|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:01 am Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
Snippet:
| Quote: |
Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.
In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea.
Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.
After scientists transplanted the reptiles, the Croatian War of Independence erupted, ending in the mid-1990s. The researchers couldn't get back to island because of the war, Irschick said.
In 2004, however, tourism began to open back up, allowing researchers access to the island laboratory.
"We didn't know if we would find a lizard there. We had no idea if the original introductions were successful," Irschick said.
What they found, however, was shocking. |
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mps1453
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: 2 |
|
|
Does this mean that the theory will become a law someday?
_________________
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:13 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
| i don't think evolution will ever become a law. being termed a theory doesn't makes it any less significant or useful, it just means it's less predictable. the theory of evolution is a guide, but the process is based on chance, whereas something that is a law should give the same results every time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mps1453
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
| worm wrote: |
| i don't think evolution will ever become a law. being termed a theory doesn't makes it any less significant or useful, it just means it's less predictable. the theory of evolution is a guide, but the process is based on chance, whereas something that is a law should give the same results every time. |
Good point 
_________________
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
Exactly. Evolution will always be a "theory", but that doesn't mean it's "unproven". It's just how science works. Being a "theory" doesn't mean "they're just guessing!"
That would be a hypothesis. But I'm preaching to the choir here.
At least I think I am. Any creationists in the audience tonight?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lostdummy
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: 6 |
|
|
Is it possible that new lizards just interbred with old lizards on island? After all, old lizards already were adapted to island/flowers/etc.
Of course, if they were different species (ie, could not interbreed), another option is that they evolved toward interbreeding instead of evolving new sets of organs ;p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
groza528
No Place Like Home
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| At least I think I am. Any creationists in the audience tonight? |
I'm a creationist, but I also believe in evolution. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lostdummy
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| groza528 wrote: |
| I'm a creationist, but I also believe in evolution. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. |
It probably depend on your definition of "creationism", but I believe that most common ones say that humans were created too, in which case it would be probably exclusive with evolution.
Some more broad definition of creationism can say that life was created (single cell or similar) and later evolved, or even more broadly that universe was created and later it continued without divine interventions (this one is hard to agrue against for evolutionists, but then i'm not sure that opposite for universe-creationist is universe-evolutionist ). Also, those broader definitions fall more into "intelligent design" than into creationism.
But I think that "standard" creationist would not agree with you if you say that you are creationist with those broader definitions ;p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
Evolution works like this: People are born different.
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:14 am Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Which people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wordcross
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: 11 |
|
|
The different ones, obviously.
_________________
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
groza528
No Place Like Home
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
I snagged this conversation from the Islam thread to respond without hijacking-- hope that's ok worm, Zag.
| Zag wrote: |
| worm wrote: |
| it's the in-between...how life started, how a collection of molecules could develop into "life"...this still seems very gray to me. |
I don't have any issue with anyone who finds the hand of God in this step, but do realize that it is entirely unnecessary. Given that there is a way to organize carbon, oxygen, etc. atoms such that they have a technique for "reproduction" (that is, duplicating the structure), then there is some tiny chance that they arrive in that arrangement from parts. It doesn't matter how small that chance is, as long as it is not zero. Given billions of planets in billions of galaxies in an infinity of universes, then it is guaranteed to happen somewhere. In all the places that it didn't happen, there is no one there to discuss why it didn't.
I am more inclined to see the hand of God in the creation of physical laws such that such an arrangement of atoms can exist at all. Not that I'm inclined to see the hand of God anywhere. |
This situation is precisely the camp I put myself in when I say evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.
To lostdummy:
If I understand correctly (and I may not) intelligent design is slightly more focused, e.g. "There must be a creator who intended for us to evolve opposable thumbs." I tend to think of it more as "There must be a creator who gave us the ability to adapt to our surroundings, whatever they may be." It's more of a feedback response than a feedforward, for those who know process controls.
Back to Zag:
I'm not exactly up to date on the latest in macrophysics, but I was unaware that there was any evidence for multiple universes, and without that nice infinity factor you're only in the 10 20 range, which I'm not convinced is enough.
I would also point out that complex molecules =/= life. There's no chemical difference between a living cell and a dead one, but there is clearly a difference and I suspect it's more than electric current. Until we know what it is, you can't compare reproduction to spontaneous molecule composure. The former generates life from existing life, which is certainly not the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
For the most part, "Intelligent Design" is nothing but PC-ish speak for "Creationism". Exact same meaning, friendlier sounding name with less negative connotation to it.
To *ME*, I see no reason why ID can't mean that God, the FSM, aliens, or whomever, guided evolution. But that's not what most of the supporters of "ID" mean. They mean basic vanilla Creationism - that all life appeared in Earth exactly as it is today.
I can't even fathom such a mindset. Evolution is so obvious that I can't picture just ignoring it. But that's just me.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| For the most part, "Intelligent Design" is nothing but PC-ish speak for "Creationism". Exact same meaning, friendlier sounding name with less negative connotation to it. |
i don't think it's really PC speak. i believe intelligent design is a specific argument that some creationists use to support their beliefs. e.g. "the human eyeball is so complicated, it couldn't have just come about by chance".
i would consider any ID supporter to be a creationist, but the reverse is not necessarily true. a creationist may just believe that the Earth was created as is simply because that's what the bible or other holy book tells them. ID tries to use pseudo-science to assert that their religious beliefs are correct.
i think it's worthy of a distinction. there's no sense in arguing with say a fundamentalist Christian who accepts the bible as fact. when someone tries to weave in selected bits of scientific fact into the picture, it's worth disputing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
Scientists try to prove if something is true. Creationists try to prove that it is true.
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
Worm: The only reason I say that ID, as it is currently defined, is simply Creationism is because I've talked with some ID supporters, trying to entertain the possibility of Intelligent Evolution Design, and they would hear nothing of it. Very frustrating, that. ID is, to those that coined the term, "God did it just like it is today and that's that." I can, however, buy that not all creationists are ID followers.
And the human eyeball DIDN'T come about by chance. The whole point of evolution - specifically Natural Selection/Darwinism - is that the best attributes for survival and reproduction were encouraged. There is no "chance" about it.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| And the human eyeball DIDN'T come about by chance. The whole point of evolution - specifically Natural Selection/Darwinism - is that the best attributes for survival and reproduction were encouraged. There is no "chance" about it. |
i was not actually making the ID argument...i gave it as an example of what they might say.
also, evolution does require natural selection, but that's really just the feedback mechanism. on the front end is mutation and that is all about chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigerbalm*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| worm wrote: |
| i don't think it's really PC speak. i believe intelligent design is a specific argument that some creationists use to support their beliefs. e.g. "the human eyeball is so complicated, it couldn't have just come about by chance". |
It could have meant that, except we already have other names we use for that: the teleological argument or the argument from design, and, more importantly, that's just not what proponents use the phrase to mean.
Instead, the phrase is used to refer to the extension of the teleological argument into a scientific theory, which doesn't work (and is an abuse of those terms), because complexity isn't meaningfully measurable (in terms of "A is so complex, that B must hold,", and ID doesn't predict anything, and is untestable.
Demanding that schools teach children ID (which is overwhelmingly the purpose of every conversation about ID) is about as compelling as a demand that they teach solipsism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: 19 |
|
|
Alchemy also needs to be taught alongside Chemistry.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| tigerbalm* wrote: |
| worm wrote: |
| i don't think it's really PC speak. i believe intelligent design is a specific argument that some creationists use to support their beliefs. e.g. "the human eyeball is so complicated, it couldn't have just come about by chance". |
It could have meant that, except we already have other names we use for that: the teleological argument or the argument from design, and, more importantly, that's just not what proponents use the phrase to mean.
Instead, the phrase is used to refer to the extension of the teleological argument into a scientific theory, which doesn't work (and is an abuse of those terms), because complexity isn't meaningfully measurable (in terms of "A is so complex, that B must hold,", and ID doesn't predict anything, and is untestable.
Demanding that schools teach children ID (which is overwhelmingly the purpose of every conversation about ID) is about as compelling as a demand that they teach solipsism. |
so, you call the argument i mentioned the teleological argument or argument from design and then say that it's not really what ID refers to.
after that you say ID is really an extension of the teleological argument. and then, you lose me, because i don't see how "A is so complex, that B must hold," is significantly different from the eyeball example.
you also mention that ID is untestable and doesn't predict anything. when i called it pseudoscience, it was not meant as a compliment.
basically, i don't see any real disagreement here, so i'm not sure what your point was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:46 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
Worm: I realize you weren't forwarding the argument of the eyeball yourself, but you DID put it out there. And I was giving an example fo a counter argument.
While, yes, the front end of evolution may be chance, the end result is NOT. It may have taken thousands of permutations to get the eyeball "right", but the end result was the NON-random selection of the usable version we have today. Complex, but not perfect. It's just what came to be.
In fact, I dare say the eyeball, due to its imperfections, is closer to proof that God didn't just up and create things perfectly the first time the way they are.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigerbalm*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:48 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
| worm wrote: |
| so, you call the argument i mentioned the teleological argument or argument from design and then say that it's not really what ID refers to. |
Right. ID isn't an argument, it's an attempt to pretend that the argument can be stretched into a scientific theory.
| worm wrote: |
| i don't see how "A is so complex, that B must hold," is significantly different from the eyeball example. |
They're not different. Mine's a generalization of yours, and they both describe the premise of the argument.
| worm wrote: |
| when i called it pseudoscience, it was not meant as a compliment. |
I didn't think it was.
| worm wrote: |
| basically, i don't see any real disagreement here, so i'm not sure what your point was. |
The disagreement is with your statement that you believe ID is a specific argument. It's not. It's trying to make that argument serve a purpose it can't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: 23 |
|
|
that makes sense, tigerbalm. i just wasn't sure what you were getting at earlier.
deathmage: are you suggesting that there is a predetermined "right" answer that evolution works toward? if not, please let me know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:04 am Post subject: 24 |
|
|
The only "right" answer of evolution is continued survival. There is no one "perfect" form that I can see it going to - but that's not to say there isn't one, or many, possibilities. Evolution is just trying to weed out the traits that hinder and promote the traits that help.
After all, what is right for one circumstance, isn't necessarily right for another. Which is why life is as diverse as it is.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:29 am Post subject: 25 |
|
|
You'd think God would have avoided giving us a blind spot.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:47 am Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| he never saw it coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:02 am Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| Maybe Adam and Eve didn't originally have the blind spot but when they were cast out they took one last look at God and acquired it. Yeah, that sounds good. They should put that in the next edition of genesis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lostdummy
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: 28 |
|
|
| groza528 wrote: |
To lostdummy:
If I understand correctly (and I may not) intelligent design is slightly more focused, e.g. "There must be a creator who intended for us to evolve opposable thumbs." I tend to think of it more as "There must be a creator who gave us the ability to adapt to our surroundings, whatever they may be." It's more of a feedback response than a feedforward, for those who know process controls.
Back to Zag:
I'm not exactly up to date on the latest in macrophysics, but I was unaware that there was any evidence for multiple universes, and without that nice infinity factor you're only in the 10 20 range, which I'm not convinced is enough.
|
Yes, "intelligent design" is probably not right choice for those two examples I gave, but my main point remains: if "creationism" must include "god created humans", then it must be mutually exclusive with evolution.
And it seems that other variants of god involvement theories have different names. Second example that I gave is more closely related to "fine tuned" theory, or Anthropic Principle, than it is to ID.
Since those two ("fine tuned" theory and Anthropic Principle) are probably related to your comment about "I was unaware that there was any evidence for multiple universes", I would think that same line of reasoning around "fine tuned" universe can be vieved as "evidence" for both of these statements:
- some divine design was present at creation of universe (at least), to explain "fine tuning"
- there exist large number of universes with different phisics laws/constants, and that explains how few of them (like ours) can happen to be "fine tuned" to support life
If that "evidence" is far-fetched and not good enough to "prove" multiple universes, then it is also not good enough to prove divine design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: 29 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| if "creationism" must include "god created humans", then it must be mutually exclusive with evolution. |
I disagree. I don't see why God couldn't have made humans using evolution as a tool.
I'm not saying I actually believe that (far from it), I'm just saying I don't see why it couldn't be.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lostdummy
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: 30 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| if "creationism" must include "god created humans", then it must be mutually exclusive with evolution. |
I disagree. I don't see why God couldn't have made humans using evolution as a tool.
I'm not saying I actually believe that (far from it), I'm just saying I don't see why it couldn't be. |
Well, in both of my posts here I was trying to point out that, while different types of god involvement could exist, I dont believe that one where he did not create humanity would be called just "creationism" - it would have some different name, like "intelligent design", "antrophic principle", "continuous creation" etc. I repeated that point in sentence right after one you quoted ;p
Also, I dont think that "God have made humans using evolution as a tool" means that God "created" humans - it would be more correct to say that God created evolution (or universe, depending how far you go), and "designed" it to result in humans (or life forms in general, depending how specific you go). But again, such theories have different names.
One link showing some of different "creationism" theories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_Christian_creationism
You will notice that those theories in table that have "creationism" in name also have "humanity: Directly created by God". Also, all other theories with different view than "standard" creationism have addition in name of "such-and-such" creationism. And all of those theories listed there with "creationism" in name have objections to evolution.
And even in approaches from standpoint of scientists who support theological view, like this one:
http://www.counterbalance.net/rjr/index-frame.html
it can be seen that they modify "creationism" to something more in line with scientific results, and then call it something different (like "continuous creation") to distinguish it from classical creationism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: 31 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Also, I dont think that "God have made humans using evolution as a tool" means that God "created" humans - it would be more correct to say that God created evolution (or universe, depending how far you go), and "designed" it to result in humans (or life forms in general, depending how specific you go). But again, such theories have different names. |
Yes, well said. That is a more accurate description of what I meant (but failed) to say. It's just a bit short of the deist 'clockwork' idea.
Actually I'm reminded of my main objection for the 'creationist' types. I tend to boil their arguments down to 'god did it because the bible says so' or 'god did it because it's too complex to happen elsewise'.
It's already been pointed out that you really can't argue with the former point of view. But the latter argument has always seemed intellectually lazy to me. 'It's too complex' *hand wave* 'God did it!' It's also intellectually dishonest in my opinion. Assuming that God made us, he gave us this brain that can ask questions and figure out some things. It makes no sense to me that he'd give us this gift and then put such a really really sound theory (evolution) in our face to figure out and develop.....but it's all BS.
I mean come on. I know Jehovah was a dick in the Old Testament (Abraham comes to mind) but aren't we past that now?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: 32 |
|
|
More evolution observed, this time in bacteria, under laboratory conditions.
Further reading.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
Actually I'm reminded of my main objection for the 'creationist' types. I tend to boil their arguments down to 'god did it because the bible says so' or 'god did it because it's too complex to happen elsewise'.
It's already been pointed out that you really can't argue with the former point of view. But the latter argument has always seemed intellectually lazy to me. 'It's too complex' *hand wave* 'God did it!' |
I refer to it as "The Kleenex Argument."
When you grab one Kleenex from the box, another one (almost) always pops up! This is amazingly useful, and I don't understand how it works. Because I don't understand it, I conclude that it must be the hand of God. I mean, what else could it be?
Someone once tried to explain to me something about the folding, or something, but I didn't understand it. After all, why do you need to explain it when I've already explained it completely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: 34 |
|
|
| Oh yeah, I meant to say thanks to Death Mage for a way cool article! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: 35 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Someone once tried to explain to me something about the folding, or something, but I didn't understand it. After all, why do you need to explain it when I've already explained it completely? |
Nice. That about sums it up, doesn't it?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
