Richard Dawkins Admits Life Was Intelligently Designed
Axeman @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:57 pm
ziggy ziggy:
So a gopher in Nunavut and a gopher here in southern alberta are the same except the northen ones bulk up 5 times faster in 3 months time before hibernating for the winter.
So did they change because the environment got cold or did they adapt to the cold through survival of the fittest and passing on only the tough gene's?
So did they change because the environment got cold or did they adapt to the cold through survival of the fittest and passing on only the tough gene's?
Well, I'd have to defer to an expert on gophers, but we'd have to take an Albertan gopher to the arctic and see how it reacts. If, in the arctic, that Albertan gopher put on bulk the same as Arctic gophers, then the response is a reaction to environment. If the Albertan gopher were to continue to bulk up slowly, then it would likely die and we could conclude that the Arctic gopher had a genetic, evolutionary advantage. My suspsicion is that #2 would be the results of such an experiment.
ziggy @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:00 pm
$1:
Genetic mutations are very important in the development of life on earth.
They can have 1 of 3 effects. The organism with the mutated gene:
1) is less adapted to the environment and he will either die before producing offspring or will not be able to do so.
2) is equally adapted and has as much chance as the others. This mutation may come into play later on if passed on to his offspring.
3) is better adapted and has more chance to pass on this gene. In the long run, this mutation may become the norm in the species.
They can have 1 of 3 effects. The organism with the mutated gene:
1) is less adapted to the environment and he will either die before producing offspring or will not be able to do so.
2) is equally adapted and has as much chance as the others. This mutation may come into play later on if passed on to his offspring.
3) is better adapted and has more chance to pass on this gene. In the long run, this mutation may become the norm in the species.
That's the way I see it.
Take hermaphrodite clams for an example.
Having both reproductive organs may seem like a mutation to some but if the shit hit's the fan on earth they would survive and become the dominant species being able to colonize without a mate.
Axeman @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:02 pm
raydan raydan:
But they do change. If there wasn't any change, then we'll still all be uni-cellular organisms living in the oceans.
Genetic mutations are very important in the development of life on earth.
They can have 1 of 3 effects. The organism with the mutated gene:
1) is less adapted to the environment and he will either die before producing offspring or will not be able to do so.
2) is equally adapted and has as much chance as the others. This mutation may come into play later on if passed on to his offspring.
3) is better adapted and has more chance to pass on this gene. In the long run, this mutation may become the norm in the species.
Genetic mutations are very important in the development of life on earth.
They can have 1 of 3 effects. The organism with the mutated gene:
1) is less adapted to the environment and he will either die before producing offspring or will not be able to do so.
2) is equally adapted and has as much chance as the others. This mutation may come into play later on if passed on to his offspring.
3) is better adapted and has more chance to pass on this gene. In the long run, this mutation may become the norm in the species.
Genetic mutations usually don't change an organism. They change its offspring. Again, read Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"...I haven't the ability to explain it so eloquently as Sagan did.
ziggy @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:04 pm
Axeman Axeman:
ziggy ziggy:
So a gopher in Nunavut and a gopher here in southern alberta are the same except the northen ones bulk up 5 times faster in 3 months time before hibernating for the winter.
So did they change because the environment got cold or did they adapt to the cold through survival of the fittest and passing on only the tough gene's?
So did they change because the environment got cold or did they adapt to the cold through survival of the fittest and passing on only the tough gene's?
Well, I'd have to defer to an expert on gophers, but we'd have to take an Albertan gopher to the arctic and see how it reacts. If, in the arctic, that Albertan gopher put on bulk the same as Arctic gophers, then the response is a reaction to environment. If the Albertan gopher were to continue to bulk up slowly, then it would likely die and we could conclude that the Arctic gopher had a genetic, evolutionary advantage. My suspsicion is that #2 would be the results of such an experiment.
Reaction to environment?
Or deep back in it's brain it might have the "memories" as Mogur would say.
Their both Richardsons ground squirrels,identical to look at except for size.
Axeman @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:08 pm
ziggy ziggy:
Reaction to environment?
Or deep back in it's brain it might have the "memories" as Mogur would say.
Their both Richardsons ground squirrels,identical to look at except for size.
Reaction to cold, light, whatever. Again, we'd need someone that knows a hell of a lot more about rodents than I. Where's Bill Murray when you need him?
raydan @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:15 pm
Axeman Axeman:
raydan raydan:
But they do change. If there wasn't any change, then we'll still all be uni-cellular organisms living in the oceans.
Genetic mutations are very important in the development of life on earth.
They can have 1 of 3 effects. The organism with the mutated gene:
1) is less adapted to the environment and he will either die before producing offspring or will not be able to do so.
2) is equally adapted and has as much chance as the others. This mutation may come into play later on if passed on to his offspring.
3) is better adapted and has more chance to pass on this gene. In the long run, this mutation may become the norm in the species.
Genetic mutations are very important in the development of life on earth.
They can have 1 of 3 effects. The organism with the mutated gene:
1) is less adapted to the environment and he will either die before producing offspring or will not be able to do so.
2) is equally adapted and has as much chance as the others. This mutation may come into play later on if passed on to his offspring.
3) is better adapted and has more chance to pass on this gene. In the long run, this mutation may become the norm in the species.
Genetic mutations usually don't change an organism. They change its offspring.
There are more than 1 type of mutation and one of them is caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division. There may be mutations that happen during conception and early development of the fetus and that these would have an immediate impact.
Maybe someone else here could confirm (or not) this.
Mowich @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:21 pm
For anyone wishing to inform themselves on the debate concerning 'Intelligent Design', I would refer them to the Nova program entitled 'Judgement Day' Intelligent Design on Trial. It is available for viewing online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html. It is a wonderfully illuminating and intelligent coverage of the case brought by Dover, Pennslyvania against their school board for not including intelligent design, aka creationism in their curiculum. The case against intelligent design is thoroughly laid out and explained during the trial, and the verdict from a judge who was appointed by the old creationist himself, George W Bush, is most enlightening.
sandorski @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:51 pm
"Creationists Admit Life Was Evolved"
The logical counter to this thread, with links from Kirk Cameron to other Creationist "Experts" making a statement that Evolution is true. All out of context, of course, but they said it damn it and that's all that counts!! Right?
djakeydd @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:58 pm
the pope - who of course represents Christianity 
, came out with some more drivel just lately about evolution being compatible with creationism. His Bible apparently reads a whole lot different than mine.
sandorski @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:04 pm
djakeydd djakeydd:
the pope - who of course represents Christianity , came out with some more drivel just lately about evolution being compatible with creationism. His Bible apparently reads a whole lot different than mine.
, came out with some more drivel just lately about evolution being compatible with creationism. His Bible apparently reads a whole lot different than mine.He's just smart enough to realize that the Bible can't be taken Literally on every point.
When Facts countradict something one thought was true, it is best to accept the Facts and reject the Thoughts.
Bibbi @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:37 pm
Eisensapper Eisensapper:
Whats wrong with that? Why should Homosapiens be on other planets?
Well, to answer a question with a question, why should homosapiens be exclusive to Earth in an immense universe? Why should one small pin prick of a planet be more important than the rest of the cosmos?
Bibbi @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:21 pm
raydan raydan:
I have a problem with the "ET brought life to earth" theory.
Lets suppose that it's true and extra-terrestrials did bring life to earth.
If that's true, how did life start on that planet... other extra-terrestrials.
So this theory doesn't solve a thing because at one point, life started on some planet by another method...
Lets suppose that it's true and extra-terrestrials did bring life to earth.
If that's true, how did life start on that planet... other extra-terrestrials.
So this theory doesn't solve a thing because at one point, life started on some planet by another method...
I am not suggesting that ET brought life to earth but on the other hand theories suggest that comets have crashed into the earth possibly carrying proteins or other primitive organisms, so I am not denying that possibility either.
It depends on how you define life. In its most primitive form life may be an electro-chemical concoction which could occur by accident in a constantly changing universe. Evolution from that point into a species however over thousands of years is either random or not.
If it is random then Earth is the only home of homosapiens, since we are due to the effect of chance factors in our environment over thousands of years that dictated our form. If it is not random, then the creationists would say that it is "intelligent design" which would open the question: why on earth only?
I think that the first meeting with ET will destroy both theories. If ET looks like the rest of us, then chance and environmental factors are irrelevant which destroys the theory of evolution To put it differently it would be impossible for two different species subject to totally different conditions over thousands of years to evolve to the same resulting humanoid on different planets revolving around different suns.
If ET looks totally different, then intelligent design and creationism seem to go out the window. If God created man "in his image and likeness", there seems to be a problem with two or more completely different images and likenesses of "man". To make matters more complex how does one differentiate "man" for example from some other strange looking but intelligent life form.
fifeboy @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:24 pm
Axeman Axeman:
fifeboy fifeboy:
Don't want to argue sematics , but environment is stress, unless an organism is perfectly adapted to what it lives in. Then, if it is not, when it reproduces, the offspring that are best suited to the niche they live in will survive to reproduce.
Nor do I want to argue semantics. It's just important (not for you, per se, but for others less versed in science) to understand that organisms do not change. They either survive or die. If they survive, their genetic information is passed on.
fifeboy @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:31 pm
ziggy ziggy:
Axeman Axeman:
fifeboy fifeboy:
Don't want to argue sematics , but environment is stress, unless an organism is perfectly adapted to what it lives in. Then, if it is not, when it reproduces, the offspring that are best suited to the niche they live in will survive to reproduce.
Nor do I want to argue semantics. It's just important (not for you, per se, but for others less versed in science) to understand that organisms do not change. They either survive or die. If they survive, their genetic information is passed on.
So a gopher in Nunavut and a gopher here in southern alberta are the same except the northen ones bulk up 5 times faster in 3 months time before hibernating for the winter.
So did they change because the environment got cold or did they adapt to the cold through survival of the fittest and passing on only the tough gene's?
sandorski @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:40 pm
Bibbi Bibbi:
raydan raydan:
I have a problem with the "ET brought life to earth" theory.
Lets suppose that it's true and extra-terrestrials did bring life to earth.
If that's true, how did life start on that planet... other extra-terrestrials.
So this theory doesn't solve a thing because at one point, life started on some planet by another method...
Lets suppose that it's true and extra-terrestrials did bring life to earth.
If that's true, how did life start on that planet... other extra-terrestrials.
So this theory doesn't solve a thing because at one point, life started on some planet by another method...
I am not suggesting that ET brought life to earth but on the other hand theories suggest that comets have crashed into the earth possibly carrying proteins or other primitive organisms, so I am not denying that possibility either.
It depends on how you define life. In its most primitive form life may be an electro-chemical concoction which could occur by accident in a constantly changing universe. Evolution from that point into a species however over thousands of years is either random or not.
If it is random then Earth is the only home of homosapiens, since we are due to the effect of chance factors in our environment over thousands of years that dictated our form. If it is not random, then the creationists would say that it is "intelligent design" which would open the question: why on earth only?
I think that the first meeting with ET will destroy both theories. If ET looks like the rest of us, then chance and environmental factors are irrelevant which destroys the theory of evolution To put it differently it would be impossible for two different species subject to totally different conditions over thousands of years to evolve to the same resulting humanoid on different planets revolving around different suns.
If ET looks totally different, then intelligent design and creationism seem to go out the window. If God created man "in his image and likeness", there seems to be a problem with two or more completely different images and likenesses of "man". To make matters more complex how does one differentiate "man" for example from some other strange looking but intelligent life form.
Negative. It would affect smal parts of the Theory, such as the assumption we originated on Earth, but there's far too much evidence for the Theory to simply write it off if Aliens happen to be Humanoid. Our Theory would just simply apply to them in its' entirety(I suspect they might have some details we don't though) rather than us.
Aliens Seeding Earth can not be dismissed, but it wouldn't, if True, "Prove" Intelligent Design and "Disprove" Evolution. If anything, it is further Proof against ID, as ID assumes something far more than just an Alien Race. ID is just a rebranding of Creation by an Omnipotent Being and not an honest Scientific attempt to explain our existance. Any Alien "design" to our existance would simply be a curious coincidence.