|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming? |
| Yes |
|
51% |
[ 17 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| nautilus wrote: |
But the problem for you is that it never actually does  |
It's a problem for me if the Archaeopteryx wasn't more complex than a theropod dinosaur?
It's a problem for me if the amphibian wasn't more complex than a lobe-finned fish?
It's a problem for me if we're not more complex than Lucy?
If you want me to, I'll lose sleep over this every night.
Now why are you trying to tell us that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese?
| nautilus wrote: |
| Once again a decrease in complexity. |
So if whales lose body hair which served a purpose for their ancestors but doesn't serve a purpose for them, that somehow hurts the Evolutionist case.
You have never explained where this notion of "increase in complexity" comes from, and neither has Sarfati.
And Sarfati seems to be the one of the originators, if not THE originator, of this foolishness.
Now stop trying to tell us the moon is made out of Swiss cheese.
Either that or show us some evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Excellent posts, Tomato. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
It's a problem for me if the amphibian wasn't more complex than a lobe-finned fish? |
Actually, 2 problems.
First, you're assuming amphibians descended from lobe-finned fish. That is guesswork, somebody's idea only, and not backed up by any evidence.
Secondly even if it were true, it still shows that the lobe-fin has transformed into something simpler.
| Quote: |
| You have never explained where this notion of "increase in complexity" comes from, and neither has Sarfati. |
-From the Theory of evolution, of which you claim to be an afficionado of.
| Quote: |
| Evolution has involved "progression" towards more complexity |
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Evolution
| Quote: |
| things had progressed from the simple to the more complex over time |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
Your theory states that all living things descended from a single common ancestor-the first living cell.
Does this not require an unimaginably massive increase in complexity?
or is an amoeba more complex than a giraffe to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice quote mining.
In the first link, you conveniently isolated a passage which reads:
| Quote: |
| Evolution has involved "progression" towards more complexity. |
Then you ignored the very next three sentences, which read:
| Quote: |
| However, there is no guarantee that any particular organism existing today will become more intelligent, more complex, bigger, or stronger in the future. In fact, natural selection will only favor this kind of "progression" if it increases chance of survival, i.e. the ability to live long enough to raise offspring to sexual maturity. The same mechanism can actually favor lower intelligence, lower complexity, and so on if those traits become a selective advantage in the organism's environment. |
And here's your quote from the second Website:
| Quote: |
| things had progressed from the simple to the more complex over time |
That passage referred to a book which was rejected by Darwin:
| Quote: |
| In November 1844, the anonymously published popular science book Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, written by Scottish journalist Robert Chambers, widened public interest in the concept of transmutation of species. Vestiges used evidence from the fossil record and embryology to support the claim that living things had progressed from the simple to the more complex over time. But it proposed a linear progression rather than the branching common descent theory behind Darwin's work in progress, and it ignored adaptation. Darwin read it soon after publication, and scorned its amateurish geology and zoology. |
Your first link gave me exactly what I needed:
| Quote: |
| One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive and/or leads to greater "complexity", or that its converse is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent or complex than earlier generations. The claim that evolution results in progress is not part of modern evolutionary theory; it derives from earlier belief systems which were held around the time Darwin devised his theory of evolution. |
That's a perfect description of you and Sarfati! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I was on Jebu (제부). Looks like I missed out on the most informed posts in the history of Dave's. (or since I started using it).
| Quote: |
| One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive and/or leads to greater "complexity", or that its converse is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent or complex than earlier generations. The claim that evolution results in progress is not part of modern evolutionary theory; it derives from earlier belief systems which were held around the time Darwin devised his theory of evolution. |
And this is what I meant by 'Survival of the fittest' was a coined phrase that Darwin was not pleased about, and is no longer a term that should be used - not that I do not believe in natural selection.
Great stuff, Pomato. You are doing everything I wanted to do, a whole lot better. Very informative stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
| Quote: |
| One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive and/or leads to greater "complexity", or that its converse is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent or complex than earlier generations. The claim that evolution results in progress is not part of modern evolutionary theory; it derives from earlier belief systems which were held around the time Darwin devised his theory of evolution. |
|
You've just completely defeated your own theory. Applause, everyone.
So you're saying that all of evolutionary history has been a backward step, a regression, a decrease in complexity?.
How then is it that giant squid, blue whales and other incredibly complex organisms have developed from an original simple, ancestral single cell? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because of this - Evolution provides no assurance
It's not saying it does not happen, only that it cannot assure that it will happen...
It WILL happen IF the need arises. If not, why bother?
There are certain bats that scurry around on the ground to hunt for insects, rather than flying, which is what their wings are for. Why they chose to do this? Perhaps they are adapting to the environment, perhaps there is a better or more substantial supply of food on the floor nowadays.
Perhaps in millions of years their extended flaps of skin that became wings will decline into claws again. 'DEVOLUTION', as tomato provided and creationists love, is still evolution.
Also, Macro evolution is still evolution.
Because of this - Evolution provides no assurance
It's not saying it does not happen, only that it cannot assure that it will happen...
It WILL happen IF the need arises. If not, why bother?
There are certain bats that scurry around on the ground to hunt for insects, rather than flying, which is what their wings are for. Why they chose to do this? Perhaps they are adapting to the environment, perhaps there is a better or more substantial supply of food on the floor nowadays.
Perhaps in millions of years their extended flaps of skin that became wings will decline into claws again. 'DEVOLUTION', as tomato provided and creationists love, is still evolution.
Also, Macro evolution is still evolution.
----------
Oh yeah, I know the ape metaphor was wrong, it was more a case of me being silly. I'm aware, like much of the original tree of life that it is indeed an incorrect statement. Even though technically we are apes, but I'll safely assume you think I meant Chimps or Gorillas, due to my own bad wording.
Last edited by Globutron on Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
Because of this - Evolution provides no assurance
It's not saying it does not happen, only that it cannot assure that it will happen...
It WILL happen IF the need arises. If not, why bother?
There are certain bats that scurry around on the ground to hunt for insects, rather than flying, which is what their wings are for. Why they chose to do this? Perhaps they are adapting to the environment, perhaps there is a better or more substantial supply of food on the floor nowadays.
Perhaps in millions of years their extended flaps of skin that became wings will decline into claws again. 'DEVOLUTION', as tomato provided and creationists love, is still evolution.
Also, Macro evolution is still evolution. |
How does an original ancestral cell develop into millions of complex species if not by an increase in complexity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
Because of this - Evolution provides no assurance
It's not saying it does not happen, only that it cannot assure that it will happen...
It WILL happen IF the need arises. If not, why bother?
There are certain bats that scurry around on the ground to hunt for insects, rather than flying, which is what their wings are for. Why they chose to do this? Perhaps they are adapting to the environment, perhaps there is a better or more substantial supply of food on the floor nowadays.
Perhaps in millions of years their extended flaps of skin that became wings will decline into claws again. 'DEVOLUTION', as tomato provided and creationists love, is still evolution.
Also, Macro evolution is still evolution. |
How does an original ancestral cell develop into millions of complex species if not by an increase in complexity? |
I think it's pretty obvious that God did it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| How does an original ancestral cell develop into millions of complex species if not by an increase in complexity? |
If you read the Websites which you linked us to, you would know.
Evolution may have all be toward greater complexity in the beginning, but that doesn't mean that all branches of the Tree of Life are evolving indefinitely toward greater complexity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
How does an original ancestral cell develop into millions of complex species if not by an increase in complexity? |
A single cell divides by form of Mitosis. Since DNA is so vast and information is so intensely huge, there there is something like a 1 in 10^350 chance of a cell dividing 100% identical to its 'parent'.
Because there's less numerical chance than there are atoms in the universe, it's unlikely things will keep going on exactly how they are for billions of years, so we are constantly changing. It obviously 'increased in complexity' as you insist, because of the inevitable changing which changed to inevitable changing to suit the surroundings, which may include sticking together as a team and becoming a multi celled organism, perhaps due to competition from other single cells.
Can't beat 'em? Eat 'em. Predators were made. etc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty1983
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have yet to be convinced that global warming even exists. If it does Im not helping Im sure. If it does then we're all fucked. Even the most environmentally concious person cant turn down �30 flights to Spain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| So you're saying that all of evolutionary history has been a backward step, a regression, a decrease in complexity? |
Why does all of evolutionary history have to be in EITHER direction?
When a species is confronted with a change in environment, that species doesn't give a hoot in hades what you say, what I say, or what anyone else says.
All it cares about is surviving in the new environment.
In order to survive in this new environment, it can go any of three ways:
■ A species can evolve toward greater complexity.
Eyes are believed to be derived from organs which cannot see objects, but are sensitive to light. This is highly possible, because there are species living today with all stages of light-sensitive organs on the continuum.
(Before you say "Conjecture!" "Just-so stories!" let me remind you that that's how science works: by starting with a hypothesis. That may not be the way religion works, but that's how science works.)
■ A species can evolve toward lesser complexity.
We have already talked about vestigial organs growing smaller and smaller, or about useless organs growing and resorbing in fetuses. We've all seen you hopping up and down, hollering that this showed a decrease in complexity, and we all said "So?"
■ A species can move sideways.
Dark colored moths aren't better than light colored moths. No one ever said they were. They are merely better adapted for living in the city. Like you, Duane Gish has argued that Kettlewell's study doesn't show an increase in complexity. But his objection has fallen on deaf ears because nobody ever said that it DID show an increase in complexity.
Likewise, white bears aren't better than brown bears. No one ever said they were. They are merely better adapted for living in the Arctic.
Is that so difficult to understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rusty1983 wrote: |
| I have yet to be convinced that global warming even exists. If it does Im not helping Im sure. If it does then we're all fucked. Even the most environmentally concious person cant turn down �30 flights to Spain. |
Global warming happens all the time. Although I think we're generally referring to 'Climate change' as a whole, and I don't think there is direct proof that we are directly responsible, but the globe is always warming and cooling. Supposedly we are just exiting an Ice age, which is why we are warming. There are vast periods of the earth's history where masses of ice the size of a continent was a profound concept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
Why does all of evolutionary history have to be in EITHER direction? |
I never said that it does.
but at some point your microbes-to-man evo-fantasy has to involve increasing complexity.
A single cell does not become a human by decreasing complexity.
| Quote: |
| A species can evolve toward greater complexity. |
So at last you've admitted that evolution includes (indeed relies on) increasing complexity. Why was that so hard?
| Quote: |
| Eyes are believed to be derived from organs which cannot see objects, but are sensitive to light. |
More fantasy along the lines of "whales must have descended from mouse deer, because mouse deer have occasionally been known to venture into water".
| Quote: |
| This is highly possible, because there are species living today with all stages of light-sensitive organs on the continuum. |
OK, this sounds interesting. Link please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
