Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Evolution/Creation debate


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 5:43:33 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you are abandoning your claim?

No, I'm just declining to credit what you claim was my argument.

K.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 281
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 6:01:44 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		You are really denying making this post?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4636176

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 282
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 6:10:48 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You are really denying making this post?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4636176

Nope. I'm just denying the shit you made up about me supposedly claiming that the size of the skulls shows that they're not Sapiens. What I said was that the extraordinary size of the skulls cannot be accounted for by head binding or cradle boarding. It's adding in the absence of a sagittal suture that confirms them as distinctly different from the skulls of Sapiens.

For further clarification, see here.

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/11/2014 6:45:47 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 283
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 6:28:03 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
What do you mean by how?

A population of social wasps became specialized for feeding on flowers?
Comparing honey bees to social wasps is a little like comparing the Taj Mahal to a grass hut, they both have pointy tops.
;-)

Bees are very specialized social wasps you can look up the genetics if you don't believe me.

BTW save me and you a lot of back and forth, post what ever creationist you got this claim from and I'll deal with it directly.
What ever creationist I got this claim from? Okay, Scientific American.
;-)


You're saying there is an issue of Scientific American that says bees are not evolved from social wasps? Which issue?
No, did not say that. What I was saying is that, saying that honey bees evolved from social wasps is so simplistic an answer as to not be an answer.
The reason I brought it up, as I was just saying to Tkman117, that some years back I read in a brief article in Scientific American that Honey Bees present a special case to evolutionary theory. (while I can still somewhat remember the article, I can not tell you which issue)

I will try to briefly relate the article to you:
Most of Evolutionary theory is based on the passing on of working accumulations of mutations and adaptations to succeeding generations, making those generations better able to survive.
The problem with Honey Bees is that while mutations and adaptations may be passed on to the children (worker bees) those bees do not pass those mutations and adaptations on. So in some, as yet unknown way, the queens genetics have to "know" what works in its infertile children so it can pass it on to its queen child. This "unknown way" has evolved one of the most complex systems known, which includes the most complex "language" known to exist outside of mammals.

So with this in mind, your answer, they "evolved from social wasps" just seems a bit simplistic.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 284
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 6:46:06 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

I will try to briefly relate the article to you:
Most of Evolutionary theory is based on the passing on of working accumulations of mutations and adaptations to succeeding generations, making those generations better able to survive.
The problem with Honey Bees is that while mutations and adaptations may be passed on to the children (worker bees) those bees do not pass those mutations and adaptations on.

That is the Lamarckian model which we know is wrong.

quote:

So in some, as yet unknown way, the queens genetics have to "know" what works in its infertile children so it can pass it on to its queen child. This "unknown way" has evolved one of the most complex systems known, which includes the most complex "language" known to exist outside of mammals.

So with this in mind, your answer, they "evolved from social wasps" just seems a bit simplistic.


How it really works is the queen bee carries mutations that affects her hive's fitness. The more fit the hive the more likely those genes are to be passed on by her child queens and drones.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 285
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 6:48:32 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You are really denying making this post?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4636176

Nope. I'm just denying the shit you made up about me supposedly claiming that the size of the skulls shows that they're not Sapiens. What I said was that the extraordinary size of the skulls cannot be accounted for by head binding or cradle boarding. It's adding in the absence of a sagittal suture that confirms them as distinctly different from the skulls of Sapiens.

For further clarification, see here.


You claimed
quote:

Skulls that have been deformed by cradle boarding do not grow 25-30 percent in volume

I showed a person that was clearly untrue. Do you or do you not retract the claim.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 286
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 8:03:17 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You claimed
quote:

Skulls that have been deformed by cradle boarding do not grow 25-30 percent in volume

I showed a person that was clearly untrue.

Only in your imagination. Deformation of a skull by head binding or cradle boarding only affects its shape, not its surface area or volume. Here's a reference that should work for you:

Do kids ever shrink?

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/11/2014 8:49:50 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 287
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 8:04:02 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

I will try to briefly relate the article to you:
Most of Evolutionary theory is based on the passing on of working accumulations of mutations and adaptations to succeeding generations, making those generations better able to survive.
The problem with Honey Bees is that while mutations and adaptations may be passed on to the children (worker bees) those bees do not pass those mutations and adaptations on.

That is the Lamarckian model which we know is wrong.

Lamarck’s model invokes the needs of organisms to account for species
change
Lamarck believed that inheritance could be affected by the use or disuse of
particular body parts

Yes, the Lamarckian model is wrong but No, that is not what I was saying.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

So in some, as yet unknown way, the queens genetics have to "know" what works in its infertile children so it can pass it on to its queen child. This "unknown way" has evolved one of the most complex systems known, which includes the most complex "language" known to exist outside of mammals.

So with this in mind, your answer, they "evolved from social wasps" just seems a bit simplistic.

How it really works is the queen bee carries mutations that affects her hive's fitness. The more fit the hive the more likely those genes are to be passed on by her child queens and drones.
Again pretty simplistic, it is one thing to say that an already existing complex system can be improved that way but saying that could account for social wasps turning into Honey Bees is stretching credulity a bit. Thanks anyway, I was just wondering if Evolutionists had come up with something better.
;-)


< Message edited by Milesnmiles -- 2/11/2014 8:11:02 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 288
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 8:36:15 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
in some, as yet unknown way, the queens genetics have to "know" what works in its infertile children so it can pass it on to its queen child.

This is complete nonsense. Bee genetics is all between the fertile bees: the queen and the drones. The worker bees must be considered for evolution to have equivalent importance as any other organ of either queen or drone. If such an organ contributes to the reproductive success of either queen or drone, the gene encoding it will be selected for.


_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 289
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 8:38:38 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
That is the Lamarckian model which we know is wrong.

How it really works is the queen bee carries mutations that affects her hive's fitness. The more fit the hive the more likely those genes are to be passed on by her child queens and drones.




_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 290
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 8:47:16 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

to no one in particular, why is it impossible for creationism and evolution to not possibly BOTH be part of the equation...

if I mixed certain chemicals CREATED life, and it EVOLVED into something, that would make BOTH valid!

why is it IMPOSSIBLE for there to have been a CREATION EVENT, that then later EVOLVED?

personally I think we are an EXPERIMENT of some superior life form, that they got bored with and left to its own devices, you therefor have INTELLIGENT DESIGN that was left to EVOLVE



It's not impossible but honestly, if you are going to try and claim that creationists are ignorant whack jobs you can't admit that some of them might believe in evolution. Better to claim that they won't have anything to do with evolution and hate science to boot.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 291
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 8:52:55 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You shouldn't believe scam artists.

As for being non-human based on mtDNA evidence, in my opinion that is extremely dubious and I would like to see such an assertion to be confirmed by other researchers.

Don't be misled by scam artists. There is absolutely no claim that the skull is not human. The claim is...

I did not express myself sufficiently accurately. I meant not human in the sense of not being Homo sapiens. (I here ignore Neanderthals and Denisovans.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Of possible interest, the sculpture below is of one of Akhenaten's six daughters. It is believed to be Meritaten.




That is very interesting indeed. It does appear that this individual has two normal brains in her skull. That implies biological engineering and that either she must be a goddess or that the gods performed such biological engineering on prospective kings, even when in the womb.

I wonder what kind of mind such a king / queen would have.

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 292
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 8:57:49 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
to no one in particular, why is it impossible for creationism and evolution to not possibly BOTH be part of the equation...

if I mixed certain chemicals CREATED life, and it EVOLVED into something, that would make BOTH valid!

why is it IMPOSSIBLE for there to have been a CREATION EVENT, that then later EVOLVED?

personally I think we are an EXPERIMENT of some superior life form, that they got bored with and left to its own devices, you therefore have INTELLIGENT DESIGN that was left to EVOLVE

I agree - but I also do think that we are meant to evolve to use less capitals in sentences.


_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 293
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 9:05:16 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You are really denying making this post?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4636176

Nope. I'm just denying the shit you made up about me supposedly claiming that the size of the skulls shows that they're not Sapiens. What I said was that the extraordinary size of the skulls cannot be accounted for by head binding or cradle boarding. It's adding in the absence of a sagittal suture that confirms them as distinctly different from the skulls of Sapiens.

For further clarification, see here.


You claimed
quote:

Skulls that have been deformed by cradle boarding do not grow 25-30 percent in volume

I showed a person that was clearly untrue. Do you or do you not retract the claim.



Is that what your picture showed? And I thought it was just a picture of a man with a big head. I must have missed the part where it claimed the mans skull volume had increased. Could you post a link please?

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 294
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 9:46:13 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
in some, as yet unknown way, the queens genetics have to "know" what works in its infertile children so it can pass it on to its queen child.

This is complete nonsense. Bee genetics is all between the fertile bees: the queen and the drones. The worker bees must be considered for evolution to have equivalent importance as any other organ of either queen or drone. If such an organ contributes to the reproductive success of either queen or drone, the gene encoding it will be selected for.

Talk about nonsense. You can "consider" the drones to be anything you want but in reality they are not a "organ" of the queen. If you called human children an organ of the parent, people would laugh you out of this thread. Yet you think doing so for insects makes it, okay.
;-)

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 295
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 9:48:02 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		Maybe my concept of 'drone' is at fault. I thought them to be fertile male bees. I distinguished between them and the infertile female worker bees.

ETA: According to my dictionary drones are indeed idle male bees; thus fertile.

So you are wrong.

< Message edited by Rule -- 2/11/2014 9:49:02 AM >

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 296
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 9:48:16 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You claimed
quote:

Skulls that have been deformed by cradle boarding do not grow 25-30 percent in volume

I showed a person that was clearly untrue.

Only in your imagination. Deformation of a skull by head binding or cradle boarding only affects its shape, not its surface area or volume. Here's a reference that should work for you:

Snark?
So you are claiming that a human skull that is elongated, as that man's was, must be smaller in the other dimensions, to maintain the same volume. And when I show that also to be untrue what then?
http://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/not-aliens-just-humans-with-modified-crania/

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 297
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 9:50:29 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

Again pretty simplistic, it is one thing to say that an already existing complex system can be improved that way but saying that could account for social wasps turning into Honey Bees is stretching credulity a bit. Thanks anyway, I was just wondering if Evolutionists had come up with something better.
;-)


Huh?
There was a niche and the insect evolved to fill it. What is so hard to believe?

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 298
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 9:55:37 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		I wonder whether solitary bees evolved from solitary wasps...

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 299
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 10:22:26 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline 		Perhaps the complex social system of Honey Bees, which can encompass up to 60,000 bees, of which only two bees hold the genetic coding for, is a bit too complex.

Let's try something simpler, Monarch butterflies.
Monarch butterflies migrate and seem to return to the same trees they started from, simple enough.
The trouble is it takes four generations to do so.
Three generations of egg, the larvae (caterpillar), the pupa (chrysalis), and the adult butterfly that lives about two to six weeks.
Then a forth generation of egg, the larvae, the pupa, but now an adult butterfly that will live for six to eight months until they finish a migration back to the start of their migration.

So again I ask, what is the Evolutionary mechanism that accounts for this?

What accounts for the forth generation's ability to live 3 to 4 times longer than the other three generations and after three generations to have the "inner knowledge" to return to a place they have never been, to what seem like the same trees and to do this year after year?
;-)

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109