Preadaptations

rwenzori said:
Not that your bleating is particularly relevant, but, while you might have linked, you did not quote the bit about "inherited from an ancestor" in your OP. Since you are such an ace at quote-mining, I must assume the omission was "intentional". I wonder why? mmmmmmm??
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question.
 
Phronesis said:
Yes, it is just a plain fact that tool kits necessary for body plans, multi cullularity, eyes etc. were present before they emerged. Heck read about it if you don't believe me. It is not like body plans emerged as a result of a slow accumulation of genetic data to code for it. The data was there before it emerged. Where did it come from? Gee, is that part of the discussion now? Inevitable emergence and development through time sounds plausible after looking at the data don't you agree?
Click to expand...
gee, sounds like plain old vanilla evolution to me. with a few odd twists. why all the mystery? and you may want to use evolved instead of developed, having properly chastised geriatrix on page two. After all, we have a blind watchmaker to consider.

What concerns me here is you say It is not like body plans emerged as a result of a slow accumulation of genetic data to code for it and then you say Inevitable emergence and development through time

Care to address the contradiction I sense?
It was probably inevitable? If you replay time, I think it should happen again ;). You?
Click to expand...
If every single variable in the universe replays in the same way, perhaps. Otherwise not a chance in hell. Seems like a powerful argument against Free Will though.
 
rwenzori said:
I suppose I didn't answer you. I did read the OP:
Click to expand...
Interesting.

cyghost said:
you may want to use evolved instead of developed,
Click to expand...
With so many parallels between them? Development through evolution does become plausible. Evo-devo...

cyghost said:
blind watchmaker to consider.
Click to expand...
You may say he is blind, but he was going to make watches anyway since all the parts were already there ;). Bit biased to a few ends the old chap.

cyghost said:
What concerns me here is you say It is not like body plans emerged as a result of a slow accumulation of genetic data to code for it and then you say Inevitable emergence and development through time

Care to address the contradiction I sense?
Click to expand...
Compare evolution and development.

cyghost said:
If every single variable in the universe replays in the same way, perhaps. Otherwise not a chance in hell.
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
alloytoo said:
Because the mechanisms for HGT are unpredictable.
Click to expand...
Conditions during development are also unpredictable. Memetic algorithms are also not predictable, yet they converge to similar local optima every time.
 
antowan said:
You are completely correct but some words lean themselves to misunderstandings or preconceptions, which in turn could disolve the purpose of meaningful discussion.

With regards to the religious snapper traps when discussing anything remotely to do with evolution let me give a different route for people wanting to discuss it who do believe in God as creator. The scientific research into evolution should be seen as a car. You can tinker with the car, turn the steering wheel, start the engine, take it apart and learn how it works without worrying who made the car. That is not so important yet, especially if there is no proof of an owner. Maybe the car was abandoned. :D

If you don't believe in evolution, there is no car for you there, just an empry parking space. Nothing to discuss. I don't think evolutions discounts the existence of a higher being, but this section is not for those discussions unless you have scientific proof that God exists or doesn't exist. :)
Click to expand...

I think that the primary object to this thread's (And others) continued existance in the science section is the persistant and deliberate use of creationist jargon, as apposed to scientific terms.

"Pre-adaptation vs exaptation." is a great example.

Further examples would include Phronesis referring to "Front Load Evolution" using a definition (provided I believe by Mark Gene (Not the race driver)) which when you get down to the nitty gritty is distinuishable from Theory of Evolution in name only.

Also use of the term Intentionality (A philosphical concept) with definition which as far as I can tell is wholly unique to Phronesis.

There's a distinctive pattern.

1. Introduce a ID/Creationist subject, fudge the definitions just enough to void direct definition as ID/Creationism.

2. Post legitimate science articles quote-mined to present a teological bent, followed by a comment supporting a covert ID/Creationist agenda.

3. Critism is defended by referring to the the unique definitions, quotemining, lying, red herrings, strawmen arguments and personal insults.
 
Phronesis said:
Discussions are civil and constructive there aren't they? Take note ;).
Click to expand...

Either completely dormant or derailed.

I've noted that your agenda is most vigorously interrogated here, and here is where you resort to personal insults, stalking and quote-mining members.
 
alloytoo said:
Either completely dormant or derailed.
Click to expand...
Guess at which site it was derailed :rolleyes:. And the other one is just partially dormant ;).

alloytoo said:
I've noted that your agenda is most vigorously interrogated here, and here is where you resort to personal insults, stalking and quote-mining members.
Click to expand...
Interrogated? Lol, ok then..... I don't see insults being thrown anywhere else but here. Guess what, you are not going to stop either. And quote-mining members? Gee, you are a perfect example of a person that is doing that, you shouldn't moan. Or are you saying you have never quote-mined?

alloytoo said:
I think that the primary object to this thread's (And others) continued existance in the science section is the persistant and deliberate use of creationist jargon, as apposed to scientific terms.
Click to expand...
"primary object to this thread"? The only "others" you are referring to are the people trying to derail the thread ;).

alloytoo said:
"Pre-adaptation vs exaptation." is a great example.
Click to expand...
Preadaptation is a legitamate term. The only people that seem to be confused are those that want to derail this thread ;).

alloytoo said:
There's a distinctive pattern.

1. Introduce a ID/Creationist subject, fudge the definitions just enough to void direct definition as ID/Creationism.

2. Post legitimate science articles quote-mined to present a teological bent, followed by a comment supporting a covert ID/Creationist agenda.

3. Critism is defended by referring to the the unique definitions, quotemining, lying, red herrings, strawmen arguments and personal insults.
Click to expand...
Wow, you really are creative today. I think it is only fair that you post your gripes in the correct section so that I can defend myself there. You are only derailing this thread (YET AGAIN) with your slanderous nonsense and misrepresentations.

GET BACK ON TOPIC! That is if you are even interested :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
Phronesis said:
Guess at which site it was derailed :rolleyes:. And the other one is just partially dormant ;).


Interrogated? Lol, ok then..... I don't see insults being thrown anywhere else but here. Guess what, you are not going to stop either. And quote-mining members? Gee, you are a perfect example of a person that is doing that, you shouldn't moan. Or are you saying you have never quote-mined?


"primary object to this thread"? The only "others" you are referring to are the people trying to derail the thread ;).

Preadaptation is a legitamate term. The only people that seem to be confused are those that want to derail this thread ;).


Wow, you really are creative today. I think it is only fair that you post your gripes in the correct section so that I can defend myself there. You are only derailing this thread (YET AGAIN) with your slanderous nonsense and misrepresentations.

GET BACK ON TOPIC! That is if you are even interested :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

We're talking about you, not to you. Go Stand in the corner.
 
Phronesis said:
With so many parallels between them? Development through evolution does become plausible. Evo-devo...
Click to expand...
Well you are the one who is always conflating terms. I am happy with development - I understand that it doesn't automatically imply a mind of *any* kind is involved.
You may say he is blind, but he was going to make watches anyway since all the parts were already there ;). Bit biased to a few ends the old chap.
Click to expand...
I say he does not exist. No evidence for see.
Why not?
Click to expand...
Because, for instance, if the extinction level event for dinosaurs didn't happen, you and I wouldn't be here.

I'm happy enough to accept once you have self replicators plus variety you'll have a high probability of ending up with some kind of eye. You just can't predict what would be using it exactly. And if enough parameters change, then eyes won't happen either.
 
cyghost said:
Well you are the one who is always conflating terms. I am happy with development - I understand that it doesn't automatically imply a mind of *any* kind is involved.
Click to expand...
Define mind (in your own thread of course).

cyghost said:
I say he does not exist. No evidence for see.
Click to expand...
If the blind watchmaker does not exist to you, why do you introduce it in the discussion? More derailment from you?

cyghost said:
Because, for instance, if the extinction level event for dinosaurs didn't happen, you and I wouldn't be here.
Click to expand...
Any tests done to verify this assertion?


cyghost said:
I'm happy enough to accept once you have self replicators plus variety you'll have a high probability of ending up with some kind of eye.
Click to expand...
You have no repeatable experimental data to test whether this is true. Note here that the word "repeatable" is important. It is of course your right to hold that belief, since you can argue that it happened once, but to say an eye will evovle again from simple self replicators is ascribing an inevitable course of evolution. An interesting belief for you to hold ;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X