have living examples of intermediate stages (marsupials).
This is why I said "you cannot be half-pregnant!"
But then your comment really had nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of sexual reproduction, which as I already said, would have happened in unicellular life.
Btw, Richard Dawkins wrote a popular treatise on the "Chicken and Egg" problem: what came first? His conclusion (very unsatisfactory, I have to say) was that it must have been a chicken that laid the first egg.
I think you must have misread him. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the egg came first, unless you specify that the egg must be a chicken egg.
I cannot explain this problem any clearer, and if you still don't see it, then I can't help it.
You are explaining a whole host of problems, all of which are nothing more than things that we may be currently ignorant of, and not things that are impossible or that we think may be explainable.
However, what I DO say by this argument is that there are still many serious questions to be answered. The Creationists still have some very serious guns in their armory which we should not ridicule.
And I disagree. I do not think these question in any way reflect badly on the Theory of Evolution and I am yet to see any serious gun in the Creationists armory. What they do pull out most of the time usually deserves either education or ridicule depending on whether the poster is posting through ignorance or deliberately trying to create doubt through lies.
Frankly, I'm surprised that you end your argument with such an amusing anecdote, as if this in any way applies to what I said (in which case, I take it as an insult! 😉 ) Many people hold crazy and infantile ideas, on both sides of all fences, but let's stick to a serious discussion.
It was not meant to be insulting. I was pointing out that you are apparently making the argument that our lack of knowledge of how certain things evolved reflects badly on the theory of evolution. I am pointing out that such an argument is fundamentally flawed logic. We believe people built pyramids. We may not know how they did it, but until you can prove that humans at that time could not possibly have built them, it remains the most reasonable explanation. Anyone who says there are 'difficulties' when it comes to building pyramids with the technology available at the time and therefore concludes the influence of aliens, is making a logical error. Yet many people make that error. Don't even get me started on crop circles!
Finally, I hope you enjoy your weekend. No weather for the beach, granted, so OK to spend it in front of your warm computer!
Thanks for the good wishes, and the same to you. I took advantage of the cold weather and went ice skating.
07 Aug 11
Talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk..............
its very simple if you are honest.
Life comes from life.
Life does not come from non-life.
Trying to present that life comes from non-life is dishonest and not very intelligent.
Cheating science is based on a dishonest premise that life comes from non-life.
Then to explain this lie they talk talk talk talk talk talk nonsense.
07 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHi twhitehead, welcome back,
You said that I refer to a whole host of problems - let us focus on only one. I am taking this as a personal challenge to try to get understood, because I am still convinced that you are not actually understanding the point I am trying to make.
I said: What could possibly have been any one of the many intermediate stages? Can one even theoretically try to describe what it COULD have been?
You said: Yes, of course one can theoretically try to describe what it COULD have been. In fact, we have living examples of intermediate stages (marsupials).
It is true that marsupials can be imagined to be an "intermediate" stage between current mammals and some pre-mammalian stage.
Furthermore, the ongoing process of evolution my see them change into something else, hence they can be seen as "intermediary", I agree. But each baby marsupial has a mommy and daddy, and produces marsupial off-spring.
(The platypus may be an even better example of your "intermediate stage", but everything that I say below about marsupials would also apply to a platypus)
Now, within the large family of marsupials we have a wide variety of species: small, large, hairy, skinny, jumping, climbing, etc etc. It is easy to see how one kind could have developed from another due to environmental and genetic pressures. One could, in fact, construct a possible evolutionary tree for marsupials (and it probably has been done).
Now let us take the very first primordial marsupial, the guy (or gal) that first developed a pouch to place an underdeveloped fetus in.
How did THAT particular marsupial get born? Did it grow up in a pouch? No, of course not, because by definition I postulated that it was the first one!
You agree, of course, that there must have been a first one? If NOT, then this is the place to stop this discussion. If you do NOT believe that there was a first marsupial, do you say that there was a partial one, i.e. with only half a pouch?
So this is my question: It is easy to place SPECIES into a possible evolutionary tree, e.g. reptiles...marsupials....mammals (e.g., or any other sequence). But in any one reproductory system, (which must have appeared at one stage in the world's history), how did a specific type of organism have offspring that were not reproduced in the same way that IT was itself?
If you don't see the problem this time around, I will throw in the towel and give up!
If you do, and have an answer, I will be grateful!