|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 21, 2010 17:42:18 GMT 1
Oh Darwin
Oh Darwin
You and your [snip] Theory of evolution
What about these points you Darwinian bearded [snip]?
If evolution is the accidental triumph of millions of genetic mutations then why do all fossil record show distinct changes, and not a series of gradual changes?
How can a sophisticated organ such as the eye have 'evolved' when there are so many interdependent functions that must have happened at the same time?
Why did land mammals 'evolve' in such a short space of time to become whales, for example?
Tell me tell me Darwin you bearded [snip], don't just sit there and watch, spectate!
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 21, 2010 20:19:31 GMT 1
So,no-one has doubts?
Then explain!
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowcat on Sept 22, 2010 20:32:57 GMT 1
Oh dear these tired old arguments again.
By the way Charles Darwin is dead so I doubt if he will be registering here to put you right.
Any way, what is not to understand?
"How can a sophisticated organ such as the eye have 'evolved' when there are so many interdependent functions that must have happened at the same time?"
Ah I see your confusion, the various parts of eyes did not all evolve at the same time.
I would also point out that many different eyes have evolved, so they are fairly easy things for evolution to produce.
"Why did land mammals 'evolve' in such a short space of time to become whales, for example?"
Sort time?
Ten million years to get from a terrestrial mesonychid to semi aquatic Ambulocetus another four million years to get to Rodhocetus which probably could still come onto land, like modern seals.
Then another ten million or so years to get to the fully aquatic Basilosaurus and Dorudon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 22, 2010 21:35:25 GMT 1
Oh dear these tired old arguments again. By the way Charles Darwin is dead so I doubt if he will be registering here to put you right. Any way, what is not to understand? "How can a sophisticated organ such as the eye have 'evolved' when there are so many interdependent functions that must have happened at the same time?" Ah I see your confusion, the various parts of eyes did not all evolve at the same time. I would also point out that many different eyes have evolved, so they are fairly easy things for evolution to produce. "Why did land mammals 'evolve' in such a short space of time to become whales, for example?" Sort time? Ten million years to get from a terrestrial mesonychid to semi aquatic Ambulocetus another four million years to get to Rodhocetus which probably could still come onto land, like modern seals. Then another ten million or so years to get to the fully aquatic Basilosaurus and Dorudon. I do not think that you have answered the questions Yellowcat. Still, as long as you are enjoying yourself eh? |
|
|
|
Post by yellowcat on Sept 22, 2010 21:54:35 GMT 1
May be you just failed to understand the answer.
Once again. There is no need for all parts of eyes to evolve at the same time, so your question "How can a sophisticated organ such as the eye have 'evolved' when there are so many interdependent functions that must have happened at the same time?" is meaningless as it makes the invalid assumption that all parts of the eye had to evolve simultaneously.
Seriously what would you propose in place of evolution? Magic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 23, 2010 7:17:25 GMT 1
May be you just failed to understand the answer. your question is meaningless as it makes the invalid assumption that all parts of the eye had to evolve simultaneously. In fact my question is ripe with meaning - a ripenesss of which you are apparently unaware. www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.htmlSeriously what would you propose in place of evolution? Magic? Seriously I would propse that the dogma of evolution be replaced by questions about evolution |
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 23, 2010 8:06:02 GMT 1
In fact my question is ripe with meaning - a ripenesss of which you are apparently unaware. Yeah, right! What your questions indicate is a near complete ignorance, an unwillingness to go find out and your usual dogmatic belief that if you don't understand it, it must be wrong. In the time it took you to type your message you could have found sources that would have answered them. Then, perhaps, you could have asked something a little more intelligent. e.g. Eye evolutionSeriously I would propse that the dogma of evolution be replaced by questions about evolution Mountains of overwhelming evidence, from several independent sources, tends to lead to a degree of confidence. There is no dogma. Try Evolution 101 and What is the evidence for evolution?. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 23, 2010 8:47:51 GMT 1
In fact my question is ripe with meaning - a ripenesss of which you are apparently unaware. Yeah, right! What your questions indicate is a near complete ignorance, an unwillingness to go find out and your usual dogmatic belief that if you don't understand it, it must be wrong. In the time it took you to type your message you could have found sources that would have answered them. Then, perhaps, you could have asked something a little more intelligent. [snip] The dogma , my dear Olmy, lays in the sneering at valid questions PS Who said that science lacks passion ;D |
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 23, 2010 9:08:15 GMT 1
Well Olmy you are really being a fool! I will let you know why later Sneering does not really suit you  The dogma , my dear Olmy, lays in the sneering at valid questions If I had any sense at all that your questions were a genuine attempt to understand something, you'd have got a different response. [snip] It is usually futile to attempt an explanation in these circumstances since the 'argument from personal incredulity' fallacy can be repeated ad nauseam, despite any such attempts, and often the answers are too complex to do justice to in forum messages anyway (and such people are never willing to read longer articles). |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 23, 2010 9:40:59 GMT 1
Clearly you are someone who feels very threatened by the thought that other people might understand something that you don't. As a result, you feel the need to sneer and to attempt to show that they don't really understand much at all. ;D ;D My dear I fear I must ignore you from now on. I ask questions because I am interested and the particular questions I asked on this thread had a particular point that totally eludes you [snip] Quite frankly I am not interested in that sort of person -STA is quite enough for me, so bye-bye Olmy - and remember this you started the sneering on this thread |
|
|
|
Post by principled on Sept 23, 2010 10:34:07 GMT 1
Oh dear, oh dear. Why is it that when discussing science the discussions end in silly playground name calling and insinuation?
Be forthright by all means, even play the devil's advocate, if necessary use humour, but leave the playground name calling where it belongs. It closed one board and could well close this one plus IT'S BORING!
P
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 23, 2010 13:15:35 GMT 1
My my, you daren't even ask the question that I have titillated you with! ... I deliberately posted the OP to see who would take the bait. Why am I not convinced....... [snip] (Incidentally I do not sneer at sceince - I think it should be fun, so I simply refuse to genuflect to dogma) But we must stop meeting like this - I have told my wife that our relationship has finished! |
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 23, 2010 13:31:14 GMT 1
Fine, then all you have to do is come out with this wonderful point/question you keep going on about and show everyone how silly I've been. I'm not holding my breath. Incidentally I do not sneer at sceince - I think it should be fun, so I simply refuse to genuflect to dogma "I simply refuse to genuflect to dogma" is a sneer, when applied to science. It also shows that you don't know what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 23, 2010 13:39:48 GMT 1
Incidentally I do not sneer at sceince - I think it should be fun, so I simply refuse to genuflect to dogma "I simply refuse to genuflect to dogma" is a sneer, when applied to science. It also shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You simply do not get the point do you? Sceptcisim is the very essence of science; the dogmatic 'you are wrong and I am right' so prevalent on this board is the very antitthseis of science And I assure you , my ego-struck friend, I definitely do know what I amm talking about and when I do not, I ask, and I can detect blather at 100m |
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 23, 2010 13:55:54 GMT 1
You simply do not get the point do you? Sceptcisim is the very essence of science; the dogmatic 'you are wrong and I am right' so prevalent on this board is the very antitthseis of science You really don't see the irony, do you? It is you who keep claiming that you are right and scientists or mathematicians are wrong, according to the dogma that it must be the case, if you don't understand it. If you came here and said "I really don't understand this, can someone explain", rather than stuff like "Daft Analogy", "Silly Science", "Confused Science", "An Infinity Of Bollocks" or, for that matter "I simply refuse to genuflect to dogma", then you would have a point. As it is, it's a massive case of pot-kettle-black. And I assure you , my ego-struck friend, I definitely do know what I amm talking about and when I do not, I ask... The evidence indicates otherwise. ...I can detect blather at 100m The blather is all coming from yourself. Have you actually read any of the articles I pointed to that might help clear up your confusion about evolution? |
|
