In article <47858023$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Leef_me wrote:
> > Variations within species can be caused by those capable of interbreedi
ng.
> > Existing animal types of cat and fish would seem to have no path to evo
lve
> > between species. 
> 
> No, but that's because they're existing. Before they were separate 
> species, they interbred. Then they stopped interbreeding, and changed 
> more and more over time.
> 
> Kind of like how horses and donkeys can breed now, but often make mules.
 
> Give them a few thousand years more, and they'll be separate species.
> 
> > Are they now? Where can I pick up a copy of "Cat to fish evolution for 
dummies"?
> 
> Univeristy of California.
> 
> Cats don't evolve into fish. Fish evolved into cats. It took a while.
> 
> > Breeders can interbreed animals of a species and have done so for sever
al
> > centuries. But the result is up to chance
> 
> Not so much as you'd think, no.
> 
> >> technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and
> >> non-living environments.
> > 
> > Man writes a computer program and you equate that to biological evoluti
on, why?
> 
> Not only that technology. I equate the computer program to biological 
> evolution because it's a simulation of evolution.
> 
> >> What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant
> >> TB is evolved from earlier TB?
> > 
> > Yes, it is know to exist, but how? Did the TB colony hear "humans have 
developed
> > drugs, we must mutate to save ourselves?" Or perhaps the natural variat
ion of
> > the TB allowed some of it to survive?
> 
> The natural variation of TB allowed some of them to survive. Then they 
> bred like mad, because the competition was wiped out, so there were now
 
> enough with that resistance to that particular drug to make a viable 
> collection for other people to get infected.
> 
> That's why it's important to finish all your antibiotics when the doctor
 
> prescribes them, even if you feel better before you're done.
> 
> >> Do you believe that seedless grapes evolved from grapes with seeds?
> > 
> > Not as a normal course, this would have sealed their fate.
> > What is the offspring of a seedless grape?
> 
> More seedless grapes. Seeds aren't the only way plants propagate.
> 
> But so what if it was influenced by humans? That doesn't mean seedless 
> grapes didn't evolve from seeded grapes. Humans just provided a 
> different form of natural selection, a different environment if you 
> will, than they would have had without humans.
> 
> >> Do you believe that dogs evolved from
> >> wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.
> > 
> > Dogs and wolves are of the same species,evolved - no; they are variaton
s within
> > the species. Man has found the traits desired and prevented the natural
> > varibility from being expressed in the domesticated dog.
> 
> I think dogs have much more variability than wolves do.
> 
> >> I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of
> >> evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence,
> > 
> > Early holders of the theory have promoted it by falsifying drawings. 
> 
> Not sure I'd say "falsifying", but yeah, I know what you're talking 
> about. So?
> 
Actually, if he is talking about the drawings I *think* he is, then he 
is wrong. Heckle's drawings where known, even in his own time, to be 
inaccurate, but sort of provided an example of something that *does* 
happen. Its the equivalent of showing a lot of pictures of seedlings, 
all of which are "sort of" similar, at a specific stage, but may be 
different prior to, and after, that stage. And even while similar, they 
are not *quite* a similar as Heckle implied. The got used in text books, 
for a while, by people that thought evolution was a real important thing 
to know, but who themselves didn't know a damn thing about it. That is 
kind of the point, which gets glossed over by deniers, its not 
biologists, scientists or evo-devo people that **write** those text 
books. They might advise about what goes into them, but that won't stop 
a lot of morons, who do write them, from writing them in ways that are 
inadequate, inaccurate, incomplete or just plain ignorant. That said, if 
one reads 90% of the text books that contain the drawings in them, its 
pretty obvious that the pictures have, for the most part, been displayed 
as, "Here is an example of what **some** people thought about how it 
worked, at one time. We now know they where wrong." This, in the mind of 
those apposed to evolution constitutes, "They are still using them and 
misleading people!" Sure, and, to use their own silly BS against them, 
allowing the Bible to still include passages about golden cows means 
their must still huge numbers of Christians with cow idols sitting in 
their closets... lol

The only reason these drawings are even and issue any more is that the 
reading comprehension of the average person using the argument is about 
on the same level as their understanding of what they are trying to 
dispute, which is to say, if they where my car mechanic, I would hire a 
6 year old to work on my car instead. At least the 8 year old wouldn't 
be confused by discovering the car had tires, and didn't work by 
sticking your feet through the floor, and running really fast.

> > Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks of 
life".
> 
> And this has what to do with evolution?
> 
Umm. Might as well ask what spontaneous formation of transistors would 
have to do with silicon lifeforms, should such a thing ever be found. 
Put simply, amino acids where *not supposed to be* possible without life 
producing them. If you have to have a living cell to produce and amino 
acid, you have a serious problem. If you get them *without* cells, then 
the question is, "Could those combine in some way to produce something 
like a cell?" It was a major "oops!" moment for early evolution 
denialists. And, we know, from things like runaway prions. There is even 
on article I read a while back saying that there are *detectable* sub-
virus type cells, which have little more than a weak shell, and a tiny 
fragment of code in them, which a) can't infect a host to case 
replication, and b) can't replicate themselves, yet **somehow** manage 
to exist, despite the fact that they lack the most basic two mechanisms 
to reproduce themselves, and their internal code can often be so simple 
that it barely creates the "shell" they use to shield themselves from 
the environment around them. The going theory is that some sets of these 
things do contain "partial" replication code, and that when they come in 
contact with code from another partial replicator, which has the missing 
fragments, they can combine and generate replicants of "both" pseudo 
organisms. It isn't hard to imagine one of those suffering a coding 
error during replication, which produced a "combined" code, in one 
stronger cell, which had "all" of the code needed to self replicate.

Problem is, I wouldn't even have a clue where to look for the article on 
them. I think it was in Discovery Magazine, but not sure, or even what 
year that the article was in. Its also one of those fields that a) 
doesn't interest most biologists (who cares about something that 
**can't** infect you?), and b) is kind of laughed off, more or less the 
way they did black holes, until someone discovered one. Oh, and it may 
have just been absorbed into the current pursuits of the main theory, 
without anyone taking much notice, kind of a, "Well, this is 
interesting, but what can it tell me about how viruses *became* viruses 
and how their DNA works?"

> >> have no alternate
> >> theory to propose that explains any of the evidence,
> > 
> > An alternate theory is that no species is a decendant from another.
> > All coexisted at one time but some (obviously) died out. Perhaps each a
nimal has
> > its own number of chromosomes, neither merged nor split from anothers.
> 
> And where'd they come from? I mean, you're the one that brought up the 
> forming of amino acids.  So what's your reason for thinking all these 
> similar beings are completely unrelated, all appeared at the same time?
> 
> And if rabbits were around at the time of dinosaurs, why don't people 
> find dinosaur fossils next to rabbit fossils?
> 
Damn, and here I left my Jurassic Rabbit fossil in my other pants. lol

> > All these increasing complexities must be supported on the life of the 
amino
> > acids. But our science suggests that things tend to become less complex
, that
> > is, break down with time.
> 
> Err, no they don't. And that's only in a closed environment anyway, 
> which isn't where evolution happens. Entropy isn't about things becoming
 
> less complex. It's about things becoming less ordered. Less ordered is 
> often *more* complex.
> 
Precisely. Entropy doesn't care "how" it gets to a state where 
everything balanced to 0. If in the short (or even long) run, that means 
it has to make a sequence like 1,-1,1,1,1,-1,-1,1,-1,-1 instead of 
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, the universe doesn't care, as long as the end 
result **approaches** 0 for the *entire* system. Or, Leef can look at it 
this way. If you have a scale, do you make it balance by adding random 
sized weights to only *one* side, until it centers, or to both? The 
universe is a balance with a near infinite number of "plates", and the 
earth, but comparison, might as well be one with trillions of plates. 
Its impossible, in such a system, to create entropy, unless you either 
a) allow for complexity, or b) reduce the complexity of the **system** 
itself to one plate (i.e. make the earth a perfect sphere, made from 
only one nonreactive material). So long as the *system* contains any 
kind of complexity at all, the entropy within that system can, and maybe 
must, create a level of complexity **at least** N-1 as complex as the 
system itself, where N is the number of variables in the system. In this 
case, that would be everything from the motion of ever subatomic 
particle on the planets surface **not** including other materials, 
energies, etc., introduced by the sun, passing meteors, comets, 
gravitational shift, energy from exploding stars, and too many things 
for me to list (or possibly imagine).

Leef_me is staring at a mold made of a hole in the ground, and asking, 
"Why does it look like the hole? Shouldn't it be perfectly flat?" Now, 
he may not *believe* that is what he is doing, but it is exactly what 
you have to do to ignore complexity via entropy, and claim that things 
get "less" complex instead. Not only is it wrong, even if its not, its 
describing the result of entropy in a system so simple we can ***see*** 
how complex the result is, compared to the environment. We can't even 
accurately **see** the complexity, in precise detail of a pail of sand, 
except in the most gross sense that it fits the shape of the bucket, 
yet, some people presume to be able to claim that the bucket proves that 
things got "less" complex. But, that is only true from the perspective 
of *that* bucket, and our *assumption* about what we actually see 
happening. We don't really see what the sand is actually doing "in" the 
bucket, what the sand is doing "to" the bucket, nor can we say, with any 
real certainty, that if we came back a billion years later, or even a 
hundred, that we could know "precisely" what the sand, the bucket, or 
*both* where going to look like. If we can't even get that right, what 
the @!#@!##$ business do we have talking about what the terms "more 
complex" or "less complex" mean to an entire planet, on a time scale of 
tens of billions of years?

Still, as with my -1/1 example, we can say its going to be as complex as 
the "system allows", while still allowing the system to achieve a value 
of 0.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message