|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
1,314
guests, and 11
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123868
04/19/07 21:24
04/19/07 21:24
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
|
Nitro, I didn't mean to be touchy or anything. But me, by nature, i try NOT to get into hot debating and fighting. Especially on forums which are so inpersonal, i think it's a waste of time I posted to answer your question, and because i honestly thought we were on the same page, as far as NE works. But you seem to object in very fundamental parts about this, like if mutations are beneficial or not, so I see we're far from being from the same school... I wasn't offended, and I still like you as a person, the little i've known you from our IntenseX discussions. But I'm not, and never will be in the mood to defend something like NE to you or anyone else. The theory is 'up there' for everyone to read and object to. Because I've studied this to such a great extend, i feel like I have nothing to learn from this discussion, since you're coming from a totally different place. Sorry.. Quote:
Quote:
I thought we were having a serious discussion about how Natural Algorithms work here, and by definition, mutations are beneficia
Just one thing...as I said in my previous post I really know nothing about evolutionary computing or natural algortims except what I can read in wikipedia So I think I'd be useless in any such discussion.
Yeah scratch that.. I meant to say Natural Evolution. I never wanted to bring anything to do with Computer algorithms to the topic..
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: PHeMoX]
#123869
04/19/07 21:45
04/19/07 21:45
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
|
Quote:
Mmmm, well, why is it reasonable to think like that? Most of us are really stuck with the idea that everything must have a purpose, that all things that exist must have been created or caused by something that was created and that all this happened for a reason or purpose with complicated and advanced motives. Those ideas are rather artificial, they exists because of our dependence on logic and our basic hunger for 'sense in it all'.
Ok well.. this is just me talking.. But no one has a clue right? So it could be anything...
All I'm saying is, you either accept the world was ALWAYS there.. which is kind of a mind-blower I agree, but certainly plausible. Or, the world was created at some point. If it was created, something created it... It could be an entity, it could be a reaction... So, if you like, that reaction is the creator.. When I say creator, it doesn't have to be, 'some dude'. So that's why, it's a pretty reasonable guess..
How is, 'there was no reason, noone being behind anything, no motive', any more plausible than anything else? Think of it this way, long before people made it to space, i'm sure there would be people saying... "Yeah, this land here.. that's pretty much all there is my friend.. And the lights in the sky are... optical illusions or something.. No reason to believe about planets and space and all that crazy stuff.. Most of the times, if we don't know about something, it's probably nothing there.."
Now ok, these guys may have been right, what they said was very possible.. In that case they weren't, but many times, i agree, we tend to make crazy theories behind things we know nothing about... But saying there's nothing there, is also a theory..
It's like me showing you my fist, and saying... inside my fist, i hold a colorfull dice! Would you say, ok sure, it's a dice? or maybe say... bullshit. All I see is a fist.. I bet there's absolutely nothing in it! But you don't really know, do you?
There is a God.... No, there isn't a God... No one knows! taking one or the other side and standing by it fanatically is ridiculous from how I see it..
Of course, I speak from a logically point of view.. We can't prove, or disprove God. If you have other reasons to believe in God, such as faith in your religion, then what I said doesn't apply to you. Take no offense..
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: LarryLaffer]
#123870
04/19/07 23:34
04/19/07 23:34
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Ok well.. this is just me talking.. But no one has a clue right? So it could be anything...
True and I don't have a clue either. Still, I do think that at the moment having no evidence in favor of a creator weighs up to the fact that no evidence doesn't mean it does not exist. If it's really impossible to prove God, or feel, notice or in whatever other kind of other way 'know' indirectly that he influences this world, then that makes him totally irrelevant. You can't go about and claim something exist, just by the nature of it's definition, that's nonsensical. 
Quote:
How is, 'there was no reason, noone being behind anything, no motive', any more plausible than anything else?
To be honest with you, there's no evidence to be able to claim it's more plausible. What are the odds that we are right with our guesses? I'd say the chance that either one of us is right is rather small. When looking at all the attributes and properties God must have according to some, that chance only decreases. Everyone can understand that the more things must be correct, the lower the chance it will actually be exactly correct. I'm not talking about right or wrong, just what's more likely and what's less likely.
Some might argue that theoretically it's 50-50 creator vs. no creator chance, but I disagree. I'm not saying thus I'm right though, because ultimately no-one knows what's inside the fist.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#123872
04/20/07 06:09
04/20/07 06:09
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
|
Oh boy.... See, i don't even want to defend the idea of a 'creator' or whatever. All I'm saying is, someone's innocent until he's proven guilty.
When I said 'creator', it was so me and you could understand, I don't wanna suggest someone CREATED this world from nothing, because again, i don't know. The mystery here is, in our universe, there's a fixed amount of energy, which ,some say, our universe is leaking and at billions of years everything will freeze, and whatever, life will ceeze to exist. A 'creator' could be just the explanation of how this energy was introduced on the first place. Because everyone knows now, that energy cannot be created and energy cannot be lost(apart that..leaking thing, if u wanna believe in that).
So if you like, there's a good chance that this universe had a birthdate and not always existed.. And possibly, someone/something gave birth to it. Only hoping you'll see the relation between my theory and nature here. But I really don't care. It may as well all be bogus
That stuff don't excite me at all, because it's exacly that, you can't know anything for sure. There's no proof, there's actually nothing you can do! it's like people making conspirancies about the moon, but no one can prove anything until they go to space, or.. know a friend from NASA or something... so it becomes boring after a while. I have the same problem with religion.
I only started this, to introduce the idea of Natural Evolution as maybe used as a tool, and for a given purpose. And because the effects of NE are happening right in front of us, that's something we can examine and speculate more closely.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: LarryLaffer]
#123873
04/20/07 13:05
04/20/07 13:05
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Oh boy.... See, i don't even want to defend the idea of a 'creator' or whatever. All I'm saying is, someone's innocent until he's proven guilty.
Actually, the person was either innocent the whole time or guilty the whole time, we just didn't know yet.  Anyways, sorry for being a smart*ss, this is off topic. I understand what you mean, in the end it's one of many possibilities, although a very unlikely one in my opinion.
Quote:
A 'creator' could be just the explanation of how this energy was introduced on the first place. Because everyone knows now, that energy cannot be created and energy cannot be lost
Huh, I'm not quite following you here. You say it ís created, yet it can't be created nor lost? (off course a possibility, no need to defend it, I'm just curious, it seems contradicting.).
Another thought by the way, when looking at the properties of energy it seems to suggest to have been here all along. Energy is the capacity for doing work. Forms of energy include thermal, mechanical, electrical, and chemical. Energy may be transformed from one form into another.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: capanno]
#123874
04/20/07 20:10
04/20/07 20:10
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Quote:
When God created them, he told the to bring forth after their kind, not species. Animals were made with a big gene pool, so they will be able to adapt wherever they go. This is devolution, the loss of information. When an animal adapts to a certain environment, it might seem like its evolving, but its doing the opposite.
If so I would expect to find more or less the same kind of fossils regardless of the age of the terrain
How do you explain that the older the terrain is ,the more primitive the fossils are ?
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: AlbertoT]
#123875
04/20/07 21:39
04/20/07 21:39
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
|
Quote:
Huh, I'm not quite following you here. You say it ís created, yet it can't be created nor lost? (off course a possibility, no need to defend it, I'm just curious, it seems contradicting.).
No, the idea is. Energy cannot be created or lost, INSIDE a closed system(our universe). The concept of the energy being.. 'created?' or in any other way brought to a closed system is not being disproven or argued. We simply know nothing about this, because we don't know what exists outside our universe, if anything.
Hope it makes sense.. i'm a bit drunk right now
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: capanno]
#123876
04/20/07 22:47
04/20/07 22:47
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Quote:
.
Comparative anatomy is not evidence for a common ancestor, but a common designer.
This is actually one of the strongest point in favour of evolutionism
Not only comparative anatomy is an evident evidence for a common ancestor but it is even an evident evidence against a designer or at least again a good designer
If you compare the anatomy of existing species as well as the one of extinguished species as far as we can understand from the fossils ,it is evident a very slow step by step improvement same as the designer should learn himself from his mistakes,
Moreover this supposed designer is lacking creativity since is repeating and repeating alwayes the same project with small enhancemens
This is hardly compatible , you would agree, with a God
Even more important
The most advanced form of life very seldom have reached ,using a math expression an "absolute maximum " , rather a "relative maximum"
In other words , in some cases,
Human beings do it better !
This is also is hardly compatible with a creator
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: AlbertoT]
#123877
04/20/07 23:15
04/20/07 23:15
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
If you compare the anatomy of existing species as well as the one of extinguished species as far as we can understand from the fossils ,it is evident a very slow step by step improvement same as the designer should learn himself from his mistakes,
Moreover this supposed designer is lacking creativity since is repeating and repeating alwayes the same project with small enhancemens
Your using circular reasoning here. Yes this alleged step by step improvement would describe an imperfect designer, but since the "step by step improvement" itself is the thing under debate. Its a logical fallacy.
Quote:
The most advanced form of life very seldom have reached ,using a math expression an "absolute maximum " , rather a "relative maximum"
In other words , in some cases,
Human beings do it better !
This is also is hardly compatible with a creator
We are not evolving at all. No species is. The genome is deteriorating. As a species we are de-volving. Thats once again another fallacy created by ignorance of basic genetics. Unfortunately most evolutionists will never take the time to understand even basic genetics, so its pointless to try to explain because noone will know what Im talking about 
Quote:
If so I would expect to find more or less the same kind of fossils regardless of the age of the terrain
How do you explain that the older the terrain is ,the more primitive the fossils are ?
Wouldnt that just be a nice tidy hypothesis? Older rocks have more primitive fossils, newer rocks have more complex fossils.Simple. That would really make things very understandable wouldnt it? However this is not the real world. And as I keep saying, things are always a lot more complex than they appear.
The phenomena you are speaking of is of course uniformitarianism which is the very thing that got people thinking about evolution to begin with.
However it is not an accurate picture of our geology. Ironically the very Yucatan asteroid you were talking about in the last few days and other global traumas represent what scientists and creationists refer to as catastrophism Another word with too many damn letters.
|
|
|
|
