₦airaland Forum

Some more (recent)

Another one

Just want to share these. They're scans from two fotoshoots. The quality is not optimal due to the limitations of my scanner.

Well, I have made my vote, but drooling is something I no longer do (and I'm not going to start again, I'm not in my mid-life crisis yet ). Besides, a married man should not stay too long in these quarters.

xkape:

KAG and nefyryn
so complexity is one of the many products of evolution right? it is only neccessary in a strawman?

Indeed. I don't know if you intentionally put up a strawman of evolution or if you just don't have enough knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution.

xkape:
so if these variations in traits were truly random they would all apear equaly.

No, selective pressure would weed out those traits that are not beneficial

xkape:
for instance if we could trace a line from a rodent to a monkey to a hominid we should also trace a similar line backward from more complex to less complex ( i know u said complexity is not neccesary but we have observed "evolutionary" changes in complexity so let us use that for now) .

Complexity is one possible outcome of evolutionary pressure because increased complexity allows those organisms to enter different niches in the ecosystems they live in. Don't forget that the largest biomass on earth is made up by bacteria, so as far as evolutionary success is concerned, bacteria are at least as successful as all other living organisms.

xkape:
i know u will also counter by saying that there is no selective pressure to force such a backward change just like u asked why a virus would want to become something else.

There is no intention or direction in evolution.

xkape:
now the dilemma is if we map evolutionary change to time the major observation that sticks out is changes in complexity. lateral changes that do not necessarily imply increased complexity are more or less insignificant compared to the time frame. example trobolytes (unchanged for eons) amber-fossilised mosquitoes (and i am not refering to juraisic park), crocodiles, the common dog and many others have remained basically unchanged through various evolutionary cycles. do we then assume that nature is indeed cognate and is in cahoots with animals to push them towards complexity and circumstances never arise for the revese or at least the diverse to happen?

I don't understand what you're trying to imply here. Increased complexity is one of the cumulative adaptations that surfaced.

xkape:
even the variation in the beaks of the famous galapagos finches are not more significant a survival adaptation than the difference between the nose of a european and an african (or is one more evolved than the other? )

I really don't knowwhat you're getting at.

xkape:
so u can't eat your cake and have it by saying
1. complexity is not necessary for evolution
2. variation is random but selective pressures ensure only the necessary changes occur

There is no necessity in evolution it is a function of mainly random genetic variation and selective pressure by a changing environment.

xkape:
when what we observe is an increase in complexity over time (or would anyone argue that a progression from amoeba to fish to frog to rodent to ape to man has no underlying thread of increase in the complexity of the biological process of the species?) and this random pressure-controlled mechanism has not shown any significant move in other directions?

The increase in complexity only occured for a relatively small part of the living organisms

xkape:
Also no-one has offered any explanation for the statified and discreete nature of the fossil evidence. Saying the evidence is small is a cop out because even if it is small it should at least be representative.

Why? The circumstances in which fosilisation take place are far from random. There are almost no fossil remains from hot, humid climates for very understandable reasons. Those conditions do not allow fossilisation.

xkape:
yet what we see are familly trees of direct lineages to what we see today the number of extinct varities we see do not make up statistically for the possibilities a truely random scheme would give us.

Random in what regard?

xkape:
even then the extinct species almost always have close re[b]latives around today (dinosaurs may be an exception though). so where are all the failed experiments that were deselected?

Almost all are 'failed experiments' and not directly on the evolutionary tree leading to current species. If you would truly comprehend evolutionary processes and fossilisation, it would be evident that this must be the case.

My wife's Christian and I'm an atheist. Our mariage works fine. It all depends on whether or not you have your priorities straight.

TV01,

What you mean to say is that Catholics are no Christians beause Catholics do believe in evolution, am I correct?

xkape:
has the aids virus evolved into a more COMPLEX life form?

Complexity is ony one of the possible outcomes of evolution.

xkape:
Let me explain complex. has it developed the capacity to manufacture its own nucleic material or its own biochemical pathway for manufacturing food? has it developed any sexual characteristics?

What selective environment would lead to that kind of retained adaptations?

xkape:
the "evolution u have mentioned is change strictly confined to the limits of what we know to be a retrovirus, it hasnt elevated itself even to the level of another type of virus like say a mimivirus.

Why would it?

xkape:
how is an ape 1000 times more complex than a virus please calculate the number of base pairs of material in a virus, the number in an ape, make a simple permutation of traits there from and see that 1000 is an overconservative estimate. and i used this means of measurment because the argument following was based on a simple mathematical calcullation relating random combinations of nuclear material to time.
which seems to be lost on u

And how is that relevant? Complexity is only necessary in your strawman of evolution.

xkape:
another little tidbit- frozen samples of flue found in victims of the 1918 pandemic in greenland were found not to have differentiated significantly from those found today. significant beign measured on assumed differentiation of viruses in the pleistocene. any explanations

Yes, limited selective pressure.

xkape:
nferyn
i have always considered u one of the more intelligent people on this forum but this is weak
that is all u can come up with. splitting hairs on evolution not beign abiogenesis.

Evolution theory does not deal with abiogenesis. Only in the eyes of creationists it does. It's like asking why sociology doesn't explain cellular regeneration?

xkape:
so u see it is vain to draw conclusion on the origin or development of life in only 300 years and yet u have been touting how evolution has been scientifically proven with observations withing the same 300 years!!
how old exactly is evolution as a scientific field

Please get your semblance of familiarity with the scientific jargon straight. Nothing in the natural world can be scientifically proven. We're talking about observation, if I'm not mistaken? When one interjects probabilities of abiogenesis over geological timeframes, talk about direct observations in the span of a mere few hundred years is silly.

xkape:
To clarify, evolution suggests that living organisms evoled from simple to more complex over time.

That's news to me. I didn't know that Evolution Theory implies increased complexity. Complexity is only one of the many possible outcomes of selective pressure.

xkape:
are u sayin that the foundation was somehow imported to earth and afterwards evolved please educate me

That's not very likely, but not impossible.

Eddy, I just love our ping pong games

xkape:
@nferyn

i don't know what ia m talking about??. oblige us with your superior knowledge then and explain how your natural selection can explain away the earliest formation of DNA from early organic matter. let us even ignore the fact that the cantenation of carborn molecules necessary for any type of organic matter has not been observed in any non-life scenario, here or in space. this is the foundation of life itself, once life appears u can draw all sorts of conjecture and nobody will be the wiser.

1. Evolution theory does not equal abiogenesis.
2. Have you ever thought of the time it took for life to start on earth? How vain would it be to think we would observe it in a mere 300 years since the scientific revolution? How old exactly is abiogenesic as a scientific field?

simmy:
@nferyn
Proponents of gene drift, sexual and natural selection

You mean 99% of the scientific community working in Biology?

simmy:
refuse to answer the most important question.its another form of the use and disuse hypothesis, which doesnt make sense!

How so, I don't see how Lamarck is relevant here. Can you explain?

simmy:
Whatever physical adaptations i might have will NOT be passed down to my kids.

Random mutations under non-random selective pressure in large enough populations within long enough timespans will do. It's not because you do not see how it is possible that it isn't possible. Personal incredulity is a very weak form of argumenation.

simmy:
And i still maintain that its too simple an explanation. Human organs like the heart or th kidney are just too complex tobe expalined away thus.

No they aren't too complex. The eye is far more complex than the heart or kidneys, yet it is easy to propose a probable evolutionary mechanism.

simmy:
Seual recombinations don't produce new or a different specie it just produces a more adapted version of the same thing

Correct, they don't do that by themselves. If you add random mutations and reproductive isolation to the mix they do lead to speciation;

simmy:
Mutations are a more likely cause, but telling me that the fish turned int o a tadpole and then a dog or cat through mutation is insulting my intelligence

Why? Just think about what compound interests can do to your savings, even within a human lifespan.

dakmanzero:
lol!

return of the Eddy!

okay,

master Eddy vs Darth Nferyn , lightsabers ignited!


FIGHT!

So now I represent the Dark Side of The Force

This little interjection by our Ever Telling Eddy shows how futile any attempts at reason with him are. Those empty oneliners are very telling
Maybe Eddy's insistence on not having evolved made him realise that he was perfectly fit in his environment of amoeba, I certainly wouldn't know.

simmy:
@nferyn
sorry if i sounded insulting, i didnt mean to, i tend to argue with a lot of passion. i apologise.

Appology accepted. Why the pasion in the first place?

simmy:
Evolution only explains a plausible way in which the fittest came to be fit< it doesnt explain how they got there in the first place.

Evolution Theory, I guess that's what you're referring to, does not explain how the fittest became to be fit and it is not intended to explain how life started in the first place.

Let me repeat myself (from another thread):

Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that in the past there were countless life forms that are no longer here. It is a fact that these lifeforms differed depending on the time they lived on our planet.
The theory of evolution offfers a scientific explanation for that fact. It explains that all current life forms originated from a common ancestor and diverged and evolved over time. The processes that caused these changes are:

* natural selection
* sexual selection
* gene drift

All these processes work from the natural genetic variations witin the populations that stem from sexual recombination, mutations and DNA copying errors.

simmy:
When darwin wrote the origin of species very little of the complexities of lifewas known and so , so much was taken for granted.

Yes, and what's your point?

simmy:
I still maintain that the theory of evolution is elaborate nonsense.

based on what evidence and:or observations exactly?

simmy:
Simply stating that simple organisms evolved into complex multicellular organisms like humans stretches the limits of imagination. Saying that this a case of extreme oversimplificationis an understatement.

Why? Because you cannot understand how it hapened? What is an oversimplification of what exactly?
Be precise in what you consider improbable and I'd be happy to provide a possible explanation.

simmy:
Evolutionists tend to cover up their inplausible arguments with time. Millions and millions of years give organisms enough time to evolve into whatever they want they say!!!!Thats pure balderdash!

That is because you cannot conceive the impact of geological time. Take for instance the evolution of the incredibly complex camera eye. It goes so fast on geological timescales, that it cannot even be detected in the fossil record. The article by Dawkins should give you even more insight in how the evolution of eyes is not only possible, but very beneficial and probable.

simmy:
Anyone who understands even remotely how complex the dna sequence of a gorilla is will realize how close to impossible evolution is.

Only if you consider Evolution to be random. Which it isn't. Natural selection and sexual selection are anything but random processes.

simmy:
Its like asking a gorilla to randomly punch away at a keybooard and getting him to type out the complete works of william shakespaeare at his first or second or even third attemot. think, even if he has a million or billion years to work , how possible is such a feat?

Very improbable, but your description does not even remotely compare to evolution theory. Natural and sexual selection are [b]not [/b]random processes.

simmy:
Please don't lets get carried away by the proponents of evolution jsut because it's the theory in vogue right now and because being anti-religious is considered intellectual.

I have studied it on a level that allows me to declare it is rock solid.

simmy:
Evolution is crap!!Note that I am not arguing in favour of any religious sect.

It most definitely isn't.

simmy:
@darkmanzero
Scientists like me decided to grace evolution with the term theory, please don't lets get carried away by semantics, the same scientists graced intelligent design with the same term.

Not one biologist working in research with even very limited accomplishments has called intelligent design a theory. It does not deserve that label. It is religion disguised as science. Only layman can fall for that crap.

simmy:
some scientists believe in evolution and consider i.d as crap while others like me think i.d is tha bomb and consider evolution as crap

Well why don't you give me an outline of the scientific theory of ID? As far as I know it does not exist.

simmy:
catch ny drift?
Its also obvious u have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what I.d is about if u consider it as an attempt to mix science with metaphysics or spiritual stuff.

It is just that. Give me even one thing that ID would predict.

simmy:
I'll surf the web and get u the link which explains the concpt of intelligent design in the simplest and most concise way

I thought you were a scientist. Why don't you reference a scientific peer-reviewed publication that explains the concept of intelligent design.

simmy:
NOTICE that I am not arguing in favour of ANY religious sect even though I happen to believe in the xtian God. This arguement has little to do with religion

It does have everything to do with religion. ID is a political movement, not a scientific school of thought. The Wedge document by the Discovery Institute makes the socio-political motives of ID abundantly clear.

simmy:
@nferyn and others like him
@ anyone who thinks the theory of evolution is anything but a stupid theory
ARRRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!
HERE comes these pseudo-intellectuals who know nothing about nothing totting their false knowledge about.

What exactly are you saying? Is insulting now considered a form of argumentation as well?

simmy:
I happen to be a biochemist and I know that the theory of evolution is exactly that, A THEORY!!! there's absolutely NO evidence to support evolution.

Here we go, throw in another logical phalacy. an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument from authority, doesn't work with us, pseudo-intellectual. [i]Simmy [/i]isn't a pseudonym for Michael Behe, is it?
Go and read this thread and tell me where exactly the evidence is missing? Do you have any idea what a scientific theory is?

simmy:
It's just a load of elaborate crap. THE WHOLE UNIVERSE STINKS of creation.

How so. I would be very interested in finding the evidence for the intelligent desing hypothesis (or any other variation of creationism). Calling it a theory is giving it far too much credit. If you miraculously do happen to have the evidence, please present it in this thread.

simmy:
Intelligence!!, intelligence suggets a personality, which indirectly leads a reasoning person to conclude that a god of some sorts exists somewhere. Ever heard of the theory of Intelligent design?

Well your reasoning definitely follows different neural pathways than mine. I have heard of Intelligent Design. Calling it a theory is giving it far too much credit.

lioness:
Dam it! I aint no ape or monkey . Whacha lookin @? , Look I a gorrilla

I am a lioness dam it, not a monkey
I evolve from the tribe of the Lions

But you like some monkey bone to chew on, don't you

Kimba, you speak in parables (following a good example, are you? )
Let me restate my question:
How do you know that your quotes are coming from God? How do you verify the fact that they come from God? What leads you to that conclusion?

or in other words: how do you know that the bible is God's word? How can you trace the words in the Bible back to God?

dakmanzero:
NFERYN, KA1, TV01, IF YOU HAD A CHOICE WOULDN'T YOU RATHER BE DIVINE SONS OF GOD THAN A MONKEY'S NEPHEW? Obviously if you had a choice, YOU WOULD!!!!

Obviously, but I don't take my wishes for granted and choose not to live in phantasyland.

kimba:
[SNIP]
Someone who didnt understand 2+2 in grade 1 shouldnt expect to understand Advanced Mathematics.
But let God speak for Himself:
[SNIP]

Let's assume for arguments sake that God does exist. Under that assumption, how do you know that your quotes are coming from God? How do you verify the fact that they come from God? What leads you to that conclusion?

kimba:
@nferyn
So are you comparing a human being and an ant? do they stand on equal levels in your perspective?

Not really, but if being alive is your criterium, they are equal for this purpose (not that I think that only being alive is relevant)

kimba:
More than life, the breath of God, the foetus has a soul and a spirit.

On what authority rests that claim? If you want to use the Old Testament, don't. The Orthodox Jews believe that babies only are human after birth (and thus have a soul)

kimba:
Abortion is plain and simple: Murder.

Everything is so plain and simple for you. Must be very comforting.

Kimba,

Evidence for Human evolution
Explanation of Evolution, just in case you want to find out what exactly you're rejecting

By the way, since when is it the purpose of scientists to create things? Seems like you need to learn what science is as well.

Fluffy:
If people that claim to be christians still believe in evolution I must say they are lost!

So you're the arbiter of truth on everything Christian. You know things beter than e.g. the Pope?

Fluffy:
The bible clearly states that Adam and Eve were created from the dust of the earth and that is how life began.

On who's authority do you make these claims? What's your evidence?

Fluffy:
Evolutionist claim God first created apes or apes appeared on earth and started changing into humans and everything just popped up from nowhere.

Funny, but that's not what [i]evolutionists [/i]think. Go and read the Berkeley site before your make any claims on what [i]evolutionists [/i]believe

Fluffy:
BY THE WAY HAVE YOU PEOPLE NOTICED HOW EVOLUTION STOPPED TAKING PLACE, WHILE CREATION CONTINUES IN OUR DAILY LIVES

It hasn't stopped taking place. Ever heard of AIDS and why we're having trouble finding a cure? The HIV virus evolves too fast for us to find an easy cure.

dakmanzero:
for God's sake @nferyn, you can't compress centuries' worth of Biological and biochemical information into a single forum post. Your quest is doomed to fail.

If you're thinking about the basic concepts of evolution, everything is available online. It just takes some effort to go through it. Even if I can only convince one person to go and look for that information and read it with an open mind, I think it's worth the effort. The Theory of Evolution is excellent in that regard, as it can explain very well how science works without having the need for an extensive background in science to start with. the basic concepts can easily be understood by lay people.
The link I provided before does contain a lot of references to that type of material.

dakmanzero:
@sirwebs, @Eddy Tells, it is obvious that nferyn is convinced God does not exist! You can NOT convince him otherwise!

lets just end it here!

They might, but not on te terms they usually propose. If there's convincing, irrefutale evidence of God's existence, I would certainly not look the other way.

dakmanzero:
pesonally what I'd say is this: I have read all the scientific/evolutionary stuff, and my belief in GOD has not been shaken! Yes, that's right, I believe in GOD and I also believe in EVOLUTION!

That's the spirit. You don't need to abandon your belief to accept the knowledge we gained through science. It just takes another approach to your religion. The Bible is neither a History handbook , nor a Science handbook.

dakmanzero:
unfortunately if you want to find out how this is possible I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE TIME ARGUING. I can only point you in the directions I had gone, and hope you try to follow them with an open mind. There are basic concepts that are COMPULSORY to grasp before you can understand biological theories like evolution!

Correct, but they're not that hard to grasp. Anyone moderately intelligent can understand the basic concepts of evolutionary biology.

dakmanzero:
Trying to teach people advanced biology without educating them on basic concepts is what leads to people talking rubbish about 'where are the apes? i didnt come from apes o! all people who are apes should go to their ape-god' and other unintellectual nonsense.

You're probably right, but I'm not going to repeat the that extensively over here.
For all of those interested in what Evolutionary theory really is, go to the Berkely site on evolution. that's an excellent introduction in the subject.

dakmanzero:
My advice: Go read your biology. Read Richard Dawkins. Read the Bible. The Quran. Learn the traditions of your religion- listen to theological discourse instead of just swallowing what pastor XXXXXX shovels down your throat as Gospel Truth.

Look for Knowledge! It's out there!

And easy to find for the curious ones among us.

Eddy Tells:
was it the same organic replicator that made both fishe, goat, namah and humans?
That must have been some strong replicator to be able to design every creature or animal distinctly.

Our skin colours, hair etc and intelligence.
I know someone who must have gotten the larger part of the organic thing because he seems to know it all.

Thank you for entering the debate and asking good questions. I will take my time to provide you with a proper reply.
I hope we can continue our online encounters on a new tune.

sirwebs:
My question dear friend is, Where did the information come from? I'm not buying the crap about being contained within itself. Sounds elementary.

My answer. an intelligent designer-God

-sirwebs

It's not because you don't (want to) understand it that it isn't true. DNA is just some amino acids chained together. The information lies contained within itself.

By saying God, you have not answered any question. You have just pushed it back to the existence of God. Where does God come from?

Eddy Tells:
Well, i think WORD has been used several times and Eddy didnt refer it to you.
If eDDY'S contribution had no substance to you, am sure it did to others.

I've acted emotionally nd so have you, but we do have a history together

Eddy Tells:
The fact that you don't believe in God doesnt mean i must do like wise.
If your theory was alittle convincing, perhaps i would nt. But you havent come up with any sensible theory yet, rather you keep attacking other's post. Bring your own theory.

I wouldn't want to imply such a thing. You do whatever you feel is best for you.
The Theory of Evolution is as convincing as any scientific theory, it is actually one of the theories that is best supported by the evidence. I wouldn't dream of myself coming up with such a grand intellectual accomplishment. I am of too limited an intellect to even dream of coming up with something as brilliant as the Theory of Evolution. It is the grand unifying theory of all biological sciences. As theologian and biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Eddy Tells:
** eDDY DOESNT WANT NO TROUBLE PLSSSS**

I will second that and refrain from any further diversions, after all I'm the one to blame for poking up the fire again.

jagunlabi:
I think what a lot of the folks here have not yet realised,is that there is already in place,a quiet agreement between science and religion to split realms of specialty.Science will take care of explaining the physical realm,while religion will deal with the spiritual realm.
This particular theme falls a bit into both realms,but more in the physical than the spiritual.What this means is that science is better equipped to answer the questions of how we came to be,than religion does.Science is more of an authority in this field than religion will ever be.Atleast the church of Rome(Roman catholic) have realised that and already came to terms with it.That is why there are many scientists working for the Vatican as we speak.
BTW, while the evolution theory is yet to prove that God does not exist,creationism(biblical and other world creationist myths) itself have not really much in it's armoury to convince of God's existence,as well.
I think religions should just leave this question of how we came to be in the hands of science and concentrate with the more spiritual job of saving souls for God,and where we will end up when we are dead.IMO

You have spoken wisely.

lioness:
Nferyn, why are you always picking on Eddy Tells.

You seriously don't know? He's been insulting me amost for as long as I've been on this board. On top of that his contributions to the threads we are both on are void of substance.

[i]Word [/i]isn't directly a meaningful contribution.

Eddy Tells:
Slience is the best answer to a fool.

You were saying?