Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Then we can move on to insects which look like a piece of horse sh1t, which, we all agree, must be an obvious advantage: But how did they start on that road to the appearance of a piece of crap. What is the evolutionary advantage of looking 1% like crap?
I'm not aware of an insect that looks like a piece of horse sh1t, but let's assume there is one. I can see that looking a bit like horse sh1t would make it marginally less likely to be eaten than a buddy who looks less like horse sh1t. I could do the maths for you if you like; 1% is all it takes. Next.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Then we can move on to insects which look like a piece of horse sh1t, which, we all agree, must be an obvious advantage: But how did they start on that road to the appearance of a piece of crap. What is the evolutionary advantage of looking 1% like crap?
there are enough insects that look like something else other than an insect (a leaf or stick for example) to suggest that they may be at an advantage being like this 
Cheers
GJ
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Sorry.
Loose talk costs lives.
My use of the phrase "a couple" was meant to indicate an unspecified small number, as opposed to "two".
"Within your lifetime" is as close as you need to know, really.
I guess 'within my lifetime' isn't really relevant if I am run over by a bus tomorrow. It is thus irrelevant for the one and a half thousand people who will die in the UK tomorrow, or 600 thousand who will die in the next year. Is it as close as they really need to know? How is your claim materially different to the hundreds of similar claims by equally crackpot xian groups that never came to pass. Is it that you haven't given a date so you cannot be disproved and made to look rather silly?
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker: quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Sorry.
Loose talk costs lives.
My use of the phrase "a couple" was meant to indicate an unspecified small number, as opposed to "two".
"Within your lifetime" is as close as you need to know, really.
I guess 'within my lifetime' isn't really relevant if I am run over by a bus tomorrow. It is thus irrelevant for the one and a half thousand people who will die in the UK tomorrow, or 600 thousand who will die in the next year. Is it as close as they really need to know? How is your claim materially different to the hundreds of similar claims by equally crackpot xian groups that never came to pass. Is it that you haven't given a date so you cannot be disproved and made to look rather silly?
I would love to be having this conversation with you at Armageddon. Then, we shall see who has been silly.
What time is it, Mr Woolf?
Time to mend your ways, for the end is nigh.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Greenjack: quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Then we can move on to insects which look like a piece of horse sh1t, which, we all agree, must be an obvious advantage: But how did they start on that road to the appearance of a piece of crap. What is the evolutionary advantage of looking 1% like crap?
there are enough insects that look like something else other than an insect (a leaf or stick for example) to suggest that they may be at an advantage being like this
Sorry, I can't believe that looking 1% more like a stick is really that advantageous, either.
What time is it, Mr Woolf?
Time to mend your ways, for the end is nigh.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
My use of the phrase "a couple" was meant to indicate an unspecified small number, as opposed to "two".
"Within your lifetime" is as close as you need to know, really.
LOL. Yes, a bit like Jesus, when he said he'd be back in a jiffy and some people are still waiting for him. Hey, what's a few thousand years between friends? |
| |
|
|
Indeed he made pretty much exactly the same claim as wolfy here: within your lifetime (i.e. a generation). So if the big man himself got it wrong, why should we place any credibility at all on some whippersnapper.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Sorry, I can't believe that looking 1% more like a stick is really that advantageous, either.
Its not a question of belief, it is a question of maths and testable repeatable evidence. Take, for example, 1000 insects on a tree with 50% looking just slightly more stick like. Birds swoop down and pick the insects off the tree, grabbing the first one to catch their eye. Lets say the the less 'sticky' insects are grabbed 51% of the time, in other words they are taken at a ratio of 51:49 Stress the species by culling 90%. Other those 900 eaten 459 are less sticky, 441 are more sticky. Thus the remaining population is 41 less sticky, 59 more sticky. The next generation is not now 50:50 but 40:60. Thus the incidence of the sticky gene has significantly increased in just a single generation. Done by 1%. The same will apply to every mutation that increases the stickyness. I have, of course assumed an inverse correlation between looking like a stick and been eaten and assumed a creature that looks 1% more like a stick (whatever that means) is 1% less likely to be eaten. In the absence of test data this seams a reasonable assumption. The above effect is observable in real time in populations of bacteria stressed with anti-bacterial agents. This is science.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
New Member
|
There is no point in even arguing because there is NO PROOF that evolution happened.
When they find a skeleton of a whale like creature that can walk on land. I'll believe it.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MikeBlitz:
There is no point in even arguing because there is NO PROOF that evolution happened.
When they find a skeleton of a whale like creature that can walk on land. I'll believe it.
Tons of proof - millions fossils all in perfect sequence, same building blocks of life common to all living creatures, non related species converging when stressed by the same environment. The list is endless. You can say I don't understand, you can say it offends ones religion, but you can't say there is no evidence. Just one fossil out of place would disprove TofE, that's all. The whale: you wont find a whale size creature with walking legs....very unlikely as the main whale characteristics have evolved in the sea. However, they are mammals and in effect share a common ancestor to homo sapiens. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker: quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Sorry, I can't believe that looking 1% more like a stick is really that advantageous, either.
Its not a question of belief, it is a question of maths and testable repeatable evidence. Take, for example, 1000 insects on a tree with 50% looking just slightly more stick like. Birds swoop down and pick the insects off the tree, grabbing the first one to catch their eye. Lets say the the less 'sticky' insects are grabbed 51% of the time, in other words they are taken at a ratio of 51:49 Stress the species by culling 90%. Other those 900 eaten 459 are less sticky, 441 are more sticky. Thus the remaining population is 41 less sticky, 59 more sticky. The next generation is not now 50:50 but 40:60. Thus the incidence of the sticky gene has significantly increased in just a single generation. Done by 1%. The same will apply to every mutation that increases the stickyness. I have, of course assumed an inverse correlation between looking like a stick and been eaten and assumed a creature that looks 1% more like a stick (whatever that means) is 1% less likely to be eaten. In the absence of test data this seams a reasonable assumption. The above effect is observable in real time in populations of bacteria stressed with anti-bacterial agents. This is science.
Thats sounds great but wouldnt the Birds also evolve to keep up with these sticky changes and have better eyesight so they can spot these sticky insects 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.
|
| |
|
|
The only thing I find hard to come to terms with evolution is the so called missing links, Now Im not the brightest person in the world but surely there couldnt have been just one or two along the chain of evolution so why is it so hard to find these links also if we did evolve surley there would be younger versons of modern man still around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by zero defects: Thats sounds great but wouldnt the Birds also evolve to keep up with these sticky changes and have better eyesight so they can spot these sticky insects
look around you & see the massive variations birds have adopted, through evolution, to help them with this very kind of problem. Even better, visit Down House. Darwin will explain it for you himself 
Cheers
GJ
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by zero defects: also if we did evolve surley there would be younger versons of modern man still around.
look no further than Woolfy  but people assume that every stage of evolution has been fossilised, not the case. The conditions for fossilisation just may not have been right for all missing species. Do we have fossils of Dodo's? or any other of the species we have wiped out? Maybe not but they did exist.
Cheers
GJ
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Milan K: quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
My use of the phrase "a couple" was meant to indicate an unspecified small number, as opposed to "two".
"Within your lifetime" is as close as you need to know, really.
LOL. Yes, a bit like Jesus, when he said he'd be back in a jiffy and some people are still waiting for him. Hey, what's a few thousand years between friends?
Yet more purposeful misinterpretation of scripture. He was talking about His ascension into heaven, not His second coming. Kind of obvious, really, and requiring the kind of suspense of disbelief necessary to subscribe to the theory of evolution to interpret it otherwise. But then, that's what atheists do, I suppose.
What time is it, Mr Woolf?
Time to mend your ways, for the end is nigh.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
This is science.
This is 80ll0ck5
What time is it, Mr Woolf?
Time to mend your ways, for the end is nigh.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Greenjack: quote: Originally posted by zero defects: also if we did evolve surley there would be younger versons of modern man still around.
look no further than Woolfy but people assume that every stage of evolution has been fossilised, not the case. The conditions for fossilisation just may not have been right for all missing species. Do we have fossils of Dodo's? or any other of the species we have wiped out? Maybe not but they did exist.
Do we have fossils of anything which was wiped out in the last few hundred years? Well, there's a funny thing: Where did dodos come from? What is the possible evolutionary advantage of being able to fly, and not bothering?
What time is it, Mr Woolf?
Time to mend your ways, for the end is nigh.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Well, there's a funny thing: Where did dodos come from? What is the possible evolutionary advantage of being able to fly, and not bothering?
What is the evolutionary advantage of having a brain but not using it? Well it conserves energy for all that nonsense being spouted, for one thing.
--------------------
If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
|
| |
|
|
I have never understood why people think insulting others makes for a good debate but never mind Im sure someone more polite will come along.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by zero defects:
I have never understood why people think insulting others makes for a good debate but never mind Im sure someone more polite will come along.
HA, not on here they won't & woolfy, has it not occured to you that perhaps they didn't need to fly? & just because we don't have their preceding evolutionary stage in fossil form doesn't mean it didn't exist. You just need to apply faith, I'm sure you'll have no problem doing that
Cheers
GJ
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker: quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Sorry, I can't believe that looking 1% more like a stick is really that advantageous, either.
Its not a question of belief, it is a question of maths and testable repeatable evidence. Take, for example, 1000 insects on a tree with 50% looking just slightly more stick like. Birds swoop down and pick the insects off the tree, grabbing the first one to catch their eye. Lets say the the less 'sticky' insects are grabbed 51% of the time, in other words they are taken at a ratio of 51:49 Stress the species by culling 90%. Other those 900 eaten 459 are less sticky, 441 are more sticky. Thus the remaining population is 41 less sticky, 59 more sticky. The next generation is not now 50:50 but 40:60. Thus the incidence of the sticky gene has significantly increased in just a single generation. Done by 1%. The same will apply to every mutation that increases the stickyness. I have, of course assumed an inverse correlation between looking like a stick and been eaten and assumed a creature that looks 1% more like a stick (whatever that means) is 1% less likely to be eaten. In the absence of test data this seams a reasonable assumption. The above effect is observable in real time in populations of bacteria stressed with anti-bacterial agents. This is science.
But the genetic information, surely, must be to look only 1% like a stick? So where does the other 99% of sticklikeness come from: Appreciating of course, that there could have been no original model / target for achievement? And to return to an old point which you chickened out of previously: At which point does the stick insect cease to become a non - stick insect? And why? And how?
What time is it, Mr Woolf?
Time to mend your ways, for the end is nigh.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Greenjack: quote: Originally posted by zero defects:
I have never understood why people think insulting others makes for a good debate but never mind Im sure someone more polite will come along.
HA, not on here they won't & woolfy, has it not occured to you that perhaps they didn't need to fly? & just because we don't have their preceding evolutionary stage in fossil form doesn't mean it didn't exist. You just need to apply faith, I'm sure you'll have no problem doing that
It should be abundantly obvious by now that trying to reason with Woolfie about science is a complete waste of time. The objections creationists have about evolution are not about the science -it is just that they don't like the fact that the science collides with their dogmas. To argue in scientific terms with these people is futile. They are lost. |
| |
| |
