facts of evolution

[eFestivals]

Well, given that it's the rationale for the hypothesis.

The null being that because there are different composite eyes then there are different base organisms = single base organism theory is nulled.

then the hypothosis is fatally flawed, as other definitive facts of evolution prove beyond all doubt.

[worm]

then the hypothosis is fatally flawed, as other definitive facts of evolution prove beyond all doubt.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

A hypothesis is never flawed. It is either active or it is nulled. It clearly hasn't been nulled, as these findings support it.

nulled then

[worm]

nulled then

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

And this nulls it how exactly?

You agreed with everything evolving from a single life form earlier in this thread. You seem to have changed your mind. Where do you stand?

you're "too clever" to read again aren't you?

Totally independent evolution of common features nulls your theory, and makes your claim of "obviously" simply incorrect on all levels, as long as it being "obvious" being 100% wrong via those facts.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

That's pretty much it, yeah. The same eye will evolve. Or, rather, the eye that evolves will form from the same genetic (composite) strand.

[worm]

Even though many of the simple animals are actually symbiotic communities e.g sponges, and it is widely accepted that the eukaryotic cells evolved by a process of "endosymbiosis", essentially a group of prokarytic cells getting together for the greater good, or as Sagan tells us "Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking".

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Okay, and his means that.......................

[worm]

Totally independent evolution of common features nulls your theory, and makes your claim of "obviously" simply incorrect on all levels, as long as it being "obvious" being 100% wrong via those facts.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Just wondering where the single life form is??

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Oh christ! f**k knows!

Do you mean the split between animal and plant? That would be extremely difficult to account for given the vast spread between animal and plant species. We can see it in contemporary terms as the absent link between species i.e. the differences between plant form and animal form. The eye being one such difference.

[eFestivals]

God you are thick.

No it doesn't. Independent meaning spawning certain features due to different environments independent of each other. These still depend upon a basic composite. And that basic composite must have had a key variable that could manifest the use of an eye BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE ONE. Thus, species adapt the basic composite of an eye (light receptor) across an independent domain. They evolve the eye independently of each other, but not independent of the composite structuring.

Simple! How many more times?

It of course entirely depends upon what we are calling an eye.

until such time as it was known that the eye had evolved just the once (just 15 years ago), this idea was contrary to all known evolutionary knowledge.

So while you might like patting yourself on the back and telling yourself just how clever you are because it's "obvious", it's only - perhaps - "obvious" within the knowledge acquired since that discovery.

And so the only thing that's really "obvious" is your pathetic idiot parroting of what is now known like it's some great discovery of your own.

[eFestivals]

Oh christ! f**k knows!

Do you mean the split between animal and plant? That would be extremely difficult to account for given the vast spread between animal and plant species. We can see it in contemporary terms as the absent link between species i.e. the differences between plant form and animal form. The eye being one such difference.

erm .... the life-forms we evolved from still exist now, yet they show none of the genetic evolutionary certainty you claim is "obvious".

And so it's not obvious.

[worm]

until such time as it was known that the eye had evolved just the once (just 15 years ago), this idea was contrary to all known evolutionary knowledge.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[worm]

erm .... the life-forms we evolved from still exist now, yet they show none of the genetic evolutionary certainty you claim is "obvious".

[eFestivals]

Eh?

why "eh?". You're the genetics genius who know more than the experts in the field, you tell me.

[eFestivals]

That was 15 years ago.

And if it was proven to be contrary the hypothesis would have been nulled way back and I wouldn't be saying that it was obvious, would I?! I've already said this.

is there definitive proof of your "obvious" hypothesis? Nope. So it's not obvious.

[worm]

is there definitive proof of your "obvious" hypothesis? Nope. So it's not obvious.

[worm]

why "eh?". You're the genetics genius who know more than the experts in the field, you tell me.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

What the f**k are you drivelling on about now? I thought it was obvious. You don't. That's that.

as I've been saying, you're wasted as the poor writer that you are - you really should be in genetics with such genius hunches, you'd have the meaning of life, the universe and everything pinned down in seconds.

Or alternatively, you'd get to discover that your hunches are based on nothing that's matched within the facts. As is the case here.

The drivel is yours, not mine. If you knew even half of the tiny bit I know, you'd know that.

[worm]

as I've been saying, you're wasted as the poor writer that you are - you really should be in genetics with such genius hunches, you'd have the meaning of life, the universe and everything pinned down in seconds.

Or alternatively, you'd get to discover that your hunches are based on nothing that's matched within the facts. As is the case here.

The drivel is yours, not mine. If you knew even half of the tiny bit I know, you'd know that.

[eFestivals]

Two things developing eyes from completely different sightless forms is insanely against all odds. It is faaaaaaaar more likely that they came from one source - an eye. How many more ways would you like me to repeat myself?

Life existing in the first place is even less likely - yet it happened.

There is no such thing as "insanely against all odds" - something is either possible, or it's not. If it's possible, in a case like this "against the odds" means almost zilch, because it's as likely on the first try as the last.

Given the near-impossibility of life existing yet it happened, then every possibility from that fact is a near certainly given enough time .... and so, from a statistical point of view, your hunch is laughable.

But you stick with your hunches - it's all you have for soooooooooo much that you say even tho you like to pretend otherwise. And, as here, you're nearly always wrong.

[worm]

Life existing in the first place is even less likely - yet it happened.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[dakyras]

erm .... the life-forms we evolved from still exist now

[worm]

Was there a definative split between plant and animals or did they develop seperately?