Are you an atheist?

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike, that's just it. THERE ARE NO GOALS for each species. The thrust, the direction if you prefer, for evolution is that bad changes usually tend to die off, good changes usually tend to survive, unless there is an environmental catastrophe to "change the rules" suddenly and without enough time for the superior variant to establish itself. The lizard didn't have a goal of growing ANYTHING. But the ones who DID make that change had a better chance of survival and so perpetuated that change.

We don't measure bricks with a micrometer. But sometimes we DO measure the depth of a layer of soil deposition using fairly fine measurements because that is key to making an educated guess of the age of what was underneath the deposits.

If you accept macro evolution, well and good for you. It is a reasonable choice. There are those (and I'm sure you've seen some of them in this very thread) who would vehemently disagree.

As to a variety of mechanisms, OF COURSE evolution works in more than one way. I was merely pointing out that the word evolution DOES NOT mean "survival of the fittest." However, considering the things that evolution covers, one of them IS "survival of the fittest." Mutations and adaptation to change are also part of the picture. To say that there is more at work than just evolution is similar to saying that there is more than one type of thermodynamics. It's ALL about energy flow for thermodynamics, whatever kind of energy you've got, just as it's ALL about differentiation of species in whatever way it happens under evolution.

By the way,

In some ways I see the amphibian as similar to the legless lizard in the sense they are a dead end.

if you've never had deep-fried south Louisiana frog legs, you don't know much about amphibians. But of course, that leads to legless frogs, doesn't it...

 

[Galaxiom]

You can have [reptiles and amphibians] on your tree of life but their starting points were much closer to the root of the tree.

In some ways I see the amphibian as similar to the legless lizard in the sense they are a dead end.

This post strongly suggests that you are still stuck in the mistake of comparing the living forms of reptiles and amphibians. Reptiles certainly did not evolve from animals that resembled today's amphibians.

Modern amphibians are descendants of just part of the range of amphibians that existed during the time when tetrapods diverged to become the ancestors of modern amphibians and the amniotes. The reptile-like amphibians of the time were subsequently completely supplanted by the amniote forms which were much better adapted to life on land.

Evolution of the tetrapods was not an overnight event. Lobed fin fish living in the shallows diverged into a number of groups that increasingly became able to cope with a terrestrial environment.

Unfortunately, like many of the rapid diversifications in paleohistory , the most rapid evolution of the tetrapods occurred during times of great extinctions when very few fossil specimens have been found.

 

[Galaxiom]

By goals I mean (as I think others do) that buried inside some lizard something says "I need to grow longer and powerful back legs and a longer tail so I can run bipedal at high speed".

To gain the slightest credibility for this suggestion you would have to demonstrate a place where primitive organisms could manage to contemplate such a subjective analysis and a plausible mechanism for how that would influence mutation and/or selection of the successfully reproducing gametes.

Fact is, such suggestions can be eliminated using Ockham's Razor since the proven mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection can already fully explain the diversification of species.

The is no evidence whatsoever for "goals" in Evolution.

 

[Alc]

To gain the slightest credibility for this suggestion you would have to demonstrate a place where primitive organisms could manage to contemplate such a subjective analysis and a plausible mechanism for how that would influence mutation and/or selection of the successfully reproducing gametes.

Fact is, such suggestions can be eliminated using Ockham's Razor since the proven mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection can already fully explain the diversification of species.

The is no evidence whatsoever for "goals" in Evolution.

I once had a (brief) conversation with a friend of my wife. She (the friend) teaches science in high school, here in Ontario and is also a regular church-goer. Knowing I was an atheist, she asked me "If evolution is true, how come I can't evolve more money? I need that." I assumed she was joking, so I laughed. She wasn't. I started to say that evolution doesn't work by something/somebody consciously deciding they need something and just getting it, but as that was how she understood it and as there was no getting around the fact, I ended the conversation. I think we both parted ways believing that if only the other person could just listen to reason he/she would change their mind.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Damn, I need to work on evolving that money tree to be more efficient. I must be doing something wrong...

 

[Mike375]

You blokes did not correctly read....I said it was my understanding goals were not involved in evolution.

This line was to illustrate what I meant by goals.

"By goals I mean (as I think others do) that buried inside some lizard something says "I need to grow longer and powerful back legs and a longer tail so I can run bipedal at high speed".

So to be doubly clear it is my understanding the above is not involved with evolution.

 

[Mike375]

This post strongly suggests that you are still stuck in the mistake of comparing the living forms of reptiles and amphibians. Reptiles certainly did not evolve from animals that resembled today's amphibians.

No, I am not stuck there at all.

But surely you are not suggesting evolution has come to an end in the past few million years or so?

My basic issue is the transition period, although I have an argument (and example) against my own point of view.

I have already posted I thing the legless lizard is a dead end. I also think monitor lizards are dead ends.

The monitors (and I have kept them) are very interesting. The Jacobson's organ and forked tongue is at the full snake level. With other lizards it is barely functional and the tongue is not forked but often has a V at the end.

The monitors also have a small degree of lower jaw detachment but compared to snakes is nothing. The monitor lizard still maintains a very strong bite force, I can attest to personally, although while wearing heavy gloves. On the hand the snake must have about the weakest bite of any animal for equal head size.

In other words the monitor gained some snake advantages but was stopped short. The only was a monitor could change to snake type jaws and survive would require some type of mutation or whatever other means that would allow the transition to be very quick.

The monitors also have venom but compared to snakes it could be rated as bordering on non function. Even if a potent venom developed it needs the snakes skull for delivery.

HOWEVER......transition over a long period could be possible if conditions existed (especially competing predators) whereby the competition was of no significance. One particular monitor, the Komodo Dragon, is a good example.

There are a couple of major differences between Komodos and other lizards and especially other monitors and these are important. Firstly, unlike other lizards and monitor lizards the Komodo takes prey that is large and of often much larger than itself. As I sure you are aware this is due to the nature of the septic bite and also a very slashing bite with one bite prey will bleed out.

Another difference compared to other monitors the Komodo, except when juvenile, is not a climber. Other monitors will go up a tree like a lightning bolt.

In size we could say a good size male Komodo will be about the weight of a leopard. However, if all the Komodos could be replaced by leopards or other similar size mammal predators they would not survive due to the relatively small food supply in the areas Komodos occupy. In fact the Knomodo is a great example of island gigantism.

Apart from lack of climbing as compared to ther monitors it is basically slow and clumsy.

So let's now assume we let a lot of Komodos do a trip to Africa. They would be in deep shit. On the larger prey they could still do their bit but taking a couple of days and more for the animal to die, by the time the Komodo (and its mates) got to the dead animal there wold be nothing left as the lions, hyena, vultures and whatever else would have disposed of it.

The Komodo would also be in deep shit if it went the normal lizard way, that is, prey that is basically crushed and killed in one go. The Komodo lacks the speed. Also, a monitor favourite is going up a tree and cleaning out the bird's nest, whether the nest have eggs or hatchlings and clean up mummy bird if it wants to mount a rescue mission.

Thus in short, a "normal monitor" was able to transition/evolve to a Komodo because of the unique conditions where the Komodo lives.

To my knowledge, prehistoric monitors of 20 feet and probably a ton or more in weight are restricted to Australia. Such a giant version of a Komodo was probably OK because of a lack of competing predators.

But at this stage of the game my basic belief is the start of life was very wide spread and there were lots of evolution "trees" but my "trees" would have more branches that were shorter. In other words lots of dead ends.

You previously argued against that on the basic of the general common ground across the whole animal range. However, as I posted earlier that commonality would be a result of surviving/developing within the confines caused by the earth.

I used the analogy of racing cars. Whether Sprint Cars, Formula 1, Indy Cars, NASCAR, V8 Supercars there is a lot of common ground and that common ground comes about because racing car tracks consist of corners and straights.

However, the Top Fuel dragster has almost nothing in common with the other except for internal combustion engine and driving through the rear wheels. That Top Fuel dragster would had never evolved unless there were drag strips. Its "evolution" has been due to the confines of only doing a 1/4 mile acceleration run and in a straight line.

 

[Mike375]

Just to throw something else into the pot. Does devolve or devolution happen. I think I read our appendix have lost the ability to whatever it was they did and we can no longer move our ears.

This is something that has always fascinated and puzzled me with the reptile. Consider the following if you will.

1) As a predator (and especially the snake) the success rate they have or strike rate they have in terms of attempts made to prey caught is extremely high. I don't have any numbers and probably no one else has but their success rate is way out of the league of the feline or dog.

2) Their ability to eat huge amounts in single sessions or short periods is huge. For example a monitor and house cat of the same approximate weight the monitor's capacity to down food simply is in another league.

3) Their general long thin build, low to the ground and limbs that will fold against the body (snake of course is the king here) also means they can pursue prey where a mammal predator of the same weight simply can't go.

So.....we have a predator with an extremely high success rate in obtaining food and the ability to consume huge amounts as a percentage of its body weight.

In addition when it comes to scavenging it is tops here as well. I can tell you from first hand experience/experiments that a monitor will take meat (that is off shall we say) that is well past the used by date for a cat or dog.

HOWEVER.....this same animal has food requirements, when measured over the year, that are incredibly small as compared to a mammal predator of the same weight.

The whole situation seems like one big conflict.

 

[Galaxiom]

Does devolve or devolution happen. I think I read our appendix have lost the ability to whatever it was they did and we can no longer move our ears.

This is still Evolution. If the resources required to grow a feature exceed the benefits then the feature may be lost. Some animals even lost much of their ancestors brain capacity for this reason.

This is something that has always fascinated and puzzled me with the reptile. Consider the following if you will.

1) As a predator (and especially the snake) the success rate they have or strike rate they have in terms of attempts made to prey caught is extremely high.

2) Their ability to eat huge amounts in single sessions or short periods is huge.

3) Their general long thin build, low to the ground and limbs that will fold against the body (snake of course is the king here) also means they can pursue prey where a mammal predator of the same weight simply can't go.

4)when it comes to scavenging it is tops here as well.

5) this same animal has food requirements, when measured over the year, that are incredibly small as compared to a mammal predator of the same weight.

The whole situation seems like one big conflict.

Why the perception of conflict? All these features allow the animal to survive in very sparse conditions.

This is why these reptiles survived the Cretaceous-Palaeogene impact winter.

 

[Mike375]

This is still Evolution. If the resources required to grow a feature exceed the benefits then the feature may be lost. Some animals even lost much of their ancestors brain capacity for this reason.

Fair enough.

I assume the reptile has retained the survival system through to today because it enables it to live and thrive in extremes. There are plenty of parts in the world where life is plants, insects (which are cold blooded) and reptiles and mammals/birds are not much more than passing visitors

There is an interesting situation with insects and reptiles. I sure can appreciate that someone who has been a reptile keep also has had a lot of exposure to insects.

In some ways the insect predator is like the high performance mammal/bird predator in the sense that it does not take much "damage" to result in the insect predator being unable to survive and in fact they can just die as a result of the injury. However, the reptile is quite the opposite, it takes a lot of severe permanent disability to bring them to an end. However, I am guessing the insect/spider makes up for this by the huge number produced with their reproduction.

As a side note and with respect to the balance of nature, back around the 1960/70s or so the Florida Everglades experienced a great increase in mosquito numbers which at the time caused much puzzlement. The problem was the American Alligators were almost shot out for the skin trade. The result of this were beavers and their dams because alligators would simply swim through the dams and knock them down etc. However, when the alligator numbers went right down the beaver dams went right up and of course greatly increased the amount of stagnant water.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have already posted I thing the legless lizard is a dead end. I also think monitor lizards are dead ends.

The problem is that we cannot tell the difference between a dead-end (in the sense you are using it) and something at the top of its local food pyramid that has no NEED to evolve. The effect would be the same, yet the cause would be radically different.

Consider, for example, alligators and crocodiles, which have not significantly evolved in hundreds of thousands or even for millions of years based on fossil evidence. They have not changed for a long time even though it usually takes less than 20,000 years for evolution by controlled breeding or other forces to take effect. See, for example, dogs and cats, both of which evolved from some common critters: dogs bred from wolves, cats spontaneously bred from small wild cats, both starting in Neolithic times. There are also the finches on the various South Pacific islands, mostly the Galapagos, where Darwin first developed his theories. They have spontaneously differentiated since the Darwin visits.

The only TRUE evolutionary dead-end is the species that dies out because it can no longer compete. The dodo and the greater auk (sp?) fall into this category. The early hominids that were crowded out by the Australopithecines and Neanderthals fall into this category. So does Homo neanderthalis, for that matter.

Speaking of the Everglades and their 'gator population and the balance of nature...

The Louisiana Alligators were in some danger of dying off, to the point of becoming an endangered species. That would have put a lot of Cajuns at risk for losing income due to the potential loss of 'gator trapping as a profession. Due to anti-fur animal rights activism, there was a resurgence in the population of nutria, which by odd circumstance happens to be the perfect bite-sized morsel for medium to large 'gators.

Nature rebalanced itself because the animal-huggers objected to folks killing an animal that (1) wasn't native to Louisiana anyway - it was imported from South America where it is called the coypu; (2) breeds on a par with rabbits; (3) denudes areas of all vegetation (worse than goats), thus risking erosion or soil collapse when plants and root systems die; (4) actually has nice fur usable for functional jackets, because it has the two-layer coarse/fine fur layout; (5) burrows into embankments, which become weaker and eventually give way, causing flooding of homes in areas that would not have flooded if the nutria hadn't done their plant activity. But of course, the hippie animal-rights activists won't operate on a case-by-case basis. Fortunately, nature took care of the problem by letting the nutria become the savior of the 'gator species. Now the only creature above the 'gator in the food chain is the South Louisiana Cajun - and that species will eat just about ANYTHING.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Nature rebalanced itself because the animal-huggers objected to folks killing an animal that (1) wasn't native to Louisiana anyway - it was imported from South America where it is called the coypu; (2) breeds on a par with rabbits; (3) denudes areas of all vegetation (worse than goats), thus risking erosion or soil collapse when plants and root systems die; (4) actually has nice fur usable for functional jackets, because it has the two-layer coarse/fine fur layout; (5) burrows into embankments, which become weaker and eventually give way, causing flooding of homes in areas that would not have flooded if the nutria hadn't done their plant activity. But of course, the hippie animal-rights activists won't operate on a case-by-case basis. Fortunately, nature took care of the problem by letting the nutria become the savior of the 'gator species. Now the only creature above the 'gator in the food chain is the South Louisiana Cajun - and that species will eat just about ANYTHING.

Hey, Doc, your opinions are showing!

BTW:

It may surprise some to know that I'm NOT one of those 'save the cute critters' animal-rights activists, ESPECIALLY when the critter in question is a non-native threat to the local environment. (See for reference the topic of rabbits in Australia and the sheer amount of damage they've caused.)

 

[Alc]

It may surprise some to know that I'm NOT one of those 'save the cute critters' animal-rights activists, ESPECIALLY when the critter in question is a non-native threat to the local environment.

I can see certain people drawing a comparison between that and the influx of non-Christian and/or non-white people to the UK and US (but I agree with you about the animals).

 

[Frothingslosh]

Interesting (if basic and short) contrast and comparison of animal rights activism vs environmentalism: http://animalrights.about.com/od/an...Animal-Rights-And-Environmental-Movements.htm

Personally, I think the 'no fur, no meat, no animal products, no animals must be affected by humanity in any way, shape or form' types are both naive as hell and freaking insane.

I can see certain people drawing a comparison between that and the influx of non-Christian and/or non-white people to the UK and US (but I agree with you about the animals).

I can think of at least one. After all, Murderboy has called me the single most extreme Liberal he has ever heard of in his life. (Yeah, he's apparently led quite the sheltered life, but still... .)

 

[AccessBlaster]

.. After all, Murderboy has called me the single most extreme Liberal he has ever heard of in his life. (Yeah, he's apparently led quite the sheltered life, but still... .)

Basically anyone who disagrees with him is a flaming liberal. You could be a NRA member, thump your Old Testament twice on Sunday. But if your from California, you are a pink tutu wearing commie fag who doesn't deserve to be saved.

 

[Libre]

I don't think it's right or fair to be lambasting a forum member who is not present. It's one thing to engage someone directly, but making up names (other than the made-up names the person made up for themselves), representing their philosophy in your own way, putting words in their mouth - it's not right. And I'm directing my comments to both Access Blaster and Frothingslosh. I get that some of us are atheists and some are devout. Some are liberals and some are John Birchers. We come here to express our thoughts and engage in discussion. I think that we could show some more tolerance for those who think differently than we, who believe in different things than we, and who want to interpret the meaning of the Bible in their own way. Live and let live. We're not all the same. I never got the slightest feeling from Bladerunner's posts that he wants children murdered. You can quote some passage from some post somewhere, but if that's the complaint, then why not address it with Bladerunner himself? Let him, in his own words, say what he thinks - if he chooses. He can change and correct himself if he wants to, or he can try to correct your interpretation of what he meant - or he can double down on his original statements. But let it come from him.
I don't want to see this forum become a cliquish coffee klatch (that's a real tongue-twister).
I'm only supporting the idea of free expression without reprisals. Attack the idea, not the person who proposed it. That's all.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I have called him that since shortly after he made his comment that murdering children was completely acceptable as long as their parents were either non-Christian or sinners, and have done so without exception, including when speaking directly to him.

Be offended if you wish, but I am hardly speaking behind his back.

Here is the original post in its entirety:

One other point I forgot to make. The children that were killed in Egypt went to a place for the OT called paradise to await their entry into heaven automatically...At the beginning of the 'Age of the Grace' (Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection), they were transferred to heaven (Eph 4:7-9) Depriving the children of this life is a good way to get them away from nay sayers and sinners and all the bad examples. Besides , they are all in a better place than either you or I.

Blade

Please pay careful attention to that second-to-last sentence.

Note that the very next post is me calling him out on it. My referring to him as Murderboy, both when speaking to him and when referring to him, instead of using his chosen moniker started shortly afterward, and will continue until such time as he retracts his statement that the murder of children for ideological reasons is a good thing.

 

[Libre]

The children killed in Egypt were killed by the (so called) Lord's Angel of Death. They were not murdered by people. It's hardly accurate, based on the quote, to claim that Bladerunner is advocating the murder of children, today, in our society. He was referring to biblical times and killing by God's agent.
I think the whole story is hideous - yet millions of "my people" (we Jews) celebrate this event every year, twice. I don't think it would be fair to say that Jews advocate murdering children, yet it's exactly the same thing. We celebrate the plagues, of which the slaying of the Egyptian first born was the 10th and final. As an atheist/agnostic myself, I find the whole thing horrible, yet it's a joyous time; the family and friends all get together, and we take turns reading from the Passover Haggadah, sing Di Anu, and have a good time.
And I didn't say I was (nor am I) offended.
I'm advocating tolerance and to refrain from attacks against forum members.
But you will do as you wish - I'm only saying what I think is right and wrong.

 

[Frothingslosh]

And I'm saying that stating that "Depriving the children of this life is a good way to get them away from nay sayers and sinners and all the bad examples." was in no way, shape, or form meant as JUST being applicable to Egypt only; if he had meant that, he'd have said WAS, the way he did with the rest of his post.

He had ample chances to change his tune before he went on hiatus again; he chose not to. In fact, he doubled down a few posts later and stated that that's what the Bible says, so that's what is correct.

As I said, he will remain Murderboy every time I reference him until such time as he retracts that statement, which he refused to do. Seeing as I call him that when directly conversing with him, I have no issue with using that same name when speaking ABOUT him (which I normally try to avoid). I am, after all, hardly doing it behind his back.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Its not like he is in exile or banished from the forum. He is welcome back anytime to defend himself.

I like him personally, but when he mixes his politics with his religion its a really distorted view of reality.

And yes my comments were a little exaggerated.