Evolution

[Marcus Wolfe]

YES!! WE WON!!!!

OK, now KzinistZerg, I was looking for a certain term for species evolving in parallel. Who knows what it is?

[Abramul]

You mean parallel evolution?

[Marcus Wolfe]

....Yes, but I think there was another word for it..........

[KzinistZerg]

Uh, nope, it's Parallel Evolution. Co-evolution, which you may be thinking of, is kinda like symbiosis.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Actually, I think co-evolution is more like predator and prey both evolving to run faster.

[ninja_lord666]

You are both right:

In biology, co-evolution is the mutual evolutionary influence between two species. Each party in a co-evolutionary relationship exerts selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each others' evolution. Co-evolution includes the evolution of a host species and its parasites, and examples of mutualism evolving through time. Evolution in response to abiotic factors, such as climate change, is not coevolution (since climate is not alive and does not undergo biological evolution). Evolution in a one-on-one interaction, such as that between predator and prey, host-symbiont or host-parasite pair, is coevolution. But many cases are less clearcut: a species may evolve in response to a number of other species, each of which is also evolving in response to a set of species. This situation has been referred to as "diffuse coevolution". And, certainly, for many organisms, the biotic (living) environment is the most prominent selective pressure, resulting in evolutionary change.

The term symbiosis (Greek for living together) can be used to describe various degrees of close relationship between organisms of different species. Sometimes it is used only for cases where both organisms benefit, sometimes it is used more generally to describe all varieties of relatively tight relationships, i.e. even parasitism, but not predation. Some even go so far as to use it to describe predation. It can be used to describe relationships where one organism lives on or in another, or it can be used to describe cases where organisms are related by mutual stereotypic behaviors.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Ah, symbiosis.

Humans and the bacteria in our gut that help us digest stuff.

Crocodiles and those crazy birds that pick food from their teeth.

Ravens and Wolves, one is good at finding dead bodies, the other at making bodies dead.

[Peregrine]

Sorry guys, I've been out of town for the past three weeks and unable to post. But I won't deprive you of your flames any longer!

 

What? We almost got closed? Can't let that happen....................

Quickly, someone argue with the following statement:

Creatures that reproduce sexually will have a better chance of survival because creatures that reproduce asexually have no variation and therefore do not evolve.

 

Completely wrong. The fact that asexual creatures do evolve should be blindingly obvious if you actually think about it for a second. If they never evolve, how did they reach their present form from whatever primitive life first formed? The answer of course is that they do. While DNA copying accuracy is extremely high and sexual reproduction considerably increases the rate of evolution, asexual reproduction involves enough copying errors for mutations to happen and be subjected to natural selection.

 

===============================================

 

 

No geographical evidence exists that a major flooding of the earth happened after the rise of man

You’re not being intellectually honest; a quick Google gave me this article, not proof but evidence none the less. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...nkencities.html you will find similar results as well, signs of water on highest points on earth.

 

1) Did you even bother reading your own link before posting it? The link refers to local geographic changes, not a global flood. A few scattered coastal ruins don't even come close to the scale of a global flood. And this isn't even a flood (by definition a temporary event, which puts water where it shouldn't normally be and ends as soon as the water drains away), the changes were permanent and involved the land itself.

 

2) Please, post these "signs of water on highest points on earth". I need some entertainment.

 

(heck, I don't even think there's enough water in the world to flood everywhere!) We never did find the lost arc

Some believe Noah’s Ark is on Mount Ararat in Turkey, can’t confirm or disprove because it is in a military zone.

 

It's usually a good idea to attempt to verify your claims before posting them. The "discovery" you are refering to is a hoax, as admitted by the person responsible.

 

Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html

 

Religion's time is up. It is time for science to take over.

According to science your worth about 12-15 dollars, the price of the chemicals & elements of your body, so if we follow only science, to its natural conclusion your life or anyone else’s is practically worthless.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Since when have we ever valued things only by the financial value of their materials? Is a priceless work of art only worth a few dollars of paint?

 

Of course you're even more wrong in claiming that science makes that value judgement. Science doesn't make any value judgements, it tells how things work, not how they should work. That job belongs to philosophy, ethics, etc. And speaking as one of them, scientists have no problem finding value in life. Neither evolution nor science in general are any threat to this.

 

As an example: with my engineering knowledge, I could drop a nuclear warhead on your house with pinpoint accuracy from halfway around the world, ending your life in an unspeakable massacre. Or I could build the plane that flies you a thousand miles to be with your one true love, sending you to the highest peaks of happiness. Both options would use the exact same equations and principles. Nowhere in the textbooks does it tell me which option I should pick.

 

Here is a quote for you, I try to go by.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

 

Word of advice to you: research your quotes before trying an appeal to authority. Despite the common misconception, Einstein's religion was about as far from the traditional monotheism of most of the world (and I would assume, of your religion). At most, Einstein could be considered a deist, in his words:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

Or even better, just look at the entire context of the quote you gave (emphasis mine):

 

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

Nowhere does he mention worship of Jesus, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other conventional religion. The required ideas of "truth, understanding, reason" are only superficially related to the conventional idea of religion. It's a choice of words that, in hindsight, could have been much better and not so open to abuse.

[ninja_lord666]

2) Please, post these "signs of water on highest points on earth". I need some entertainment.

There are fossils of ancient sea creatures on top of the Himalayas. I think that might be what he's referring to. However, they were put there by tectonic activity not flooding.

[hoots7]

No geographical evidence exists that a major flooding of the earth happened after the rise of man

You’re not being intellectually honest; a quick Google gave me this article, not proof but evidence none the less. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...nkencities.html you will find similar results as well, signs of water on highest points on earth.

 

1) Did you even bother reading your own link before posting it? The link refers to local geographic changes, not a global flood. A few scattered coastal ruins don't even come close to the scale of a global flood. And this isn't even a flood (by definition a temporary event, which puts water where it shouldn't normally be and ends as soon as the water drains away), the changes were permanent and involved the land itself.

2) Please, post these "signs of water on highest points on earth". I need some entertainment.

Yes I did, that’s why I stated “not proof but evidence none the less”, they claim in the article that it was a local event, years from now after they do more research they may change that position.

I was responding to 'Marcus Wolfe's post where he stated “No geographical evidence exists”, not making an initial statement of my own.

 

 

(heck, I don't even think there's enough water in the world to flood everywhere!) We never did find the lost arc

Some believe Noah’s Ark is on Mount Ararat in Turkey, can’t confirm or disprove because it is in a military zone.

 

It's usually a good idea to attempt to verify your claims before posting them. The "discovery" you are refering to is a hoax, as admitted by the person responsible.

 

Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html

.

Your link is about “George Jammal” being debunked, where did I mention this guy’s name?

Again, I was responding to 'Marcus Wolfe's post, not making a “claim” or an initial statement of my own.

I said “Some believe Noah’s Ark is on Mount Ararat in Turkey, can’t confirm or disprove because it is in a military zone”, I did not refer to any “discovery” did I?

 

 

Religion's time is up. It is time for science to take over.

According to science your worth about 12-15 dollars, the price of the chemicals & elements of your body, so if we follow only science, to its natural conclusion your life or anyone else’s is practically worthless.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Since when have we ever valued things only by the financial value of their materials? Is a priceless work of art only worth a few dollars of paint?

 

Of course you're even more wrong in claiming that science makes that value judgement. Science doesn't make any value judgements, it tells how things work, not how they should work. That job belongs to philosophy, ethics, etc. And speaking as one of them, scientists have no problem finding value in life. Neither evolution nor science in general are any threat to this.

 

As an example: with my engineering knowledge, I could drop a nuclear warhead on your house with pinpoint accuracy from halfway around the world, ending your life in an unspeakable massacre. Or I could build the plane that flies you a thousand miles to be with your one true love, sending you to the highest peaks of happiness. Both options would use the exact same equations and principles. Nowhere in the textbooks does it tell me which option I should pick.

 

Here is a quote for you, I try to go by.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

 

Word of advice to you: research your quotes before trying an appeal to authority. Despite the common misconception, Einstein's religion was about as far from the traditional monotheism of most of the world (and I would assume, of your religion). At most, Einstein could be considered a deist, in his words:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

Or even better, just look at the entire context of the quote you gave (emphasis mine):

 

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

Nowhere does he mention worship of Jesus, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other conventional religion. The required ideas of "truth, understanding, reason" are only superficially related to the conventional idea of religion. It's a choice of words that, in hindsight, could have been much better and not so open to abuse.

 

Now you’re criticizing Einstein for his choice of words.

And I never said anything about worship of anyone or anything, you are.

 

“Is a priceless work of art only worth a few dollars of paint?”

No, exactly my point, thank you for making it for me.

Jackson Pollack, is the only artist I know of whose style is closest to evolution.

I’ve watched him work and to me he seems to open paint buckets & apply paint to a canvas like a child would.

He would tell you that’s not so, he chooses colors, dispersal methods, patterns and other things.

But with most artist though the observer can tell that someone with great skill has purposely created this “priceless work of art”. I believe Albert Einstein was just such an observer of mathematics, science and the universe & saw as he worked that all that is must have been the work of someone, no he did not define it using a religious tag (I never said he did) that people use, but he did recognize it.

 

Ok, why don’t we just read the whole thing (what you quoted is the 16th paragraph down). http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm#RELIGION

Just to be clear, I’m not a follower of Albert Einstein, he was just a man, I do admire some of his work though.

 

All this discussion is really interesting but let me cut to the chase and ask you the big question.

How did it all start?