(Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2014, 07:39 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 11:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Evolution follows the laws of entropy, it always goes by the path of least resistance.

That is patently false. There are anatomical examples that show that "the path of least resistance" is not necessarily taken by evolution. Consider, for example, the circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerves in humans.[1][2]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:42 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 06:48 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 11:01 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  No species is complete

That doesn't really mean anything in evolutionary terms. The term complete also implies a teleology, i.e. that evolution is moving towards the realisation of some plan against which an organisms' current genotype can be measured.

"God" damn "Chippy"! Facepalm

Of course it doesn't mean anything in evolutionary terms! That's the "God" damned point of why I "God" damn wrote "NO species".

That's the fucking point, which is why I fucking said it. Now start putting quotes around "God".

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:43 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
P.S. I'm really glad they added this facepalm guy --->Facepalm He's already earning his keep around here! Thumbsup

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:43 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If a trait is neither benefit nor hindrance there is no pressure on it.

Selection pressure doesn't operate on traits it operates on organisms.

Quote:So like in my example a mouse with a little better jumping ability that has no gained benefit from that is not going to pass on it's gene's any more than a regular jumping mouse.

No shit. And this demonstrates that evolution by natural selection is an entropic process how?

Quote: This is very simple first level stuff but then I know how much you hate any scientist that writes books meant for layman so you probably never learned all this.

No, it is a falsehood. You don't understand evolution by natural selection. You are spreading your misunderstandings of evolution and if you had any intellectual integrity you would not do that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
But Revs in your mouse example, it seems you're talking more about genetic drift than natural selection.

But I'm probably wrong.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:45 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 11:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Evolution follows the laws of entropy, it always goes by the path of least resistance.

That is patently false. There are anatomical examples that show that "the path of least resistance" is not necessarily taken by evolution. Consider, for example, the circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerves in humans.[1][2]

That actually is a striking, and elegant example of an evolutionary path of least resistance. I don't have time to get into it right now, but if no one else addresses this by the time I get back to it, I'll explain why.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:42 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 06:48 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That doesn't really mean anything in evolutionary terms. The term complete also implies a teleology, i.e. that evolution is moving towards the realisation of some plan against which an organisms' current genotype can be measured.

"God" damn "Chippy"! Facepalm

Of course it doesn't mean anything in evolutionary terms! That's the "God" damned point of why I "God" damn wrote "NO species".

That's the fucking point, which is why I fucking said it. Now start putting quotes around "God".

You too are spreading misunderstanding of evolution by using teleological language without any qualification of the misleading terms. Only ~15% of Americans believe in evolution and only a fraction of these actually understand what they profess to believe so it behoves you to try and communicate clearly.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:54 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:45 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 07:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is patently false. There are anatomical examples that show that "the path of least resistance" is not necessarily taken by evolution. Consider, for example, the circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerves in humans.[1][2]

That actually is a striking, and elegant example of an evolutionary path of least resistance. I don't have time to get into it right now, but if no one else addresses this by the time I get back to it, I'll explain why.

You must have an understanding of "path of least resistance" that is different from my own.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:55 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  But Revs in your mouse example, it seems you're talking more about genetic drift than natural selection.

But I'm probably wrong.

I am using an ultra simplified example for ease of explanation. Of course Chippy has decided that everything at all times must be literal so... But this could be any net neutral trait if it does not improve the individual's chances of reproduction then it is not acted on by selection.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 08:00 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:45 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 07:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is patently false. There are anatomical examples that show that "the path of least resistance" is not necessarily taken by evolution. Consider, for example, the circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerves in humans.[1][2]

That actually is a striking, and elegant example of an evolutionary path of least resistance. I don't have time to get into it right now, but if no one else addresses this by the time I get back to it, I'll explain why.

Actually I do have time to at least say this.

The laryngeal nerve example, is an example of "path of least resistance" in the same way that whales adapting a preexistent (<---no, I'm not going to bother to put that in quotes) lung, rather than develop an entire new respiratory organ is an example of a "path of least resistance".

If you can understand why that's true, and simply "apply" it over, then you'll really save me a lot of time typing later, and making sure all of the fucking quotations marks are in their fucking "proper" "places".

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: