Darwin

[Sleipnir]

http://www.ucg.org/b...fy-evolution-0/

A quote from an anti-evolution website, does that not reeks of biases to you?

Clearly the author of that website don't understand how evolution works.

[betsy]

Because they evolve at the very same time to be beneficial to one another.

"Moreover, how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without their partners arriving at the exact same moment?"

[Sleipnir]

"Moreover, how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without their partners arriving at the exact same moment?"

They don't arrive at the 'exact' same moment, they both gradually or rapidly over time to make use of each other for beneficial purposes.

[betsy]

A quote from an anti-evolution website, does that not reeks of biases to you?

Clearly the author of that website don't understand how evolution works.

And you do????

Of course I'll get some information from sites that refutes evolution. Duh.

You think I should go to evolutionists sites to get something to whack them with?

The question is: does my source have something credible to say? If you don't agree, refute it! Whining won't get you anywhere.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

They don't arrive at the 'exact' same moment, they both gradually or rapidly over time to make use of each other for beneficial purposes.

Why should I take your word for it since you've proven from other topics that you've got a problem with understanding....

You'll have to give sources or something to back you up....if you want to be taken seriously.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Of course I'll get some information from sites that refutes evolution. Duh.

Unfortunately for you, you won't find any reliable source that refute evolution.

You think I should go to evolutionists sites to get something to whack them with?

How about a primary literature source?

The question is: does my source have something credible to say? If you don't agree, refute it! Whining won't get you anywhere.

Haha don't kid yourself betsy, the burden of proof is heavily on you. I have yet to see any credible issue that dispute the concept of evolution.

[betsy]

Unfortunately for you, you won't find any reliable source that refute evolution.

How about a primary literature source?

Haha don't kid yourself betsy, the burden of proof is heavily on you. I have yet to see any credible issue that dispute the concept of evolution.

Bye-bye, Sleipnir.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Bye-bye, Sleipnir.

Knew you wouldn't seriously debate this topic.

[kimmy]

I'm not talking about co-adaptation or "cooperation" between two creatures to increase chances of survival. That's another thing that evolutionists have got to come up with a plausible explanation of how such an arrangement - or "cooperation" - between two creatures could've evolved in stages.

I'm talking about symbiosis that a creature has with another for its very existence!

Just a few weeks ago you were refusing to read my cite from PZ Myers because he's biased, and now you're offering cites from "Church of God" as evidence? You're too dense to even appreciate what an epic hypocrite you are.

You know why PZ Myers is a good cite? Because he knows the subject. He teaches it at a MAJOR university. You know why the retards at "Answer In Genesis" aren't a good cite? Because they don't know anything about the subject. They only know one thing: how to con gullible and uneducated people. People like you.

The "conundrum" you're presenting isn't a problem of evolution, it's a problem of your toddler-level grasp of evolution.

You offer this ridiculous argument that organisms that depend on a symbiotic relationship must have magically popped into existence at the exact same time or otherwise they would have both became extinct right away. It really just reflects how badly you (and the people you get these theories from) understand the topic.

How could a symbiotic relationship have evolved in stages? Easy.

1. Two creatures exist independently.

2. The creatures come into contact with each other and a mutually beneficial relationship occurs.

3. The cooperative relationship becomes a survival advantage for both, and is favored by natural selection.

4. Traits that enable a species to survive without the symbiotic relationship are no longer a survival advantage.

5. As a result, traits that enable a species to survive without the symbiotic relationship are no longer favored by natural selection.

6. Over many generations, because these traits are no longer favored by natural selection, these traits become weakened.

7. Eventually, descendents of the original creatures that formed the initial symbiotic relationship have lost traits that enabled them to survive independently, but it doesn't matter because they thrive thanks to their symbiotic relationship.

This stuff is NOT complicated. This stuff is OBVIOUS to anybody who actually understands how natural selection works. Clearly, that is not you or any of your sources.

-k

[Sleipnir]

Just a few weeks ago you were refusing to read my cite from PZ Myers because he's biased, and now you're offering cites from "Church of God" as evidence? You're too dense to even appreciate what an epic hypocrite you are.

You know why PZ Myers is a good cite? Because he knows the subject. He teaches it at a MAJOR university. You know why the retards at "Answer In Genesis" aren't a good cite? Because they don't know anything about the subject. They only know one thing: how to con gullible and uneducated people. People like you.

The "conundrum" you're presenting isn't a problem of evolution, it's a problem of your toddler-level grasp of evolution.

This stuff is NOT complicated. This stuff is OBVIOUS to anybody who actually understands how natural selection works. Clearly, that is not you or any of your sources.

-k

Well said! :]

Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir

[jbg]

The "conundrum" you're presenting isn't a problem of evolution, it's a problem of your toddler-level grasp of evolution.

If you believe some people, the fact that one of my sons looks exactly like me is the result of divine intervention or coincidence.

[dre]

If you believe some people, the fact that one of my sons looks exactly like me is the result of divine intervention or coincidence.

Or just bad luck

[dre]

Ummmm.... you guys are trying to reason with it again.

You will never ever get the time spend doing this back you know... its gone forever.

[Sleipnir]

If you believe some people, the fact that one of my sons looks exactly like me is the result of divine intervention or coincidence.

show a photo of yourself and your son, we'll be the judge of that.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir

[The_Squid]

Well said Kimmy!

[betsy]

Just a few weeks ago you were refusing to read my cite from PZ Myers because he's biased, and now you're offering cites from "Church of God" as evidence? You're too dense to even appreciate what an epic hypocrite you are.

You know why PZ Myers is a good cite? Because he knows the subject. He teaches it at a MAJOR university. You know why the retards at "Answer In Genesis" aren't a good cite? Because they don't know anything about the subject. They only know one thing: how to con gullible and uneducated people. People like you.

WHOA! Thar she blows!

@%#%##

What was that all about?

What's with all the theatrics?

Well whatever it is, you better learn to deal with debates, and learn to harness your emotions...

.....and your id (spittle, foam and all) - and I'm not referring to Intelligent Design.

--------------------

What's with you, and your inability to comprehend???

That PZ Myers teaches in a MAJOR university does not automatically make him right! You gave his blog as your source. His opinion was a knee-jerk reaction.

Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers (born March 9, 1957) is an American scientist and biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM) and the founder and co-author of the Pharyngula science blog, hosted on both the Science Blogs and Freethought Blogs blog networks. He is currently an associate professor of biology at UMM,[1] works with zebrafish in the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), and also cultivates an interest in cephalopods.

He is a public critic of intelligent design (ID) and of the creationist movement in general and is an activist in the American creation–evolution controversy. He is widely regarded as a confrontationalist.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers

He is an activist against ID and the creationist movement! He is an evolution fanatic!

Your source is an extremist. Therefore his views regarding the said article is highly questionable!

Furthermore, he is a reputed Confrontationalist! He likes confrontations - and would disagree or confront with just about anything. Thus I even showed how he found something to offend even fellow-atheists for the way they think!

Now, let's get back to your precious PZ Myers' blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/14/chickens-eggs-this-is-no-way-t/

PZ Myers:

In birds, these proteins have been coopted to regulate egg shell formation. They bind calcium and can seed the crystallization of calcium carbonate, and also control the rate of crystal formation. Chickens have ovocleidin, but geese have an ortholog, ansocalcin, and ostriches have struthiocleidin. There seems to be a lot of lability in what particular calcium-binding protein is used in shell formation, and it’s probably the case that most of the sequence is free to mutate without affecting the nucleating function.

He is refuting with an assumption! Therefore, I want more from you!

Now let's go back to my source from the United Church of God. I'll guide you and perhaps this time it will sink in.

If you try harder to ignore the words, "Church" and "God" - which I suspect triggers your tantrum episode - we can continue with this.

But if you insist on having your fit - by all means, be my guest. I'll wait until you've calmed down.

Have a drink of water. Are you hungry?

Having constipation lately? Hey....I'm fine...I'll wait til you're done. No rush.

Okay....here's the quote from my source:

Symbiosis – What is it?

The term symbiosis relates to close interactions between different biological organisms and the interdependent relationships between living things, in which completely different forms of life depend upon each other for existence. One example of beneficial symbiosis (or mutualism) is found between algae and the fungus of lichens. While fungi provide vital protection and moisture to algae, the algae nourish the fungi with photosynthetic nutrients that keep them alive.

Another example of mutual symbiosis is the relationship which exists between the ocellaris clownfish that dwells among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones. The territorial fish protects the anemone from carnivorous fish, and in turn the stinging tentacles of the anemone protect the clownfish from its predators. A special mucus on the clownfish protects it from the stinging tentacles.

Plants that are pollinated by insects have highly specialized flowers modified to promote pollination by a specific pollinator that is also correspondingly adapted. Many herbivores have mutualistic gut fauna that aid them in the digestion of plant matter. Coral reefs are the result of mutualistic symbiotic relationships existing between coral organisms and various types of algae that live inside them. Most land plants and land ecosystems rely on mutualisms between the plants which fix carbon from the air, and fungi which help in extracting minerals from the ground.

Symbiosis – A challenge to evolution?

Darwin’s theory of biological change was based upon competition among the individuals making up a species. In The Origin, Darwin concedes that "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

How can plants that require certain animals to survive have existed before those animals appeared in the first place? Moreover, how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without their partners arriving at the exact same moment?

http://www.allabouts...g/symbiosis.htm

Is there anything un-true stated in that quote? If there is, can you please point out which is untrue, and can you please correct it and enlighten us about it?

Without dissolving into any more embarassing mouth-foaming theatrics that puts any drama queen to shame?

Can you please manage that? Good girl. <pat on the head>

Like I've said before, there's nothing wrong in citing atheist, christian, evolution, apologetics etc.., sites as sources as long as they've got something credible other than personal opinions! If you want to refute - then, no one is stopping you from refuting. If you want to reject the source - have a good reason why (and support it)! Just because the source came from an atheist site (which I sometimes quote too) or a religious site, is not reason enough to automatically reject!

Okay. Your ball

Edited November 25, 2012 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Please take care- the thread is veering towards personal comments now.

[jbg]

show a photo of yourself and your son, we'll be the judge of that.

I did that once on a board related to the now-defunct CBC Board. The pictures were then cross-posted elsewhere.

The results in terms of real-world invasion of my personal privacy were horrific.

Edited November 25, 2012 by jbg

[Sleipnir]

Like I've said before, there's nothing wrong in citing atheist, christian, evolution, apologetics etc.., sites as sources as long as they've got something credible other than personal opinions! If you want to refute - then, no one is stopping you from refuting. If you want to reject the source - have a good reason why (and support it)! Just because the source came from an atheist site (which I sometimes quote too) or a religious site, is not reason enough to automatically reject!

The problem is, your source has no credibility - it lacks the up-to-date basic knowledge of science. If a source cannot grasp the basic, how can it be expected to explained the detailed of the said phenomenon?

Whether you are atheist or non-atheist has nothing to do with science, its the understanding concept of basic science that matters.

Betsy, for symbiosis - try doing some research on co-evolution from credible-source website.

Examples of co-evolutionary result:

-hummingbird and ornithophilous flowers.

-yucca moth and yucca plant.

-angraecoid orchids and African moth.

-California buckeye and their pollinators.

-old world swallowtail and fringed rue.

-garter snake and rough-skinned newt.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Sleipnir]

I did that once on a board related to the now-defunct CBC Board. The pictures were then cross-posted elsewhere.

The results in terms of real-world invasion of my personal privacy were horrific.

Sorry to hear about that, I understand now.

[betsy]

The problem is, your source has no credibility - it lacks the up-to-date basic knowledge of science. If a source cannot grasp the basic, how can it be expected to explained the detailed of the said phenomenon?

Could it be you are reacting to the name of the website - not the quote that was given?

Therefore, be specific.

Which part of the quote is un-true?

[betsy]

Please take care- the thread is veering towards personal comments now.

Thanks for the reminder. I've edited mine and toned it down.

[Sleipnir]

Could it be you are reacting to the name of the website - not the quote that was given?

Therefore, be specific.

Which part of the quote is un-true?

In Darwin's 'The Origin of Species', he did say

“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

However, scientific advancements since the publication of the book has build upon the concept of biological evolution. It has discredit some of Darwin's statements like the quote above and provided further insight in others.

Remember that not everything that Darwin says is absolute, it is a common case for any 'father of -something-'.

Example: Democritus - he was widely credited for the idea that all matters are made up of atoms and cannot be subdivided (contributed to the theory of atoms). We now know that is false since the atom is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.

As for explaining the basic of co-evolution:

University of California provides an example using insects and plants with explaining the basic of how co-evolution can occur between the two.

http://evolution.ber...evolution.shtml

Its a short explanation (1 page).

Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

In Darwin's 'The Origin of Species', he did say

“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

However, scientific advancements since the publication of the book has build upon the concept of biological evolution. It has discredit some of Darwin's statements like the quote above and provided further insight in others.

Remember that not everything that Darwin says is absolute, it is a common case for any 'father of -something-'.

Example: Democritus - he was widely credited for the idea that all matters are made up of atoms and cannot be subdivided (contributed to the theory of atoms). We now know that is false since the atom is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.

As for explaining the basic of co-evolution:

University of California provides an example using insects and plants with explaining the basic of how co-evolution can occur between the two.

http://evolution.ber...evolution.shtml

Its a short explanation (1 page).

Here's the quote again from the CHURCH OF GOD. Please take note:

Symbiosis – A challenge to evolution?

Darwin’s theory of biological change was based upon competition among the individuals making up a species. In The Origin, Darwin concedes that "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

How can plants that require certain animals to survive have existed before those animals appeared in the first place? Moreover, how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without their partners arriving at the exact same moment?

First, there is the question mark. It is not giving a conclusion. It is asking.

And here's your source:

Many plants and their pollinators are so reliant on one another and their relationships are so exclusive that biologists have good reason to think that the “match” between the two is the result of a coevolutionary process.

But we can see exclusive “matches” between plants and insects even when pollination is not involved. Some Central American Acacia species have hollow thorns and pores at the bases of their leaves that secrete nectar (see image at right). These hollow thorns are the exclusive nest-site of some species of ant that drink the nectar. But the ants are not just taking advantage of the plant—they also defend their acacia plant against herbivores.

This system is probably the product of coevolution: the plants would not have evolved hollow thorns or nectar pores unless their evolution had been affected by the ants, and the ants would not have evolved herbivore defense behaviors unless their evolution had been affected by the plants.

Second, let me just point out that your source is basing its conclusions on plain assumption:

that biologists have good reason to think that the “match” between the two is the result of a coevolutionary process.

This system is probably the product of coevolution:

And third, as you can see, your quoted source did not even address the question(s) asked by my source.

My source asks:

How can plants that require certain animals to survive have existed before those animals appeared in the first place? Moreover, how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without their partners arriving at the exact same moment?

How can two separate creatures - that exclusively rely on each other for their existence - existed at the very exact time?

They had to - since one cannot exist without the other. So, what's the answer to that?

Edited November 25, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

How can two separate creatures - that exclusively rely on each other for their existence - existed at the very exact time?

They had to - since one cannot exist without the other. So, what's the answer to that?

Read the source I gave to you.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir