Page 15 of 34 FirstFirst ... 5101112131415161718192025 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 675
  1. #281  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Thats not a relevant question, unless you are building to a point.

    Surur
    You used a term whose definition is unclear to me. I would like clarity.
  2. #282  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    You used a term whose definition is unclear to me. I would like clarity.
    I am using animals as in dogs and wolves and cats that musicman247 is talking about. I had always thought this word was in common usage.

    Surur
  3.    #283  
    "Animals dont change into other contemporaneous animals."

    contemporaneous - adj. Originating, existing, or happening during the same period of time

    So, how did one base bacteria (the trunk of your tree illustration) evolve into the different bacteria that you believe all life came from?
  4. #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    "Animals dont change into other contemporaneous animals."

    contemporaneous - adj. Originating, existing, or happening during the same period of time

    So, how did one base bacteria (the trunk of your tree illustration) evolve into the different bacteria that you believe all life came from?
    The same way all evolution occurs - random mutation, occasionally beneficial, that gets selected for due to improved reproductive fitness.

    But why go all the way down to the bottom of the trunk? Are you satisfied with the middle?

    Surur
  5. #285  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    The same way all evolution occurs - random mutation, occasionally beneficial, that gets selected for due to improved reproductive fitness.

    But why go all the way down to the bottom of the trunk? Are you satisfied with the middle?

    Surur
    If the biomorphs at the bottom of the trunk are "animals" which do not change into contemporaneous animals, the middle of the tree would never emerge.
  6. #286  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Yes, it completely does.

    If I offer you a red ball, or a green ball, and for some reason I *KNOW* you will take the red ball, you may THINK you have a choice but the outcome is predetermined. You don't have the choice to take a green ball, because I know you will take the red one.

    Please explain to me that if I know you are going to take the red one (and there is no chance of me being wrong), then how you can have a choice? A choice, by definition, means you can take the red OR green one, but I already know you will take the red one. You may THINK you have a choice, but there isn't a choice involved.


    Chris
    You will see the phenomenon occur when you type your next reply. Press the letter 'a' on you keyboard....an "a" will likely appear on your screen. Now try the letter 'b'. "b"?

    Now repeat, except press and hold the shift key while pressing the letter 'a' key

    "A", this time?

    This time press and hold the letter 'a' on your keyboard:

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaa....?

    Why did that happen? Because the software engineer(s) "knew" you would press those keys.
  7. #287  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    If the biomorphs at the bottom of the trunk are "animals" which do not change into contemporaneous animals, the middle of the tree would never emerge.
    I still dont get what you are talking about, but if you are referring to the illustration, it clearly does not show the bottom of the trunk.

    Surur
  8. #288  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    You will see the phenomenon occur when you type your next reply. Press the letter 'a' on you keyboard....an "a" will likely appear on your screen. Now try the letter 'b'. "b"?

    Now repeat, except press and hold the shift key while pressing the letter 'a' key

    "A", this time?

    This time press and hold the letter 'a' on your keyboard:

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaa....?

    Why did that happen? Because the software engineer(s) "knew" you would press those keys.
    Thats only for small values of "knew". In fact the engineer may be right most of the time, but some small percentage of the time you may have a keyboard labeled differently, so when you press A, B shows up, or your keyboard mapping may be messed up on the computer, or a cosmic ray may cause a bit to flip, or your computer may hang right at that instant.

    The software engineer only knows so much, but am omniscient being would know about ALL these instances also.

    If someone is Omnipotent and Omniscient there is really no such thing as free will, only the illusion of free will.

    Surur
  9. #289  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I still dont get what you are talking about
    I suspect you do
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    , but if you are referring to the illustration, it clearly does not show the bottom of the trunk.

    Surur
    The size or scope of the trunk is irrelevant. The question is a matter of at what point during the growth of the illustrative "tree" are the biomorphs considered "animals." Clearly they can not all be animals, given that "animals do not change into contemporaneous animals."
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I suspect you doThe size or scope of the trunk is irrelevant. The question is a matter of at what point during the growth of the illustrative "tree" are the biomorphs considered "animals." Clearly they can not all be animals, given that "animals do not change into contemporaneous animals."
    I still dont get what point you are trying to press, but close to the bottom you get single cell organism, then colonies that cooperate, then stronger closer cooperation, then specialization of roles, then multi-cellular organisms etc etc.

    Surur
  11.    #291  
    Let's look at the new tree you posted:

    At the bottom are creodonts. Right above that the line separates into three branches. Each branch represents a new species, correct? Then at least two times in your tree, an animal changed into a contemporaneous animal (one that lived along side it). Every other branch in the tree goes against your statement as well. If animals do not change into contemporaneous animals, then how does the "tree" branch at all?
  12. #292  
    I mean one branch does not turn into another, that does not even make logical sense.

    Obviously a bigger branch may split into new smaller branches down the line.

    In other words, a dog does not evolve into a cat, but they had a common ancestor at some point, which evolved and was out-competed by both.

    Surur
  13. #293  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    You will see the phenomenon occur when you type your next reply. Press the letter 'a' on you keyboard....an "a" will likely appear on your screen. Now try the letter 'b'. "b"?

    Now repeat, except press and hold the shift key while pressing the letter 'a' key

    "A", this time?

    This time press and hold the letter 'a' on your keyboard:

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaa....?

    Why did that happen? Because the software engineer(s) "knew" you would press those keys.
    I believe this to be a fundamentally flawed illustration; the software engineer is defining a behavior (programming) for each action (keypress), the engineer knows how the key will react when activated but not what key the user (you) will press at any given time.

    Knowing the future behavior of a subject, eliminates the possibility of "free choice" for that subject. If the subject choses differently, then the knowledge was faulty...the two are indeed mutually exclusive.

    Ergo, if God is omniscient about my future choices, then me chosing any differently will prove Him wrong. If God is omniscient, he can never be wrong, if He is never wrong, then I can not chose differently threfore I have no free will.
    Last edited by TreoNewt; 04/30/2007 at 06:26 PM.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  14. #294  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    You will see the phenomenon occur when you type your next reply. Press the letter 'a' on you keyboard....an "a" will likely appear on your screen. Now try the letter 'b'. "b"?

    Now repeat, except press and hold the shift key while pressing the letter 'a' key

    "A", this time?

    This time press and hold the letter 'a' on your keyboard:

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaa....?

    Why did that happen? Because the software engineer(s) "knew" you would press those keys.

    No, it happens because the software engineer programmed the computer so that IF I pushed those buttons, then the correct corresponding letter would appear.

    In the "God is omniscient" argument, the software engineer would never even need to program buttons that he "knows" I won't use. In that case, I may think I will press the tilda key at some point, but the software engineer "knows" I won't so he doesn't even program it.

    Chris
  15. #295  
    Music, it seems to me that you are working under a misperception of how evolution works.

    You talk about thingsl ike a cat evolving into a dog, or one genus evolving into another (I notice that you gave up on the new species argument, since I showed you examples of where a new species has evolved).

    But evolution doesn't work like that. Things don't suddenly and drastically change overnight. Species (and larger) changes are based on an accumulation of small changes that eventually leads to reproductive isolation (either due to genetic or behavioral incompatability).

    For example, let's imagine that you have a large populations of "wingdings". They all have very large ears, small eyes, are diurnal, and are spread over a large continent. Suddenly,the west coast of the continuent splits off to form an island, the population is split in half, meaning that the population on the island is isolated geographically from the population on the east coast. Perhaps the east coast population survives fine, but due to the geographic and environmental changes on the island, suddenly hearing is not as important as eyesight. On the island, suddenly there is evolutionary pressure for better eyesight, and not as much need to maintain the large ears. In addition, let's say the geographic shift has eliminated the normal, diurnal food source of these wingdings, so they are forced to hunt at night. Over time, they may start to spend more time in the day sleeping, awake at night. In addition, there will be morphological and physiological changes as they adapt to their new diet, their new island. But the population on the east coast still remains the same.

    After many MANY thousands of years, the organisms on the island would look VERY different from the organisms on the mainland. They would hunt at night, have a very different body shape, and who knows what else. Even if you "reunited" the two populations, they may not be able to breed together. Suddenly, new species (and possible new genus, new family, whatever).

    Now imagine this happening for millions and millions or years, all around the globe. Populations change, becaome isolated, may eventually spread, who knows what. But as the changes build up, new species, new genus', new families, new orders, etc will arise.

    Back to dog and cat. At some point there was an organism living that is the ancestor to the dog and cat (and many other organisms, probably). Somewhere in the geographic range of the organism, certain evolutionary pressures may have spurred the evolution of dog like traits. Elsewhere, cat like traits might have been favored. So different populations would evolve different traits, eventually (After many many many many years) leading to what we know as cats and dogs.

    Chris
  16. #296  
    Presumably the question of "what is an animal" leads to the question "how did a non-animal evolve into an animal" or something like that.

    It's a moot question. The better question (which science can't answer right now) is how did non-life "evolve" into life? (I use quotes around evolve, because it is not really evolution).

    Chris
  17. #297  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Presumably the question of "what is an animal" leads to the question "how did a non-animal evolve into an animal" or something like that.

    It's a moot question. The better question (which science can't answer right now) is how did non-life "evolve" into life? (I use quotes around evolve, because it is not really evolution).

    Chris

    That's not where I was headed. I was seeking clarity on the statement that "animals" don't change into contemporaneous animals.

    Like Musicman247, I find it difficulty to follow the logic. Consider your example. At what point in time or in development are the west coast wingdings officially a different species from the east cost version? What do you call the west coast wingdings one generation short of the iteration deemed a new species? Why is not the former considered contemporaneous to the latter?
  18. #298  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    That's not where I was headed. I was seeking clarity on the statement that "animals" don't change into contemporaneous animals.

    Like Musicman247, I find it difficulty to follow the logic. Consider your example. At what point in time or in development are the west coast wingdings officially a different species from the east cost version? What do you call the west coast wingdings one generation short of the iteration deemed a new species? Why is not the former considered contemporaneous to the latter?
    I dont know why you have gotten so hung up on that one word. It simply implies that change takes time, and a modern dog wont suddenly change into a modern cat. When looking species change amongst contemporaneous animals, you have to look at their common past, not expect such a convergent change in the future.

    Surur
  19. #299  
    Shopharim, you really have asked a good question, one that does not deserve the type of response Surur has given.

    Ben
  20. #300  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Like Musicman247, I find it difficulty to follow the logic. Consider your example. At what point in time or in development are the west coast wingdings officially a different species from the east cost version?
    It's really not that complicated. As stated several times in this and other threads (and e.g. in Wikipedia), two animals are considered to be different species if they cannot have fertile offspring. Dogs and wolves can have fertile offspring, they are the same species biologically. Wolves and foxes can't, they are different species. Horses and donkeys can have offspring, but it is not fertile, hence different species.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions