Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by timebombted
You are correct and what you describe is called an exaptation.

"Exaptation" is a new word for me, so I looked it up:

"Exaptation, cooption, and preadaptation are related terms referring to shifts in the function of a trait during evolution. For example, a trait can evolve because it served one particular function, but subsequently it may come to serve another. Exaptations are common in both anatomy and behavior. Bird feathers are a classic example: initially these evolved for temperature regulation, but later were adapted for flight. Interest in exaptation relates to both the process and product of evolution: the process that creates complex traits and the product that may be imperfectly designed."

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"Exaptation" is a new word for me, so I looked it up:

"Exaptation, cooption, and preadaptation are related terms referring to shifts in the function of a trait during evolution. For example, a trait can evolve because it served one particular function, but subsequently it may come to serve another. Exaptations are common in both anatomy and behavior. B ...[text shortened]... : the process that creates complex traits and the product that may be imperfectly designed."

Seems to be a pretty good definition, I would also include exaptations are common at the molecular level in that statement.

Originally posted by amannion
No, this is wrong.
It assumes that only a proper working eye is useful to the creature that has one and that anything short of that is useless.
There are many examples of living creatures that make do with eyes or similar organs that are only partially working by our standards.

Really, exactly what turns something that isn't an eye into an
pitifully working eye that transfers information so that it can be
used as an eye? This is the topic of discussion, I understand that
a light sensitive cell is one thing, and that could be something
that gets effected by light; however, as you pointed out that is
not seeing. I can have a skin cell get affected by light as I get
sun burned, that doesn't put an eye on my shoulder.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
It's entirely different.
Saying god did it ends any argument or discussion.
Saying evolution did it simply starts the discussion as yours and my posts indicate.
I don't know the steps involved, nor am I sure that anyone does. And yes, I place my faith in evolution as a process that will give us the answer to this and other questions of the development of life. But it's an entirely different faith to a faith in god.

They are so close to the same I'm not sure why you don't see it.
God did it, has the how or whys He did that keeps the discussion going.
Evoution did it, that keeps the how and whys it happen going.

Credit seems to be given to both without evidence, and assumptions
are made right off the bat that there is something around us that will
show us what we think we should see. Things automatically start to
get looked at in a specific light, the light of creation or the light of
evolution and attempts at connecting the dots to make that view fit
reality is done all the time.

I'd would agree with you that they were not the same if it were not for
the common view that evolution, is just simply true and real and must
be given credit for all life as we see it. The very thought it may not
be the answer draws remarks like anit-science and worse from those
that 'believe' it is the only answer.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
KJ - your statement regarding "just a bunch of maybe" with regards to your opinion on the evolution of the eye is completely unsubstantiated. If you want the truth have a serious read of the literature before you make wild statements like this. You get more pathetic each day with your tiresome and obtuse posts.

If you truely want to learn about the ev ...[text shortened]... then lets do that. It will certainly be more constructive than your continual obtuse manner.

No I don't want to link or a book reference, I'm here to discuss this
with you and others, who seem to spend more time blowing off
questions and not being able to carry on a discussion without insulting
me like using words like "pathetic" if you could just stick to the topic
and leave the personal out of this that would be a good thing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your countless generations do not add strength to your position it
weakens it! In complex systems with life you'd have to have several
different things, like the various parts of the eye forming not only
separately but independently as well, so things like the connections
to brain could be forming without maybe even a brain there to
connect too, the wa ...[text shortened]... would remain
true until the eye is formed, you’d have a bunch of extra useless parts.
Kelly

I think it strengthens the case, because it allows us to understand the beautiful simplicity and total pitilessness of evolution. In every generation all creatures die, every one.

As your creatures with eyes instead of heart (let's ignore the speed of change here) are born, does the eye present the creature, on average, with an advantage, or a hinderence? We know that now, our ancestors with two eyes and one heart had the advantage - perhaps by luck, but on average because of the genetic makeup.

As your creature with an eyelid in it's cheek develops (leaving aside the reasons and speed of such a development), what are the advantages of such a feature? We know from human psycological studies that we have some rather deep seated preferences for beautiful people - flawless is the ideal, healthy mate is better. Why? Evolution made us prefer healthy mates. Why? Because those who do not :- perform worse, die out quicker etc etc.

So your strange creatures will exist, but every generation the more abnormal stand less chance...

Originally posted by KellyJay
They are so close to the same I'm not sure why you don't see it.
God did it, has the how or whys He did that keeps the discussion going.
Evoution did it, that keeps the how and whys it happen going.

Credit seems to be given to both without evidence, and assumptions
are made right off the bat that there is something around us that will
show us what we ...[text shortened]... emarks like anit-science and worse from those
that 'believe' it is the only answer.
Kelly

No I'm sorry they are not the same.
One resorts to supernatural explanation - apologies for offence here, but god is in the same boat as the easter bunny and fairies in the garden. We can believe in them, but we can never prove or disprove them.
Evolution is a scientific model. As such we can certainly demonstrate that it is false - simply by finding counter evidence. If you can demonstrate for example, that the human eye did not evolve, then this will disprove the model.
I cannot do the same for god. I can neither prove nor disprove it.
That is an entirely different type of explanation.

I certainly take your point, I make a huge assumption - that is, that evolution is correct and therefore any explanation for the development of the eye must fall within the bounds of the evolutionary model. I accept that.
I also accept that I may be wrong.
But, the weight of evidence for the scientific modelling of the universe, the weight of evidence for evolution as a correct model for the development of life, and the rough sketch of possible intermediate steps leading towards the eye that we have, are enough to convince me.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"Exaptation" is a new word for me, so I looked it up:

"Exaptation, cooption, and preadaptation are related terms referring to shifts in the function of a trait during evolution. For example, a trait can evolve because it served one particular function, but subsequently it may come to serve another. Exaptations are common in both anatomy and behavior. B ...[text shortened]... : the process that creates complex traits and the product that may be imperfectly designed."

Come to RHP, and expand your vocabulary for the day! Good stuff.

Originally posted by amannion
No I'm sorry they are not the same.
One resorts to supernatural explanation - apologies for offence here, but god is in the same boat as the easter bunny and fairies in the garden. We can believe in them, but we can never prove or disprove them.
Evolution is a scientific model. As such we can certainly demonstrate that it is false - simply by finding coun ...[text shortened]... of possible intermediate steps leading towards the eye that we have, are enough to convince me.

I am not speaking of how different or the same they are, rather how
they are viewed. To accept the notion of that evolution is true
presupposes all of the questions like the evolution of the eye are
true, evolution did it, and it keeps people from looking at it with the
mindset this may or may not be true, instead those that hold to the
view that evolution explains it all just assumes the answers are there
and will accept that notion until someone comes up with an reason just
good enough to be plausible and call it done the proof is there it
does not matter if it really is or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
No I'm sorry they are not the same.
One resorts to supernatural explanation - apologies for offence here, but god is in the same boat as the easter bunny and fairies in the garden. We can believe in them, but we can never prove or disprove them.
Evolution is a scientific model. As such we can certainly demonstrate that it is false - simply by finding coun ...[text shortened]... of possible intermediate steps leading towards the eye that we have, are enough to convince me.

I also disagree with you on the weight of evidence, it is filled with many
presupposed assumptions I do not believe it is a clear cut as you
and others here say it is. The starting point alone where did everything
come from for me has never been answered by those that promote
evolution, and that is where creationist and many evolutionist part
company. It isn't the process or time so much, since I believe in the
process, and time doesn't really matter.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I also disagree with you on the weight of evidence, it is filled with many
presupposed assumptions I do not believe it is a clear cut as you
and others here say it is. The starting point alone where did everything
come from for me has never been answered by those that promote
evolution, and that is where creationist and many evolutionist part
company. ocess or time so much, since I believe in the
process, and time doesn't really matter.
Kelly

…The STARTING point alone where did everything come from for me has never been answered by those that promote evolution…(my emphasis)

Evolution is not a theory of how life got “STARTED” -it is a theory of how life diversified into many forms from generally simpler forms. Therefore, those that believe evolution do not require to give an explanation of how life got started to logically justify their belief that evolution is correct -they only have to point out the existence of ONLY the relevant evidence.

To criticize those that believe evolution because they don’t explain how it started is as illogical as (and logically flawed for the same reason as) to criticize those that believe the Earth rotates in the direction it does because they don’t explain how that rotation got started.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The STARTING point alone where did everything come from for me has never been answered by those that promote evolution…(my emphasis)

Evolution is not a theory of how life got “STARTED” -it is a theory of how life diversified into many forms from generally simpler forms. Therefore, those that believe evolution do not require to give an expl ...[text shortened]... Earth rotates in the direction it does because they don’t explain how that rotation got started.[/b]

If you cannot begin a process, why bother worrying about if it works or not the
way you are suggesting it should? I acknowledge changes in process and we can
call those changes evolution, but at what point did this begin? We disagree on
that topic, since I believe life did not start in some prehistoric soup somewhere
and over time because the variety we see today, I believe the process was started
with fully intact species and we got variety of simpler species through time
with what we call evolution. So criticizing those that don’t want to address the
beginning of the process is justified in my opinion, if you don’t know how it
started the foundation of everything else is in question.

I’d also point out creation is bad mouthed endlessly here, yet there is nothing
anyone brings to the table actually addresses that topic with something we
could call a comparable theory for the beginning of all things.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot begin a process, why bother worrying about if it works or not the
way you are suggesting it should?y

So if you don't know how something began why bother trying to find out how it works? That's ridiculous and I sincerely hope that's not what you are suggesting.

We don't exactly know what gravity is, but we can still study what it does and what its effects are.

We don't know exactly how life began, but we can still study and find out how it evolves.

Abiogenesis is the most recent theory about how life began and I know little about it and there isn't as of yet as much evidence as there is for evolution, but they're building. It also does not mean that a cell just popped into existence.

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

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot begin a process, why bother worrying about if it works or not the
way you are suggesting it should? I acknowledge changes in process and we can
call those changes evolution, but at what point did this begin? We disagree on
that topic, since I believe life did not start in some prehistoric soup somewhere
and over time because the variety we ...[text shortened]... topic with something we
could call a comparable theory for the beginning of all things.
Kelly

…If you cannot begin a process, why bother WORRYING about if it works or not the way you are suggesting it should?y
…(my emphasis)

That is a rather absurd suggestion all-round.

For a start, I am not exactly “WORRYING” about it -thats if you are implying I have some kind of mysterious anxiety about it. I am “fascinated” by it. I find the ideas of how evolution works to be a very fascinating topic.

Secondly, how does it logically follow from: “not knowing how a process started” that: “you should not “WORRY” about it? Lets say I am up a mountain and I see an avalanche coming down towards me. Should I try to analyse it and its most likely route it will take in order to work out which way to run to maximise my chances to avoid it? Or should I just stand there and let myself be hit and killed by it because I should not “WORRY” about it because I don’t know how it began?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
should I just stand there and let myself be hit and killed

That depends upon your relationship with Allah