Strange analogy....if a film needs a director, then how come nature doesn't need a director?
Because life isn't a movie.
Do you think you live in a movie?
I am waiting for someone to explain to me how a brainless plant makes the replica of an insect as part of its strategy to keep its species pollinated and perpetuated without an intelligent direction from "someone"...?
I don't know specifically which plant you're talking about but I'm assuming it's this Orchid:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982208005265
If you legitimately have questions like this it's best to look them up and study them before making claims about them.
It doesn't make itself look like a bee. It produces several chemicals, one of which smells like a particular bee pheromone. There are certain wasps which feed this particular bee to their young, and scent produced by the orchids attracts the wasps who think it's a bee that they can pick off. As they land on the flower and notice no bee, they take off moving on to other places that smell like bees. In doing so, they are slowly pollinating this particular species of orchid. It just so happens to work out for this plant. If the chemical combination when smells like bees stopped being produced for some reason, that population of orchid would drastically decrease in number or possibly even go extinct just because that's how nature works. If, on the other hand the chemical combination produced didn't happen to smell like bee pheromone, there's a very good chance that this particular species of orchid would not be around for us to study it.
You can faithfully attribute whatever deity you want to the longevity and adaptability of this plant, but it doesn't change the science behind how the plant operates. The truth of it's success or failure, life and death, is the same regardless of your faith.
All undirected chance......like lighting a fire for warmth. No one directs that of course. When humans want to warm themselves they had to invent the means to cause flames. Funny how no animals warm themselves by deliberately lighting a fire.
If you had a different breed of dog, do you think it would magically grow more fur if the genetic ability wasn't there? Or would you agree that you're pretty lucky that your muts have this ability so that they can keep warm when you and your family make moves like this? I mean, I don't want to speak for you, but I'm pretty sure you didn't do a gene analysis on the pups before moving to make sure they could handle it. Not all dogs have this trait, you know? So your dogs, by chance and by no direction or your own, are more suited for their new environment than if you had had a different breed without the ability...
Evolutionary lessons are everywhere, if you'd just let go of this unnecessary angst and try to understand what is naturally happening in the world around you.
And what has belonging to the same "kind" got to do with looks or size. Look at felines...all shapes and sizes, but all felines. Leopards, panthers, cheetahs, manx, mountain lions...all cats.
What did you ask for in the previous post which netted the familial and transitional examples that I showed you? You asked for evidence of the transition from short necked to long-necked giraffes.
I gave you that, and your beuttal is now to argue about "kinds"?
And if you want to really break down your analogy, you're admitting that all the different shapes and sizes of cats are available because of adaptation, right? All of the different-yet-similar shapes and sizes of the "Giraffe" are produced via adaptation, which is evolution.... You're making my point for me.
How do scientists determine what "family" of animals a specific species belongs to?
This is what your Wiki link said.....
Cladistics (from Greekκλάδος, klados, i.e. "branch")[1] is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are grouped together based on whether or not they have one or more shared unique characteristics that come from the group's last common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors. Therefore, members of the same group are thought to share a common history and are considered to be more closely related.[2][3][4][5]
Now, I don't look at things through the same lens as you do, but that is tantamount to guesswork in my understanding. If it has a characteristic in common with something living, it must belong to the same family. OK but where do we then see this animal as not still belonging the same "kind" as its supposed ancestor?
The very first taxonomic groupings were pretty much based on guesswork, driven by a many number of factors focused on physical traits and behaviors.
However, as we've gotten to understand the natural process better, and as we've developed more tools which allow us to study things even further, down to the chemical and genetic levels, we've discovered that those original groupings were, for the most part, spot on. There have been some adjustments made to taxonomy given some of these new findings, but closely studying physical characteristics (the phenotypes) has proven to be a pretty good indicator of accuracy at the genetic level as well (the genotype).
You should keep reading when you come to passages like that, and follow sources and links, instead of stopping when you think you've helped validate your own case. When you stop only after feeling validated, you fall into the trap of confirmation bias.
Now, this looks supiciously like a bovine. How do they know it's a giraffe?
The link begins by saying what all writings supporting evolutionary science conveys.....
"The majority of the bones visible seem to be those of the short-necked giraffe or Sivathere but there is evidence of wales, seals, various elephants and different sabre toothed cats as well."
The language is self explanatory. Things are not always what they "SEEM" to be.
Y'all take a lot for granted.
The link was to serve as evidence of a huge bone field where these remains are still currently being studied. You can type in the name of the preserve where they are located to find out more. Again, don't stop reading something just because you see words which you think help solidify your argument.
And if you think it looks similar to a bovine, that's good. At least you're thinking about it.
What you should also consider, along those same lines, is how closely related all 4-legged hoofed animals are. Once you do, you'll begin to see other similarities between these two very different phenotypes, which share a great bit of information in their genotype. You'll start to realize that everything is connected, with only varying amounts of adaptation to certain environments separating them.
You trust your teachers to be telling the truth. How does that make you different to me? You assume that the evidence is interpreted correctly...what if it isn't? What if they have been misinterpreting the evidence all these years? Building their house of straw......how would you know? It looks to me like pre-conceived ideas forcing conclusions, rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself.
So your rebuttal of the Samotherium's existence is that "evolution is a delusional conspiracy theory" ?
How would I know if my "teachers" were telling the truth? I would test their claims. I would question what they told me. I would conduct an independent study as best I could to determine whether or not what they were telling me was trustworthy... I would not stop reading just because I heard something that I liked or agreed with.
Science is constantly challenging itself. Some people dedicate their entire lives to weeding out bad studies, or procedures, or even other scientists. It's the job of science to try and prove itself wrong, all the time. This idea of yours that it's all a bunch of morons sitting around and making stuff up is really quite insulting.
I have seen many illustrations and computer animations that come out of people's imaginations and presented as fact. But the fact is, no one knows what these creatures looked like from their skeletons...they can guess through.
Since it is claimed that all life originated from the primordial soup, then all life forms came from the same ancestors way back. Isn't it amazing what undirected chance mutations can achieve when you give then a few hundred million years?
Yet if they all had the same Maker, who used the same raw materials in his designs, then that would explain a lot, without evolution ever being mentioned.
We had a designer and Maker who is the most brilliant scientist in existence. Ask the men who seek to copy his designs. No one wants to talk about bio-mimetics? How come it takes someone with a scienc degree to copy the designs in nature but it took Mr Nobody to design them in the first place? Amazing huh?
A few non-sequitors there, but ok.
I didn't present that drawing as factual because of the art. I presented it because it has a list of several different extinct members of the Giraffe family... You can take the names of those animals (in the upper left corner) type them into Google, and learn about them.
Despite that, however, it's incorrect to say that there is no science that goes into that artwork. Just like there is a science which studies muscle densities, and a science which studies skin textures, and a science which studies skeletal movements, the depictions that we see of extinct animals are as close to accurate as we're ever going to get. If and when new information about the animals becomes known, we adjust those drawings or depictions so that they remain as accurate as possible.
Yes, it is amazing what adaptation driven by natural selective processes can achieve when given a few billion years. Just like it's amazing what kind of geologic features can be achieved after a few billion years of elemental processes, or just like it's amazing what kind of planetary systems are able to form given just a couple of elements and the nature of gravity over a few billion years...
If you want to attribute the natural processes to the hand of a deity, then so be it. But the physical explanation of how things change is absolutely unaffected by your faith. Unless there is a giant finger which reaches down out and the sky to touch the dirt in order to make babies, then the best explanation that we have for how babies are made comes from the natural process of reproduction. You agree with that, at least, right? You can attribute this life-bearing process to a deity, and that's fine. But does it change the fact that we know that a sperm has to fertilize an egg in order to form a zygote?
Of course not.
The science is still right regardless of your faith. Evolutionary science is no different. The physical and natural process of adaptation to environments is something you agree with and admit happens. Why then do you suddenly stop understanding it when it comes to expanded speciation? Nothing about the process changes just because you believe in god and don't want it to continue after a certain point. Sperm don't stop fertilizing eggs just because you believe that god breathes life into every human being... The natural process still happens, regardless of what you attribute it to, just like evolution.
