evolution&dogs, book 2

[Steezie]

Priceless

Keep it up, it's comedy gold.

Half functional skin

Apparently it was a feigned rout

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I am still waiting to be impressed.

Of course you are. Individuals who are willfully ignorant and combative will never be impressed by choice.

Willful ignorance is the ever present shield preventing the loose thread of faith based belief from being pulled by simple knowledge about the universe we live in. Evolution is only the current poster child.

The combative nature prevents one from humbly admitting when one is utterly wrong since such acknowledgment is tantamount to defeat.

For example If some ignorant and combative theist was to assert that all the breeds of dogs were due to genetic drift. Instead of admitting that he or she was incorrect once the people with actual knowledge of such things enlighten them, they will instead spend great effort in conducting the verbal acrobatics necessary to completely change their assertion and hope nobody notices. If somebody does notice this person would rather cry quote-mine and try to distract everyone by refocusing the debate on anything else but the post where they got called out for their flip flop and/or false claims of quote-mine.

So yes Key, you'll never be impressed no matter what they people here tell you. Thankfully the knowledgeable participants of this forum realize that for every willfully ignorant combative theist there are scores of lurkers witnessing their feeble arguments getting dismantled by truth and reason.

 

[Pesto]

The eye is fully functional, IE: it is not a progression of nor is it mid step in it's design, it is functional as an eye.

Ahhh, but that's not what you said. You're equivocating.

Now, in this case, if the eye did not fully form, or make a complete jump between say Photosensitive Cells and a fully formed eye, there would have been selective forces against it, or it would have to have been a neutral development, and we would find animals that did not have fully developed eyes or eyes.

Yes, the nautilus absolutely has functional eye, but that's not what you asked for. You asked for an example of an eye that was "not fully developed". If a human eye lacked a lens and iris (i.e. "not have fully developed") it would be completely analagous in function to the nautilus eye.

Like you said, the nautilus has a completely functional eye. The nautilus eye is also an example of what would be an intermediate step between photosensitive cells and a "fully formed eye"

 

[Loudmouth]

I am still waiting to be impressed.



Are you talking about THIS?

Now, see, there are not "steps" in case you missed this, these are Punctured Equilibrium jumps, which might be an issue for you, depending on what "Theory" you cling to when you seek to discuss Evolution, are you in the Gradual group, the Catastrophic, there are many "Theories" and many different views on evolution, sadly, many of them are incompatible, such a Pity that.

Punctuated Equilibria and Phyletic Gradualism are different mechanism just as natural selection and genetic drift are different mechanisms. If you want I can start a new thread explaining why both are viable mechanisms. Also, PE is not saltationism as it is often portrayed in creationist literature.

Tell you what, when you learn what you are discussing, and when you can tell me, which method you subscribe to, then we can talk.

Given your complete mischaracterization of Punctuated Equilibria, genetic drift, selection, etc. I might suggest the same for you.

Right now, all I see is people saying "You don't understand evolution" and getting incorrect definitions, and on top of that, I see people spouting incompatible methodology.

So did dogs diverge because of selection or genetic drift? What do those two terms mean?

So tell me, what insight do you possess, what hidden knowledge do you gain as a "believer" in evolution that I do not have open to me? Is this a little private cult of yours, maybe, Hummmm?

Empty accusations and name calling. About the norm for creationists.

Read that.. and That... and as far as I see for this "Evidence" it is nothing more then Adaptation, and a lot of speculation.

What are dogs adapting to? What is the difference, in your opinion and in your own words, between evolution and adaption.

The eye is fully functional, IE: it is not a progression of nor is it mid step in it's design, it is functional as an eye.

Any organ that can detect light is a fully functional eye. So what. What we see in living species is a series of improvements from simply detecting light to detecting direction (eg planaria) and then on to a focused image. In fact, let's look at the euglena and the planaria.

The euglena is seen here

It has a very simple eyespot. It's function is to stimulate the flagellum when it is dark and shut it off when the light is just right. That's it. It is a very simple ON/OFF switch. It is fully functional, right? And yet it is not capable of making a focused image, so is it half functional?

Then we have the planaria, seen below.

Those two cross-eyed thingamijiggers are the eyes. Because they are cupped the planaria is able to detect which direction the light is coming from. But again, no focused image like in humans. Is this eye fully functional or half functional? Is it an improvement over the Euglena? How is this not a step in the right direction as far as eye evolution goes?

Progression would place the development of this as a "gradual" method, where the eye, would be in mid process to becoming a functional aspect of the life forms. We do not have that, we have functional, and non-functional.

Do the Euglena and Planaria have fully functional eyes even though they can not produce a focused image? Or do they have half functional eyes?

Maybe the problem is your failing to grasp the process of "gradual" as opposed to what you have been told the answer is.

You might want to take that advice to heart.

Really? we have "Gradual Bones" and "Gradual" skin, and Gradual Scales, and Gradual Hair, and gradual aspects of all our components. Wow, I never knew that.

Gradual bones can be seen in forefin of Tiktaalik rosae. Gradual skin (from the reptillian, avian, and mammalian view) can be seen in amphibians. Amphibian skin must be kept moist at all times. In other terrestrial vertebrates the skin aids in retention of water instead of losing water. So is the amphibian skin half-functional? Again, I don't think you have a grasp of animal physiology, much less evolution.

Tell you what, let's focus on the eye. Please tell me what half an eye would look like, and why it must not be functional for evolution to be true.

If you want evolutuon to be true, you will only look at what you want to see to support yoru beliefs.

What evidence (not assertions) shows evolution to be wrong?

I challenge you to look at the other side objectively.

I really don't think you can.

Right back at ya kid. You may want to read something besides creationist websites.

The Lack of a Lens would not make the eye "Half Functional" anymore then the fact that humans only have a limited lens would make our eye less functional, or the fact that an insect has a crystalline cone and a human does not, would make a difference.

Then what would half functional eyes look like? You keep skirting the issue.

Let me know when you have something good to put on the table, something beyond the PAX6 just came to be, and lo and behold, there was sight.

Evo-Devo is one of the most exciting developments within biology in quite some time. I wouldn't dismiss it so blithely.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Loudmouth again.