Denial of evolution III

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    It effects in a few ways, but the easy answer is that solar radiation and random error in the DNA coping during meiosis causes mutations in the DNA of the germ cells.

    The more complicated answer will take quite a bit of background in how meiosis occurs, understanding telomeres, DNA transcriptase, the cellular skeleton, and the division of organelles during that process. Before we try and get into that, are you cool with the idea that during the DNA copy process (unzip the helix, make complimentary new strand of nucleotides (AATACG is used to generate a new TTATGC strand)), the resulting DNA copy may have errors in it, and these error can be either due to environmental factors such as radiation interfering with the copy process, or just a simple error in the bonding process?

    As for Lamarck, when faced with the newly discovered fossils being uncovered from around the world, it was becoming evident that creatures had existed in the past which were no longer around. This was a huge problem not only for western theology, which presumed that God had created everything perfectly and thus the idea of extinction was outlandish, but also for science which was still heavily based on christian dogma in many areas. The apparent extinction of a few modern species like the Dodo added to the confusion - if God was actively providing things for man, and creation was perfect, how can a species disappear? Fossilization and geology (plate tectonics, substance, etc) were still emerging fields, and so the context of the fossils wasn't quite figured out yet. We just knew that there were leg bones being discovered which were twice the size of any living animal. We were also finding fossils which looked like mid-way points between those extinct creatures and modern forms, suggesting that these bones weren't just evidence of a prior creation which God had wiped out completely before starting the current world. Evolution was a pretty mainstream view by then, but the HOW of evolution was still being figured out. Lamarck's idea was among the earlier concepts that suggested natural means for these transitionary fossils; suggesting that creatures changed over time due to environmental effects on the adult body being passed on to offspring. This suggested clearly incorrect predictions, such as the giraffe example, or things like dogs with cropped ears would give birth to offspring with pre-cropped ears. This doesn't happen, and Lamarck's hypothesis was discarded pretty quickly.
    I understood it to mean that the faster a species reproduces, the faster mutations will propegate through the population.
    In that case, we need to look at punnett squares. The dominant/recessive nature of gene pairs, and the fact that most phenotype traits aren't encoded by single genes means that expressing mutations tends to be very complicated. But in general, the basic pattern of inheritence can be simplified down to a Monohybrid Cross; I think that's what you're referring to when you say that there is a 50% chance of passing on a gene.

    This 50% only applies in individuals that have two copies of a gene (one per chromosome copy), one of which has a mutation either through a DNA copy error or through inheritence from a parent, and there exists a 50% chance that a given germ cell will contain the normal gene or the mutated version.
    I understand your fear that people may be hiding behind terminology, but what happens when a topic is so complicated that the time spent re-defining words would take days if not years? How much time will be lost to re-inventing the wheel every time a new person enters the field?
    My error, then
    If you've rejected the idea, and you think it's unlikely already, can you honestly say you are being whoely objective?
    Again, my error. If accumulation of traits is possible, and each repetition of the experiment without a mutation leaves the likelihoods of the next round identical, BUT a tiny fraction of of repetitions of the experiment with a mutation increases (very slightly) the likelihoods of the next round in favor of the continuance of the mutation, why would it not be inevitable?
    This is a fairly insulting statement to those people. If you are asking for fair treatment, and considering yourself not prejudiced even though you already claim that evolution in unlikely, how is calling others badly prejudiced showing any respect?

    It is possible that some have judged you based on your personal rejection of evolution. From reading along, others would likely that the content of the arguments you have made against evolution are the problem. I don't know if personal character has played into their feelings on the matter, but I personally don't think it should. Personal character should play into judgment of the person, and the decision to continue a conversation or not, but it doesn't play into science.

    I may not like jerks, but if they have good ideas that can be shown to match the available evidence effectively, then they have good ideas. *shrug* I hope we can keep making progress, both in evolution, and possibly in you sharing your ideas (possibly in a different thread first to hash them out, then back here to more directly address them in the light of modern evolutionary theory). If your rejection of evolution is not theological but technical, I bet it would make an interesting discussion on its own.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saquist Banned Banned

    I would agree with that with the exception that neither ID nor evolution has any proof, but they both have evidence. The difference is that while evolution has more circumstantial evidence than substantiated evidence ID is all circumstantial evidence. That wouldn't even hold up in a court of law. You're right it's not a complete scientific theory as it is. But under the rules of logic that is not a proper method of exclusion as a possibility. At least the premise is logical but it's only one premise and you need two premise to make a logical syllogism.

    This isn't a situation of "so what" this is situation of fact.

    That's prejudice statement from which nothing logical or useful may be drawn from except your own contempt. Perhaps the generalization is reasonable but the comparison is not a truism. Facts show change in religion is as rapid as cultural changes.

    You might want to study the history of your own beliefs rather than indulging selectively in the current understanding to grasp the societal issues at play with evolution's changes because only moments ago you were purporting verification of Darwin's expectations instead of acknowledging it's failure objectively. The conference you dismiss confirmed at least that scientist were not seeing what they wanted to see.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    We've found far more than 2 million. We've found mats of stromatolites; each layer alone contains millions of fossils of early bacteria. They are quite literally uncountable.

    However, if you want to limit it to "fossils we have cataloged indivudually" then yes, they are countable. That is due to our lack of skill/time/resources to catalog them all, not because there aren't enough fossils. Heck, if you've ever been to a small Pacific island, you were probably standing on the skeletons of literally uncountable numbers of organisms.

    Not really. If you find two identical skeletons, you know with a very high degree of certainty that they belonged to the same species. And we've found a lot of identical skeletons.

    I agree that some people indeed do. Fossil evidence is less than half of what supports evolutionary theory. The rest - genetic clocks, study of genetic drift, observations of evolution and speciation in modern life, geology, Mendelian theory, observations of adaptive radiation in today's animals - is actually more important. The fossil record does not demonstrate how evolution works; it just demonstrates that the process we call evolution was indeed happening millions of years ago as well.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Darwin's expectations were fulfilled. Please stop getting your information from Conservapedia or whatever piece of trash you are reading. There could be no fossils whatsoever, and the ToE would still be verified as true.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
  8. Saquist Banned Banned

    I have no choice but to concur.

    Perhaps I shouldn't have said reproduction rate although that is PART of it my premise begins with the individual reproduction probability and then progresses through the population at a speed based on population density, fertility opportunities in a given year, life span and predatory pressure.

    Is this why the Human Genome project found less genes than they were expecting?

    I believe so based on what I've researched.

    I'm not sure what you mean by (one per chromosome copy) but your conclusion is in sync with mine.

    Trust me, River-wind, I research every term I don't know. Not to mention I have more than a layman's grasp of biology. Our topic may abridge with others but I have very specific scope of questions.

    Under the definition of objectivity:

    1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions:

    2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias

    3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc

    For the here and now I have to make a decision based on my understanding and the available information to me. Because the results are far from conclusive I must make a gut decision based on the likely probabilities of the known facts. That thus becomes my opinion.

    The facts alone do not bear out any true conclusion.
    That is objectivity. They remain related by the facts but distinctly separated by finality vs lack of finality. At any time upon the addition of new information both may change or one may change, or neither.

    Well we're treating the positive mutations as a singular uniform event over millions of years that requires a strict and unobstructed line from progenitor to ascendants. Now I've told you that extinction, predatory and population are a factor but have you considered also that mutations occur not singularly but at times they may occur with bad mutations which have a greater probability of occurrence in germ cells that may terminate both. Or even the parallel and even higher probability that bad somatic cell mutations may do the same further crippling the odds of progression of that original single unlikely good mutation?

    I chose my words very carefully. With all "due" respect.
    I can't respect their presumptuousness and arrogance, their spiteful outburst or their prejudice. How can I respect a mean spirited group of people? How can I respect unprovoked aggression and hostility? How can I respect their blatant fallacies?

    Their senior status on this forum is to be respected.
    Their knowledge as professionals (those that actually are) is to be respected.
    Their superior understanding is to be respected.
    And for all of them I GRANT that respect as is due.

    Nine times out of 10 the average member enters this thread for the sole purpose of vilification. Jerk or not they often are not disseminating anything pertinent or useful. As a drafter I have a mechanical perspective to almost everything. I've noticed that drafters (the really good ones) tend to be somewhat dry and a bit of a perfectionist. It's my standard approach to just about everything. The fewer mistakes you make the first go around the more productive you are. In time I hope to have an equal understanding of evolution as they do. For now I listen and question.

    What is a Conservapedia?

    This scientist from which I recall the figure was actually referring to recovered bone fossils (what the layman typically considers a fossil) excluding also non biological artifacts.

    I understand your reasoning here.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I have given you some factual information about the evolution of a new species, all in accord with the ToE. Is there some aspect you think is not in accord with the ToE? Or conversely, do you have any evidence that is inconsistent with / disproving / the ToE? (It only take one case to disprove a theory - have you none?)
    Why no comments on this example of rapid evolution? You say you are just interested in the facts. Discuss or question these facts.
  10. superstring01 Moderator

    How the hell is that "evidence" for ID? "Evidence" by definition in this case, would point directly to an intelligent creator. "Evidence" would be clearer than something that is easily explained by evolution by natural selection. All you've pointed out is the result of a highly evolved set of nerves.

    Looking at an end result and saying, "SEE! Far too complex for it not to be from god." Does not count as evidence.

    I'm sorry, I thought you were demonstrating ID and not explaining how things evolved independently in different environments.

    Moreover, there are "logical" mutations that, in any given environment, would eventually occur and give that organism an advantage over its competitors: photo receptors (eyes), sonic sensors (ears), etc.

    More likely it's proof that evolution isn't all that strange and, eventually, stumbles upon logical designs for creatures.

    Thus, my belief that we'll more than likely find a humanoid form or two in other creatures in the universe.

    Our "duality" (two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, two lobes) and general engingeering (brain hear eyes and ears, brain in head, mouth in head) all hearkens back back to our piscine ancestors.

    When swimming in the ocean, a "side to side" motion is most efficient (tuna and dolphins attest to this as both are considered to be the most efficient swimmers; dolphins "up and down", tuna "side to side"). If an organism swims "side to side" there will inevitably be a body form to accommodate this (side fins, flippers, etc).

    When hunting prey, the eyes would be located up front along with whatever sound receptors the creatures have (signals are dense, complex and need to be located close to the "thinking unit" for optimal reaction time).

    The mouth would be located up front because attacks would funnel food into that mouth. Digestion would occur from front to back.

    As the creature approaches the stage of being able to move out of water, the front fins would grow to accommodate the strength to pull it on land. Because of the "duality" mechanism established early on in its history, the rear fins would adapt to support and push the rear.

    Eyes up front, mouth up front, nose up front, two front feet, two rear feet and a rear tail.

    It's logical and one that has NOT been dispensed with for the 365 million years since the acanthostegas first dragged themselves around on land.

    Why not six limbs? Why not eight?

    Because it's been tried, many times and failed. For the last 600 million years, nature has been experimenting with cephalopods (pretty smart creatures as ocean goers goes), insects of any shape and size, and so on and so on in uncountable ways. But none were as successful and as adaptable as tetrapods.

    And why not? It's a smart design. Nature favors "the bare minimum" and four is the bare minimum for success.

    From front to back, everything about our shape is logical and fits every environment from oceans to land to sky. From rain forest to desert to arctic tundra. It only fits that we'll encounter it again, and more than likely in large quantities out in the universe.

  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    If only said fruitcakes had as much rum content as the actual article, there is little doubt the quality of the evolutionary debates would be substantially improved.

    Or probably, anyway. Actually, I think the quality of the discussions would also be improved by throwing hand grenades at it.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The Darwinian Theory of Evolution has been used to make tens of thousands of predictions, and guided the bulk of the serious and productive biological research of the past half century - the era in which the biological sciences have made their biggest and most influential advances in human understanding and capabilities.

    Everything from the Green Revolution

    (Norman Borlaug, who applied evolutionary principles directly according to predictions he had made with Darwinian Theory, and took advantage of some good fortune in others he hadn't thought of also consistent with that theory, was recently and famously credited with saving the lives of millions of people)

    to the protocols for avoiding antibiotic resistance, which would otherwise have overcome our medical defenses against bacteria years ago,

    to such comparatively trivial but nonetheless astounding events as the guided discovery of a transitional form between land mammals and the early whales,

    reflects successful prediction made by people employing modern evolutionary theory, entire research programs guided by the predictions of evolutionary theory, the fundamental and dominant role of evolutionary theory in almost every aspect of research into living beings.
  13. superstring01 Moderator

    There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to theory. There is only preponderance of available evidence.


    ID has ZERO "proof" or "evidence". None whatsoever. Evolution is the only theory that has any evidence which, conveniently is also the only one that is even remotely plausible based on the laws of our universe.

    It certainly is when the alternative is nothing more than a series of accumulated stories from imagination that propose that magical powers created the universe and has zero evidence supporting it beyond old books and men in frocks.

    The other one should at least be plausible and make even a modicum of sense. The notion that a magical man, woman, deity somewhere conjured up the earth is about as preposterous as any concept goes. The only reason why its seems anything other than commitment-to-an-assylum-worthy is that the vast majority of humans are as addicted to the past as a crack whore is to. . . well. . . crack.

    Our mommies and daddies have told us something and to reject it means to reject our culture, our families and our entire false history. But, despite the claims, there is not one shred of "proof", "evidence" (circumstantial or otherwise) that the earth was created and guided by an intelligent being.

  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    You need to read what I said, which was:
    "Actually there is considerable evidence against ID. For example: ...."

    Then my example showed that the eyes are a stupid , not intelligent, design as they are built backwards with the rods and cones behind the layer of nerves and blood vessels, which block part of the light from reaching the light detectors. I certainly was not defending ID, but showing it is NOT "intelligent design.". If design, it is SD (Stupid Design), but of course it is not any type of design - the eyes evolved, were not designed. Please read post 1038 again and get it right this time.

    Also I never said anything about the complexity of the eye - they are not very complex,* just evolved from light sensitive pit, still found in some vipers. Later the pits deepened to give more angular resolution and then later still became image forming "pin hole" cameras, as still found in the chambered nautilus, which has no cover over the open pin hole, so the interior of its eye is filled with sea water, then in land creatures some transpairent skin covered the pin hole, which later thicken in the center to make a lens. etc. - never any design. Just evolution.

    Nor did I even mention god. Learn to read what is written.

    * eyes are simple, compared to the immune system, which is too complex for me to fully understand (In fact I don't think even experts fully understand how it works) Any smart 5 year old understands how the eyes work.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2011
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Note: Apologies. I misread the original post.

  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    That is normally the case for animals that prey on others, like eagles, lions, snakes, wolfs, polar bears, etc. as that makes the field of vision of the two eyes overlap and thus give good depth perception (provides sterioscopic effects)*; however if the animal is the prey and eats grass etc then the eyes look out to both sides as nearly a 360 field of vision is more an aid to survival than good depth perception. Thus cows, zebras , guinea pigs, wildbeast, etc. (all the grass eaters) and bottom of the food chain fish, have eyes on the side of the head for near 360 field of vision. (No need for depth perception as the grass doesn't try to escape, they don't need depth perception, to chase and help catch it.)

    In the case of preá, their guinea pig ancestors 8000 years ago were no exception - they had eyes looking out to both sides. However as the ice melted and raised the sea level and separated about 20 of these guinea pigs (all there was food for on the tiny new island, 8km by boat from the main island), they were the only mammals on the football field sized rocky island (only 10% with grass between the rocks) - they had no other animals that would prey on them. So those in the next generation with slightly more forward looking eyes and slightly better depth perception were better able to jump over the rocks safely to find some grass to eat. (They also got more rabbit like hind legs to aid that jumping over rocks.)

    As in-breeding made more individuals in each generation than could survive those with the slightly more forward looking eyes tended not to be among those that starved to death. Likewise the smaller ones tended to be among those that survived as they needed less food to do so. Now, 8000 years later, the preá have eyes very close to each other, which are only forward looking with excellent depth perception and are slightly less than half the size of guinea pigs so there is food (grass between the rocks) for 42 of them (or only 40 in dry years).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I can't be sure, but in photo you can see two depression in the hair growth pattern, (which there would be no evolutionary pressure to change) on each side of their head, where the side looking guinea pig eyes are. Note photo clearly shows the flat tiny, almost human like, face of the preá, their longer, more rabbit like hind legs, the extensive facial hair (whiskers?) surrounding their tiny face, and the absence of any tail, I describe in my first post at: Note this is in the earlier version of thread "Denial of Evolution II" but many, like Saquist, blinded to facts and tons of evidence by their faith, excessive ego and arrogance, still are denying evolution! Postulating ID etc, with zero supporting evidence and much evidence against ID as I noted with the "Stupid Design" SD, not ID, of human retina in prior post 1038.

    Many people with their first glance at the above photo don't even notice the tiny flat face with no guinea pig snout. They note the two depression on the sides of the head and assume that the eyes are there, until with a second glance they see the tiny, flat, human-like face. Also note the huge expanse of whiskers extending far out from the face - that probably aided safe running, especially in the dark, between narrow gaps between the rocks while searching for some grass to eat.

    * Many tree dwelling vegetarian animals also have forward looking eyes as in general they are safe from meat eating animals, like lions which can not climb trees well, if at all, but when you are jumping from one branch to another you need to have good depth perception. If you don't you are likely to fall to your death and that is a powerful evolutionary selection mechanism!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is the common Virginia opossum, which comes to the ground also but often jumps from branch to branch.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2011
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I'll try again.

    1. When an individual adopts the role of willing student the teacher will willingly put in unending effort to teach.
    2. When an individual implies by their words and attitude "You don't know what you are talking about. Your theories are mere belief. You are not logical." In those circumstances the teacher throws up their hands and says 'friggin well grow up'.
    3. Apparently you don't like being told to grow up.
    4. I never stubbornly insisted on my terminology. You still fail to acknowledge my fundamental point: your ignorance of basic terminolgy and concepts diqualifies you from discussing evolution as though you understood it. Do you truly not see why this is wrong?

    You offensive cunt. Any immorality present in this thread stems from your putrid self perpetuating arrogance. Wholly despicable.

    I have judged you on the poor quality of your arguments.

    i have judged you on your refusal to look at facts.

    I have judged you on a personality warped by smugness and self-delusion and unmitigated arrogance.

    Go fuck yourself. I'm done here. Asshole!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Given that, if there are mutations in the genome which is passed on to offspring, and there exists a chance wherein that mutation provides no negative effect on the reproductive success of that offspring, then would you agree that the mutation would continue on to the second generation of offspring and beyond?
    Since all of those things apply to the population equally, how do they have an effect on the success of a particular mutation within that population?
    My understanding is that the old estimates of the number of human genes were made based on the size of the human chromosomes, and the newer estimates are based on the actual gene content. The largest 'loss' of genes had to do with a higher amount of non-functional nucleotide junk that expected.

    This isn't related to punnett squares (which have to do with the proportion of genes being passed to offspring), but due to lackluster estimates based on over-simplified methods.
    With the exception of some sex-linked traits, genes in humans exist in pairs in every diploid cell in the body. Each of our 23 chromosomes has two copies. When building the simplest of monohybrid crosses, each gene can be represented by a capital or lowercase letter, denoting the two most common variations of that gene in the population being considered. As such, each cell can be noted as BB, Bb or bb, representing the two copies of the gene, and the chances of a cell having 2 copies of version 1, 1 copy of each version, or two copies of version 2.

    More realistic examples, however, are more complicated. Most phenotype traits are not coded for by a single gene, and many genes have more than just two variations. As such, Monohybrid Crosses are useful for learning about gene decent, but they rarely represent the reality of how traits are passed down. I once did a 64-variant cross for a single trait, and even that was super-simplified as it ignored the complexities of gene expression regulation, epigenetics, etc.
    Does your existing opinion then have an effect on your ability to unbiasedly incorporate new information?
    Why introduce the complex philosophical issue of "Truth"? You do agree that when solving real-world problems, no human can know every detail about the problem at hand, correct? At what point should we accept our own limited ability to know 'Truth' in omniscience, and act to apply the best solution we can at the moment life demands a choice be made?
    You are correct. And this is science. It is not Truth, it is based on a recognition of the human's inability to know pure Truth, and instead works with the closest we can get to Truth: the best model based on what we currently know, combined with an insatiable appetite to know more.
    No. Assuming you mean "progenitor to descendants", there are innumerable forces at play which make the continuance of a given trait quite the crapshoot. Positive mutations occur and are then lost all the time. I'm not treating the mutation event as something which happens and then inherently survives if positive, I'm treating the event as something that happens. *If* it survives, then it most likely is through decent - the chances of the exact same mutation happening twice and surviving is very, very small. So small in fact, that two living things which the exact same mutation in their genome are almost certainly related.
    Most certainly. Many helpful mutations are lost due to being tied to other factors. Other mutations cannot be clearly classed as helpful or harmful, and may succeed in one environment, but utterly fail in another.

    For instance, the very simple mutation which leads to sickle-cell anemia. This condition is life-threatening, and in most areas of the world, this gene mutation is exceedingly rare if not completely non-existent.

    However, it is present in what might be surprisingly high numbers in certain locations because that mutation *also* provides a protections against Malaria. In those areas where sickle-cell genes are most prevalent, Malaria is also very common. Those who receive no sickle-hemoglobin genes are vulnerable to malaria, and are less likely to survive long enough to produce offspring. Those with two copies of the sickle gene are also less likely to survive long enough to produce offspring as they will develop the blood disorder. But those individuals with one normal and one sickle gene are protected against malaria *and* safe from developing sickle-cell anemia. thus, a gene which is *harmful* in every case, provides a beneficial survival trait in certain environments, and propagates.
    A harmful somatic cell mutation will have generally little or no effect on the individual overall; with millions of cells int he body, a single cell w/ a harmful mutation will barely be noticeable. A single positive mutation in a germ cell will result in all of the millions of cells int he body reflecting that positive mutation.

    Therefore the statement a bad somatic cell mutation would cripple the effect of a a single good mutation is incorrect the majority of the time if the good mutation occurred in the germ cell which created the individual in question.
    Since you are learning about evolution and biology as these discussions progress, how can you be so certain of the fallacious nature of their statements?
    Meh. I don't think so. If a person has been here for a decade, but is an unreasonable jerk, then I don't think their seniority is worth very much.
    Only so much as their experience allows them to better answer questions. Appeals to authority on their own are never a worthwhile endeavor.
    That's the only version of appeal to authority I will stand behind.
    Interestingly enough, the field of engineering is the one technical/scientific field which hosts the highest percentage of creationists. I'm not sure if this sense of the need for perfection, the desire to see design in everything, or the notion that authority (the plans, the design) holds a high level of moral weight, or something wholly unexpected might play into that correlation.
    Bone fossils are a massive subset of the fossil record. I've likely discovered more than 2 million fossils by myself over the years, most of which were from non-vascular plants and ferns. I've found *maybe* two dozen fossils from bony animals.

    Unless the discussion is about the changes to bony species only, I don't think that 2 million number is very useful. Also, did it include bony animal castings?
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2011
  19. superstring01 Moderator

    By up front I meant "on the fore-side of the body / on the head". Our eye locations come to us by way of our fish ancestors who needed eyes up front (near the brain) and looking forward (didn't want to bump into anything).

    Over time, they migrated around the cranium depending on the circumstances (as you pointed out), but they are still "up top" or "up front" on any of our tetraped cousins.

  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    As it takes time for neural pulses to travel almost all creatures with specialized sensors have them relative close to their main central processing unit. I think, the octopus has eight secondary brains, one at the head of each leg as it collects a lot of environmental data via its legs.

    I.e. we agree that eyes, ears, sense of smell, & taste should be near the brain. My point about eye locations was to explain why 8000 years of evolution in environment without predators moved the eye locations from those of the guinea pig (side looking) to front of face and close together (forward looking) for great depth perception, as they no longer needed to keep watching out for non-existent predators.
  21. superstring01 Moderator

    The development of cephalopods is next on my reading list. IIRC what you say is correct (I'm still digging), they do have ganglial nodes for each leg, which is a truly amazing development. Something that has to be considered when human gain full control of our own genome and start evolving our own bodies.

    I was pretty surprised to see that level of development in just a few thousand years. Interesting nonetheless.

  22. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Mod note: Right, that’s it for now. This thread has become so much of a joke that I cannot entertain leaving it open any longer. This has become a thread dedicated to Saquist’s uneducated wilfully ignorant nonsense and numerous peoples’ efforts to correct it. Enough is enough.

    I may entertain opening a 'Denial of evolution IV' thread if enough people bother to make a compelling case for it. It would have to be a pretty good case, of course, because beating your head against a brick wall would achieve the same effect without wasting bandwidth.
  23. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Answer: On this earth, life was created by a designer(s).

    DNA is made from a biological machine language. It's impossible for this language to have been made naturally. The language that DNA adheres to would have to had come first, in it's complete form, before even the first life appeared. But language is not a physical thing, it's an abstract idea. Abstract ideas can only exist in a mind.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page