Darwin's theory

cdoherty86

Science will answer the question nobody here can answer. Wow! ....this is really funny.

cdoherty86

endacl wrote: »

Well, not really 'debating', as such.

Has the op's question been answered yet, by the way? Why are there still monkeys and stuff?

Still no answer, oh well, here's hoping you find salvation ...hahaha

Doctor Jimbob

endacl wrote: »

Well, not really 'debating', as such.

Has the op's question been answered yet, by the way? Why are there still monkeys and stuff?

Yes. Several times.

The very question is ridiculous. It's like asking why, if English evolved from German, does German still exist?

Doctor Jimbob

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Excellent. Can you tell me why an Earthworm composts? It's a very simple question and I know you will have an answer.....not.

It's been answered several times.

Saipanne

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Excellent. Can you tell me why an Earthworm composts? It's a very simple question and I know you will have an answer.....not.

No, because I'm not a biologist. Neither are you, I'd imagine. So we are both ignorant of this subject. I had a quick Google and saw pages of answers. I suggest you try there and stop annoying people with pointless questions that you probably found on a creationist website.

endacl

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Still no answer, oh well, here's hoping you find salvation ...hahaha

Salvation from...?

catallus

The OP questions the tenets of a scientific theory and gets ridiculed. He's only asking a question, not saying the theory's wrong.

The idea of an interdependant eco-system is a nice idea, and fits the current fad of evolution as we understand it. But it is surely untrue.

If it were true then any extinction of a species or sub-species would be catastrophic. But we know that this isn't so.

If it were then we would have died out when our ancestors hunted the dinosaurs to extinction.

Doctor Jimbob

endacl wrote: »

Salvation from...?

His inane posts, hopefully.

cdoherty86

endacl wrote: »

Well, not really 'debating', as such.

Has the op's question been answered yet, by the way? Why are there still monkeys and stuff?

I'm still waiting for the intellectual scientific community (hope i've spelled that properly) to explain the complexities of life...syentists figured evrythin out last week for me.

fluride in the watr has mad me insine and i nead drugs to help out.

endacl

catallus wrote: »

The OP questions the tenets of a scientific theory and gets ridiculed. He's only asking a question, not saying the theory's wrong.

The idea of an interdependant eco-system is a nice idea, and fits the current fad of evolution as we understand it. But it is surely untrue.

If it were true then any extinction of a species or sub-species would be catastrophic. But we know that this isn't so.

If it were then we would have died out when our ancestors hunted the dinosaurs to extinction.

G'wan outta dat. You and de messin' all de feckin' time!

Saipanne

catallus wrote: »

The OP questions the tenets of a scientific theory and gets ridiculed. He's only asking a question, not saying the theory's wrong.

The idea of an interdependant eco-system is a nice idea, and fits the current fad of evolution as we understand it. But it is surely untrue.

If it were true then any extinction of a species or sub-species would be catastrophic. But we know that this isn't so.

If it were then we would have died out when our ancestors hunted the dinosaurs to extinction.

This post was provided by answersingenesis.com

Copyright Ken Ham.

endacl

cdoherty86 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the intellectual scientific community (hope i've spelled that properly) to explain the complexities of life...syentists figured evrythin out last week for me.

fluride in the watr has mad me insine and i nead drugs to help out.

Bless.
:rolleyes:

Knasher

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Excellent. Can you tell me why an Earthworm composts? It's a very simple question and I know you will have an answer.....not.

The earthworm composts because that is the way it eats. The stuff it doesn't absorb as nutrients is **** out. The stuff it ****s out is still useful to other organisms however. That is the simple answer.

But that isn't the answer you are looking for. You've been given that answer more than once and you simply ignore it. The answer you want is one that implies that the earthworms exist for a greater purpose, that there was some greater intelligence that put them in place so that other life could depend on them. It assumes that the existence of life as we know it was a goal in itself, and that anything that that existence is dependent on, must have some predetermined purpose. That is an assumption that I completely reject, life is simply opportunistic.

That is my answer, however as I suspect that isn't the one you wanted, you will simply keep pretending that nobody has answered you yet and keep asking the same inane question over and over again.

catallus

Knasher wrote: »

That is my answer, however as I suspect that isn't the one you wanted, you will simply keep pretending that nobody has answered you yet and keep asking the same inane question over and over again.

But this is a cop-out, can you not see that? You're using the same tactics as the creationists when you call a question inane or stupid.

I think the OP's question could be put better.

"Is there something outside of the earthworm that it is unaware of?"

Like the same question could be applied to us?

cdoherty86

Knasher wrote: »

The earthworm composts because that is the way it eats.

It composts because it likes to eat random organic material?

The stuff it doesn't absorb as nutrients is **** out. The stuff it ****s out is still useful to other organisms however. That is the simple answer.

That's the childish answer.

But that isn't the answer you are looking for.

No, you're right, I'm looking for a coherent answer.

You've been given that answer more than once and you simply ignore it. The answer you want is one that implies that the earthworms exist for a greater purpose, that there was some greater intelligence that put them in place so that other life could depend on them. It assumes that the existence of life as we know it was a goal in itself, and that anything that that existence is dependent on, must have some predetermined purpose. That is an assumption that I completely reject, life is simply opportunistic.

No, you're an idiot.

That is my answer, however as I suspect that isn't the one you wanted, you will simply keep pretending that nobody has answered you yet and keep asking the same inane question over and over again.

You're an attention whore.

floggg

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Three types, I'm procrastinating :pac:

How exactly does that benefit the earthworms?

endacl

floggg wrote: »

How exactly does that benefit the earthworms?

How does it benefit Doctor Jimbob?

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

But this is a cop-out, can you not see that? You're using the same tactics as the creationists when you call a question inane or stupid.

I called the question inane, because the questioner rejects any answer without reason, and just keeps repeating the question as if it is something that nobody can tackle.

catallus wrote: »

I think the OP's question could be put better.

"Is there something outside of the earthworm that it is unaware of?"

Like the same question could be applied to us?

I'm not sure if that is a good rewording of the question, however I'm happy to answer it. Yes there are many things outside of the earthworm that it is unaware of. And there are almost definitely many things outside of us that we are unaware of (though by definition I have no idea what the might be, or even if they actually exist).

I'm happy to discuss things. However somebody simply asking the same question over and over again is pointless, hence why I described the question as inane, and I'm sticking to that description.

GreeBo

Knasher wrote: »

But yet it is clearly still carried on, so therefore it is incorrect to say that something would have to be considered beneficial from an evolutionary point of view in order for it to still be carried on. Agreed?

Agreed. I dont think we are arguing on that point.
Beneficial things are carried on because they are beneficial, however since you cant just carry on one gene, others come along for the ride. however, I think unless the others are in some way beneficial themselves or intrinsically linked to something beneficial they will get left behind eventually. Especially if they themselves are negative.

floggg wrote: »

We didn't develop the bulk of our genes in modern China. We developed them on the plains and in caves. So they would have developed at a time when we did live in large family groups.

Agreed, hence the point that assuming homosexuality did have a positive purpose generations ago, does it now?

floggg wrote: »

Nowadays or partner selections are based on social factors rather than any usual environmental and genetic factors. So natural selection isn't really applicable to us now. Hunter gatherer skills and abilities are irrelevant when you have Domino's on speed dial.

The skills/traits/genes that used to be beneficial may no longer be, in fact you could say they are detrimental now. For example being a big hulking hunter who is a bit light on the neurons in todays world will render your chances of procreation almost null...unless you are in an under developed country in which case your large forearms are more beneficial than my 90 words per minute typing skills.

floggg wrote: »

So just because a particular gene isn't useful now, it doesn't mean it will be bred out of us they way it might have been when we were more primitive. And a gene won't just deactivate because it's not needed. The whales legs none example was a good case in point.

Again agreed, but I distinguish between not useful now and actively detrimental. Is homosexuality just no longer useful or is it detrimental now?

floggg wrote: »

So there is no point looking at today's conditions in trying to understand our generic development.

Todays conditions are the evolutionary of the future though, its not like it has stopped.

floggg wrote: »

And yes, I'm sure the same reasoning applies to women. You shouldn't read anything into my use of men as examples.

I think you misunderstand my point, I wasnt implying anything, merely the point that if the basis of you argument is that non child bearing adults in a population are beneficial, why dont we have more genetically barren women?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really no. If our species magically became 100% homosexual in desire tomorrow, I see no reason to think procreation will cease. Perhaps you can think of a reason I have failed to?

Well other than the fact that most procreation is born out of attraction to a mate, no I cant.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which instantly begs the question that IF you are right about your interpretation of evolution theory (which I do not think you are) then WHY has such a trait like homosexuality NOT died off in line with your interpretation.

Perhaps its tied to something else thats overwhelmingly positive, perhaps it is dying out, who knows, I dont think we are dealing in absolutes here.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That the results in the real world do not match your interpretation of the theory merely suggests you reconsider your interpretation of the theory.

I dont think it suggest that at all, unless you think evolution has stopped and we are merely looking back on a completed experiment.,

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And this is all assuming homosexuality is genetic in and of itself, rather than having a genetic element. I assume the latter, not the former. You appear to be erring towards the former.

I think its nature and not nurture.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually this is an over simplification too. Sometimes positively detrimental traits get passed on due to selection pressures other than survival of the species.

Other detrimental traits can be passed on due to being in some way associated or inextricable from beneficial traits that get passed on. They just go "along for the ride" so to speak.

And many traits are passed on and out survive other traits from all categories simply from being selection neutral. They are all but "invisible" to evolution and selection. One might say for example Junk DNA which appears to do nothing any more, is actually more successful evolutionary speaking than many others.

No argument there, I said as much in reply to something above.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then ask yourself how the genetics for being a non reproducing element of a hive species get passed on. By definition individuals with these genes can not pass those genes on. Yet the gene continues on regardless.

I think using a hive community to draw conclusions about humanity is fundamentally flawed tbh, I've stated that a few times on here. A hive has a single reproducing leader, its easy to see how her having some percentage asexual, homosexual, whatever offspring, assuming thats positive, can be passed on. The same is not true, in my opinion, for non hive communities with inidividual reproducing females.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The answer is simple and it applies just as much to hive species as it does to homosexuality. A gene to pass itself on does not have to directly pass ITSELF on.... that is only one option..... it can also benefit the same gene in another individual in being passed on. Especially an individual in which that gene is NOT expressed.

So if the gay gene is expressed in a man, the same gay gene is not expressed in his brother, but somehow the expression of it in Man1 benefits the reproductive success of Man2..... there you have evolutionary success. That is all that is required.

In other words you need to take the genes eye view. But by that I do not mean one gene in one individual. But to take the view of that gene in the entire population as being one single entity. And then realise that getting into the next generation by any means necessary is the "goal" there, even if individual genes do not replicate themselves in the individual in which they reside.

to me that implies some sort of collective intelligence and self sacrifice by genes, hows does the gene in Man1 know if its expressed in his brother or not? I think thats a flawed view.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or to put it even shorter: A gene does not need to benefit itself, but some, any, or all copies of itself anywhere in the pool. That is enough for evolution.

But if that gene causes people to be gay and being gay means whoever is gay doesnt procreate (which I think is a logical conclusion from a biological standpoint) then that gene is serving no positive purpose and will die out unless it is intrinsically linked to some positive gene.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But again, I really do not think there is a gene being passed on for being gay. I see no reason to believe it. I think the genetic causes and elements of homosexuality are more subtle AND more blatant than that. There is a simpler explanation of it genetically, and that explanation, if you are interested, actually not just answered but entirely BYPASSES your concern as to why it would or would not be inherited. And all that hypothesis requires is that you assume sexuality is genetic.



What appears to be coming out of research on the topic is that the probability of any male child being gay is influenced by the number of male children the mother has had before.

There is not quite enough data to declare this true or fact yet, in my opinion, but it certainly fits in perfectly with predictions made by the hypothesis related to why the trait would survive and be useful evolutionary speaking.



It does not preclude it. It just reduces the likelyhood of it, and / or changes the pathways and methodology by which it will be attained.



Individuals in the group of the species reproduce as individuals, true. But genes move through that pool in a different fashion.

I dont think that precludes it at all, who's to say that the behavour you describe isnt caused by a gene (s)?

catallus

Knasher wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is a good rewording of the question, however I'm happy to answer it. Yes there are many things outside of the earthworm that it is unaware of. And there are almost definitely many things outside of us that we are unaware of (though by definition I have no idea what the might be, or even if they actually exist).

As a distillation of what I think the OP is getting at, I think my phrasing is pretty good.

Basically, we are agreed that there is something beyond our ken?

We trundle in darkness, under the yoke of Descartes.

floggg

catallus wrote: »

But this is a cop-out, can you not see that? You're using the same tactics as the creationists when you call a question inane or stupid.

I think the OP's question could be put better.

"Is there something outside of the earthworm that it is unaware of?"

Like the same question could be applied to us?

Yes, that big ****ing bird that's about to eat it.

Beano

endacl wrote: »

Well, not really 'debating', as such.

Has the op's question been answered yet, by the way? Why are there still monkeys and stuff?

cos every AH thread requires a poster who posts rubbish

floggg

endacl wrote: »

How does it benefit Doctor Jimbob?

Well a little bit procrasturbation can be a great stress reliever.

Frank Bullitt

Some of the reading in this is rather unsettling, people still claiming to no "believe" in evolution? Really? It's 2014!!!

Clearly people didn't watch enough Sir David Attenborough when they were growing up.

Magical.

steddyeddy

There's a girl studying science in college who doesn't believe in evolution. I seriously think she should be denied a degree. It's simply not good enough.

Saipanne

Gintonious wrote: »

Some of the reading in this is rather unsettling, people still claiming to no "believe" in evolution? Really? It's 2014!!!

Clearly people didn't watch enough Sir David Attenborough when they were growing up.

No, its just that certain brands of Christianity demand a literal interpretation of the bible. Therefore, anything that contradicts it simply must be wrong. No matter how ridiculous. Such as a man living in a whales stomach. Really. Look it up.

steddyeddy

If you don't believe in evolution you don't need to worry about antibiotic resistance guys.

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

As a distillation of what I think the OP is getting at, I think my phrasing is pretty good.

Basically, we are agreed that there is something beyond our ken?

We trundle in darkness, under the yoke of Descartes.

Nope, we are agreed that there *could* be something beyond our ken. That is an important distinction. If it is beyond then I have no means of disproving its existence, that doesn't immediately translate into a proof that it does exist.

GreeBo

Saipanne wrote: »

Jesus, are people still debating this?

Some are.
Some are rambling.
Some are posting one liners that they seem to think makes the cool.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

The actions of earthworms enable creation of nutrients in the soil which enable plants to grow and thus enable other organisms to grow and survive like humans.

There's an argument on whether humans are carnivores or herbivores. B12 is absorbed through red meat but animals consume B12 through plants.

The earthworm eats stuff and stuff comes out the other end, like most things.
The earthworm lives in the ground...there is a clue in the name. So when his crap comes out it comes out into the earth.
We call this prcoess composting.
I am pretty confident that the earthworm has no idea he is composting, he is eating, digesting and dumping, like us all.


The purpose of life is to live and pass on your genetic material, thats its.
Whatever else happens while you are doing this is largely irrelevant other than it may incidentally help or encourage others to live longer and pass on more of their genetic material.
Suffice to say, there is no plan.

Knasher

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed. I dont think we are arguing on that point.
Beneficial things are carried on because they are beneficial, however since you cant just carry on one gene, others come along for the ride. however, I think unless the others are in some way beneficial themselves or intrinsically linked to something beneficial they will get left behind eventually. Especially if they themselves are negative.

Sure, but then surely that suggests that whatever genes that code for homosexuality must also code for behaviours that are beneficial? And then that must be the basis for it being carried on genetically, which was your original question.