Originally posted by HalitoseTut tut tut. You really have lost it haven't you old chap? If you listen to Gould's arguments properly you'll come to realise that "quickly" may be 10,000 years or more. Likewise, with Darwin, 10,000 years is a long time, and thus "slowly".
[b]In fact, PE was in [the] Darwinian model all the time.
All the time? You sure?
For a Darwiniac, it's a shame you don't read your own "holy book". Here's what ol' Chuck had say:
[i]On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few ...[text shortened]... ined this to you before.[/b]
There was no point... it was pure unadulterated sarcasm.[/b]
Originally posted by amannionOf course there are. Things that require a great "jump", such as the randon evolution of wheels are very unlikely. Anything that cannot make sense in a cost benefit scenario at every stage in its evolution cannot evolve.
Flagship of modern science?
Hardly.
But interestingly there are some researchers suggesting that there may be constraints on what solutions the evolutionary process can come up with. Simon Conway-Morris (attacked by some) has suggested that a number of evolutionary adaptations are constrained to some degree or another - not that they are preconceived, b ...[text shortened]... solving a particular problem, there are limits on what solutions natural selection can produce.
Originally posted by HalitoseAh, such a theist - attempts to twist and pervert every analogy.
[b]Tell me, do you need to join every dot up in a dot-to-dot puzzle before you can see the picture?
I wouldn't use that analogy if I were you: dot-to-dot puzzles are based on preconceived ideas and concepts -- that's why the "picture" is easy to envision. You don't want the flagship of modern science to be accused of the same, do you?[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes true, but even given your cost-benefit analysis there are a huge range of possble solutions to any particular problem.
Of course there are. Things that require a great "jump", such as the randon evolution of wheels are very unlikely. Anything that cannot make sense in a cost benefit scenario at every stage in its evolution cannot evolve.
Conway Morris is suggesting that the actual solutions available to evolutionary processes are significantly smaller.
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut 10,000 years is longer than the Earth has been around!!
Tut tut tut. You really have lost it haven't you old chap? If you listen to Gould's arguments properly you'll come to realise that "quickly" may be 10,000 years or more. Likewise, with Darwin, 10,000 years is a long time, and thus "slowly".
Originally posted by HalitoseThe dot-to-dot analogy came about because Freaky claimed that joining the dots can only be done on faith. In other words his claim is that if you see a relationship between two facts then you can never be certain that the relationship actually exists or is just your imagination and therefore is just faith. I dispute that and claim that if the dots are clearly labeled with numbers 1 to 100 and joining them in sequence results in a recognizable picture then you can be sufficiently certain that there is a relationship between the dots that you would no longer call it 'faith'. If you then publish your resulting picture (pier review) and a large number of well educated people (scientists) agree that you have joined the dots in the only way that makes sense and that the resulting picture is meaningful, and nobody is able to give a valid reason why your dot-joining is wrong, and further you predict that all the other pictures in the book can be completed in the same way and it is shown to be true, then you can safely call your hypothesis a Theory and in my opinion it has by this time entered the realm of fact and left the realm of faith and the implied guesswork far behind.
[b]Tell me, do you need to join every dot up in a dot-to-dot puzzle before you can see the picture?
I wouldn't use that analogy if I were you: dot-to-dot puzzles are based on preconceived ideas and concepts -- that's why the "picture" is easy to envision. You don't want the flagship of modern science to be accused of the same, do you?[/b]
Originally posted by amannionYou read Dennett's book "darwin's Dangerous Idea", right?
Yes true, but even given your cost-benefit analysis there are a huge range of possble solutions to any particular problem.
Conway Morris is suggesting that the actual solutions available to evolutionary processes are significantly smaller.
Originally posted by amannionYour point kind of reminds me of his dissection of the different levels at which things must be possible, or likely. Conway-Moris is right, in that evolution is constrained by what is physically possible, but also by what is likely. For example, it's possible to have a cyclical respiratory system, like birds, but it's unlikely to arrise in mammals - we've climbed the mountain of lung development too high to find a plateau that will allow us to traverse to the avian system.
Yep.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI particularly liked his analysis of terrestrial chlorophyll types, showing that none of the existing types is able to catch the wavelengths of maximum solar radiation, and suggesting that these types of chlorophyll may resemble any found in other parts of the universe.
Your point kind of reminds me of his dissection of the different levels at which things must be possible, or likely. Conway-Moris is right, in that evolution is constrained by what is physically possible, but also by what is likely. For example, it's possible to have a cyclical respiratory system, like birds, but it's unlikely to arrise in mammals - w ...[text shortened]... ng development too high to find a plateau that will allow us to traverse to the avian system.
Originally posted by PenguinGravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
No freaky, I think the point was that there is a [b]theory of gravity and a theory of evolution. Neither has been (or can be) ultimately proven but both could (at least theoretically) be disproved if they were wrong and both are extremely well supported by all the available evidence. If one is called a fairy story then so should the other.
Why is only one of them criticised by creationists?[/b]
As far as I am aware, the above formula represents one of the common forces, the law of gravity. Demonstrable by anyone gifted with say, a coin.
What formula are you suggesting most accurately describes natural selection?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat's Newton's Law of Gravitation. However, the Theory of General Relativity gives Gravity a full treatment despite not having a underlying single equation.
Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
As far as I am aware, the above formula represents one of the common forces, the law of gravity. Demonstrable by anyone gifted with say, a coin.
What formula are you suggesting most accurately describes natural selection?
You do know what makes the distinction between a Theory and a Law don't you? The latter can be expressed as a formula, the former cannot. That's the only difference.