facts of evolution

[Katster]

This gets more and more like the Twilight Zone every week.

[eFestivals]

EH?!?!?!

You're levels of discernment are once again baffling. I have NOT ONCE disagreed with what BBC Bob said. I simply stated that it was obvious for the reasons I pointed out and you now seem to understand.

This gets more and more like the Twilight Zone every week.

What I'm discerning which you are not is that it's NOT obvious. Because it simply does not happen that way for everything.

Read this and smarten yourself up.:-

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/...ature04655.html

[worm]

What designer are you talking about? Who designed them?

[worm]

What I'm discerning which you are not is that it's NOT obvious. Because it simply does not happen that way for everything.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

The designer of the relationship between the organism and the environment. If it's determined, then it is designed. If it is random, then it is pure coincidence.

but what if it's randomly determined - as appears to be the case?

It seems to be the case that a random 'thing' is what all life has come from, yet within that random 'thing' is some stuff that determines how the species that come from that 'thing' get to evolve independently.

[eFestivals]

I've already asked, like what?

If we have eyes across species within a category, then it is clear that these things have evolved from that same thing. It's obvious. Animals have eyes, plants don't. So at some point when animals split from plants, they developed eyes. Every sub-animal has adapted the animal eye differently from that point on.

you're too 'clever' already to need to bother to read what I linked to aren't you?

And you call yourself an academic. No wonder so many real academics piss themselves at some of your stuff.

[worm]

but what if it's randomly determined - as appears to be the case?

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[krisskross]

Yes. But we can't say this. All we can say is that we have eyes now. Trace them back. We have legs now. Trace them back. We have tails now (if you're a cat). Trace them back. So it stands that whetever we have now was adapted from the same blob through different means. As many species have eyes (animals) and many do not (plants) then we know where this break occured.

Indeed. But each organism that has sight is going to have a much closer share of organic make up than those that do not have eyes.

Edited January 30, 2009 by krisskross

[eFestivals]

Randomly programmed you mean?

Programming is then adapted. Adaption is then programmed. And so we have evolution.

Of course. It's culture; envirionment; experience; response; learning etc. Basically, trial and error. Of course, this is at a genetic level, not the conscious one that we can only talk in.

All so obvious to you, eh? But wrong all the same.

It appears to not be trial and error.

[worm]

you're too 'clever' already to need to bother to read what I linked to aren't you?

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I did say that if we are to accept that everything derives from the same organism. Meaning that all lineage relates to that organism.

[jonbob]

The designer of the relationship between the organism and the environment. If it's determined, then it is designed. If it is random, then it is pure coincidence.

[krisskross]

Do do do do, do do do do.

[worm]

All so obvious to you?

[eFestivals]

That old chestnut again. I'm discussing liberally on a forum, numnuts. I'm not putting forward any academic thesis. You think too much of the status of your site and how people perceive it.

well why not spend just a moment wising yourself up via what I've linked to? Or is that you prefer to remain stupidly wrong?

I'm not asking you to take my word for things here, I'm pointing you at a place where you can be better informed, and from that actually make a useful contribution rather than this thread (like so many others) descending into 50 pages of people telling you you're simply wrong?

I'd much prefer to not spend my time continually telling you that you are, but that'll always be the result when you are wrong and when you are determined to remain wrong as you're being here.

[worm]

The organism has a relationship with the environment because it exists within the environment.

Of course.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

I'm not asking you to take my word for things here, I'm pointing you at a place where you can be better informed, and from that actually make a useful contribution rather than this thread (like so many others) descending into 50 pages of people telling you you're simply wrong?

[eFestivals]

They haven't though. (apart from you)

We're exchanging our understanding.

for that to be happening you'd first have to have some understanding - you don't, and you don't want to understand as your swerve from the facts which prove you wrong demonstrates.

Kriss is telling you that you're wrong, and science is telling you you're wrong, not just me. You are starting from a completely wrong idea (an idea that I might well have had myself before seeing the prog the other night, if I'd ever stopped to think about it), and so all you take from that idea is wrong.

Why not just read it? It'll take you a mere 30 seconds - far less time than it'll take you to type yet another wrong reply to this post.

[worm]

This can lead to occasions when the dna that codes for a structure (the eye) is very similar between species (mollusc and human), even though its root is not the same. In some cases this can be more similar than structures (the eye) that have developed from the same root (human and fly)

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Kriss is telling you that you're wrong

[worm]

Read this and smarten yourself up.:-

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/...ature04655.html

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[jonbob]

But you are saying it is a predefined relationship dominated by the will of the environment.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

As suspected. This depends entirely upon what we regard as taste. This would be better suited to a comparison to different forms of sight i.e. colour spectrum in humans versus animals.

[worm]

No this is what YOU are saying. Look at the way you load the sentence with words like 'predefined' and 'will'. Both words which are not applicable to a description of a random event.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

er why. I am sorry but taste is at the end of the day a chemical reaction that can be standardised and measured to an extent.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm