Evolution is not random, the direction is supplied by the environment.
Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!
- Thread starter MVP
- Start date
Evolution is not random, the direction is supplied by the environment.
Biologically, the only sensible way to make a group called "fish" is to include all land vertebrates inside of it.
See the oringal post.
Also a fair point, thanks.
In that mystical forces are forces that are difficult to understand, they may have a point. In other words, something that is mystical can be in fact fully explainable by science and reasoning. Mystical can also connote something that is directly explainable by God or some currently-inexplicable spiritual phenomenon. So the word itself is a bit slippery.
I'm always a sceptic, but since there is always an edge to our understanding of nature, beyond which there is stuff we cannot explain by science, I tend to remain open to the possibility of things not currently explainable by what we know today. It's humility about what we know versus what possible to know. Always a gap.
that is a very good addition, thanks
Beantown
Well-Known Member
You're an idiot.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Which is why we have terms like Eukaryote, Animal, Chordate, Vertebrate. Fish describes a group of creatures that have a specific set of anatomical features that perform in a specific way. For instance gills that allow them to breathe underwater.
fish1
fiSH/
noun
noun: fish; plural noun: fish; plural noun: fishes
1.
a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water.
I am sure you understand that humans are not monkeys we are primates. It is quite likely though that the common primate ancestor between monkeys and humans would be categorized as a monkey. This does not mean we are monkeys because we don't fit the definition of a monkey.
If you want to say that we are vertebrates and that the common vertebrate ancestor of Fish and people was a fish that is ok but we are not fish.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....how about this for "rambling?"
"The feather is a marvel of NATURAL ENGINEERING. It is at once extremely light and structurally strong, much more versatile than the rigid structure of an aircraft's wing- and far more readily repaired or replaced when damaged. The intricacy of the design that allows this can be appreciated by putting the feather under a microscope. It will be seen that each parallel barb, slanting diagonally from the shaft, is not hairlike, but appears as a miniature replica of the feather itself, with numerous smaller side branches, or barbules, that overlap those of the neighboring barbs in adhering to one pattern. These in turn have tiny projections called barbicels, many of which are equipped with minute hooks that neatly hold everything in place. The single pigeon feather under scrutiny may have several hundred thousand barbules and MILLIONS of barbicels and booklets.
"How did this structural marvel evolve? It takes no great stretch of imagination to envisage a feather as a modified scale, basically like that of a reptile - a longish scale loosely attached, whose outer edges frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today"
No great stretch of the imagination? That's stretching it clear beyond the breaking point!
Notice! First comes a marvelous description of the intricacy and perfection of a bird's FEATHER! Then you are assured such INTRICATE MARVELS developed from a loose, hanging, frayed SCALE!
I'm with you on this, but have an issue with others who think they know specifically what the explanation is when in fact they absolutely do not. I dislike it even more when they use unexplained phenomenon as proof that you are wrong and they, in their very specific yet unfounded claims, are right. As if not knowing is proof positive that their wild assertions have merit.
Most of us can see your lack of imagination, but your post underlines the point nicely.
Watch the first episode of "Cosmos" and see how like-minded folks are stuck with orthodoxy due to lack of imagination: flat earth, geocentrism, finite universe..... and evolution.
Carolinajazz, embrace your orthodoxy-bound, imagination-limited brethren!
a lot of perfectly sane kids believe in the sphagetti monster. . . . sorta. . . .
kids are learning to play with fantasy and fact, and can do both at the same time. Mostly, I think a lot of "religious" folks are like that too. And scientists as well.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
First of all, I have a great "imagination"....and do not view myself as being very conservative when it comes to my viewpoints and attitudes!....and when it comes to "geocentrism" it actually disagrees with what the Bible says!
It was in the second century C.E., when the renowned astronomer Ptolemy devised the geocentric theory. It was mathematical ingenuity at its best and was an explanation of the apparent movement in the sky of the sun, moon, planets, and stars that was widely accepted until the 16th*century. Today scholars believe that he obtained his data, not by observations, but by copying the work of an early Greek astronomer, Hipparchus of Rhodes. He was also suspected of having obtained some data by working backward from the results he expected.
An honest reader will readily admit that a statement in the Bible one time about the sun standing still in the sky is not meant as a scientific analysis but as a simple observation about how things appeared from the standpoint of human eyewitnesses. Astronomers, too, often speak of the rising and setting of the sun, planets, and stars. They do not mean that these heavenly bodies literally revolve around the earth but, rather, that they appear to move across our sky.
That the Earth is flat IS exactly opposite of what the Bible actually says! About 2,700 years ago, the Bible said: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word here translated “circle” can also mean “sphere,” as various reference works note. Other Bible translations, therefore, say, “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version) and, “the round earth.”—Moffatt.
Thus, the Bible was not influenced by the unscientific views prevalent at the time regarding the earth’s support and its shape. The reason is simple: The Author of the Bible is the Author of the universe. He created the earth, so he should know what it hangs on and what its shape is. Hence, when he inspired the Bible, he saw to it that no unscientific views were incorporated in it, however much they may have been believed by others at the time.
The strength of Daniel 4:10-11 as an argument for a flat Earth is considerably reduced by the fact that this part of the Book of Daniel recounts a dream experienced by the Persian king during a fit of madness. Thus, it does not necessarily refer to an actually existing tree or make any statements about real cosmology.
As to a "finite universe", observations with larger telescopes have proved that our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean 50 billion stars—but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920’s. It was that they are all in motion.
Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched, indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an expanding universe! The scriptures at both Job 38:4, 5 and Isa. 40:22 actually alludes to this possibility when it says "Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand. *Who set its measurements, in case you know, Or who stretched a measuring line across it?" “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.”—Isaiah 40:22.
Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about our past—and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have started the process—a force powerful enough to overcome the immense gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, ‘What could be the source of such dynamic energy?’
I think you missed the point, which is not what you think or what the bible says, but rather what the science-denying orthodox religious leaders believed at the time. That is the reason they are your brethren. In 200 years, your ancestors will look back at you in the same light.
As long as the appendage was still in its noodly phase. At times it evolves into another, more hardy form, which may be called an elevated or superior form, and it's anything but a vestigial organ.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
jjscap
Well-Known Member
Can't believe creationism is this popular in the US. In other modern countries, they don't even discuss such things. Science, mother****ers! What's the deal with the US? Government strategy? Like "God save us all"? You know this helps a lot. You control people, give them hope.
See the graph below. USA is the obvious outlier, does not follow the pattern. Religion is too important across the country.
See the graph below. USA is the obvious outlier, does not follow the pattern. Religion is too important across the country.