Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[John53]

If we can get them finished soon, we can pick up a discussion on them maybe. There appear to be some interesting points to learn. Nothing like the language of beavers, but what is.

I watched a documentary on mimicry a few months ago. The research they were doing found some interesting things, it had been thought only male lyrebirds were mimics but they discovered that the females are also accomplished in the art just more subtle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hope your hands are doing better.

This may interest you. It is a recent review of camouflage from 2020. It is 15 or 20 pages and I haven't read it beyond the first page, but it sounds interesting and on point here.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/brv.12612

Does it explain this, for the life of me I cannot figure it out:

EDIT: I am not sure if everybody noticed. The predator on the left appears to be rather inexperienced and stands out rather abruptly due to a pants error. If you look very carefully there is another predator to the right that is almost undetectable due to its clever use of camouflage.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does it explain this, for the life of me I cannot figure it out:


View attachment 97564

EDIT: I am not sure if everybody noticed. The predator on the left appears to be rather inexperienced and stands out rather abruptly due to a pants error. If you look very carefully there is another predator to the right that is almost undetectable due to its clever use of camouflage.

Oh, right! Now I see. There _are_ two of them!

 

[John53]

Does it explain this, for the life of me I cannot figure it out:


View attachment 97564

EDIT: I am not sure if everybody noticed. The predator on the left appears to be rather inexperienced and stands out rather abruptly due to a pants error. If you look very carefully there is another predator to the right that is almost undetectable due to its clever use of camouflage.

They're on the cabbage soup diet?

 

[John53]

Does it explain this, for the life of me I cannot figure it out:


View attachment 97564

EDIT: I am not sure if everybody noticed. The predator on the left appears to be rather inexperienced and stands out rather abruptly due to a pants error. If you look very carefully there is another predator to the right that is almost undetectable due to its clever use of camouflage.

@Revoltingest in his formal evening attire?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I watched a documentary on mimicry a few months ago. The research they were doing found some interesting things, it had been thought only male lyrebirds were mimics but they discovered that the females are also accomplished in the art just more subtle.

Vocal mimicry isn't something I've looked into much, but we have a bird in the US called a mocking bird that is noted for it. I'm going to have to do a little search, but there was something I read over the last year (maybe somebody posted it here) about a mutation in crickets that resulted in an inability to attract mates. They were no longer able produce a recognizable call. I'm curious about that and what it may potentially mean in the evolution of a trait and ultimately a population. In that particular case, as I recall it, the result would be detrimental. At least on the face of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does it explain this, for the life of me I cannot figure it out:


View attachment 97564

EDIT: I am not sure if everybody noticed. The predator on the left appears to be rather inexperienced and stands out rather abruptly due to a pants error. If you look very carefully there is another predator to the right that is almost undetectable due to its clever use of camouflage.

I'm guessing they should be aiming for the salad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Revoltingest in his formal evening attire?

I had a comment about the psychological impact of no longer being able to see something and finding a surrogate. But I refrained from my much more visceral description.

 

[Valjean]

Vocal mimicry isn't something I've looked into much, but we have a bird in the US called a mocking bird that is noted for it. I'm going to have to do a little search, but there was something I read over the last year (maybe somebody posted it here) about a mutation in crickets that resulted in an inability to attract mates. They were no longer able produce a recognizable call. I'm curious about that and what it may potentially mean in the evolution of a trait and ultimately a population. In that particular case, as I recall it, the result would be detrimental. At least on the face of it.

Mute crickets?
Simple natural selection:

How crickets lost their chirp

Crickets living on the tropical paradise of Hawaii have lost their chirp, and researchers have figured out why.

www.thenakedscientists.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you think that it has to do with shifting and not with correcting?

You seemed to be implying that the mere fact that a claim hasn't been disproven, gives it some form of credibility.
As if claims are to be considered true, or to be taken seriously, simply because they haven't been disproven.

That's a shift of the burden of proof.
Claims fall and stand on their own merits.
A claim with no evidence can be discarded at face value without requiring any sort of "disproof".

We are not ignoring any plausible explenations , why do you think has anything to do with bias?
We study most of the relevant reviews , and we can see that the facts are not presented.
We have seen this simular reasoning in people who represent certain world-views.

Just see how Bart Ehrman caughts himself in a lie in his debate with Peter J.Williams about basics.

If you want any other scholar just name him and i will give you an answer.
It's not hard to answer 20 people , if the side that answers them has one number more , or maybe 4.

It's just a matter of analysis , it's the same in History as it is in Biology , Math , Physics etc.Everyone who does it leaves their belief behind.

And the thing is that we don't have to do anything , because they themselfs demonstrate their weird understandings.
This is done many times , i am just not going to repeat myself.
You decide on your own if they are not of importance.
But if you find one that studied them and rejects them and says otherwise and his study is well reviewed then let me know

If you have no knowledge , or or think they are not of importance , you have to prove why , and not just naming them by saying "plenty".

Good that i mentioned "plenty" , how many do you mean is plenty against many,many milions?
If you think that means milions in the form of evidence , then you will be wrong to think that anyone can study so much material in the first place.

We have demonstrated many times that these kind of people are known to mislead certain thinkers , and not focus on what History is telling.

I said "ignoring the fact that...." meaning that we can happily proceed assuming there are no such plausible explanation. Meaning the point that is going to follow doesn't even require any plausible explanations.

I want to know the reason why you say of ignorance.

Because you imply that the merit of these claims is that they haven't been disproven.
Translation: "we don't know, therefor god"

And that is exactly what is done in History just as it is in Math , Physics , Biology etc.
It is so much of information , you can't just dismiss them like you did when you assumed the ignorance.

Give me one example of a "miracle" being verifiably confirmed in such manner.
I won't hold my breath.

Nobody belives in specific God by geographic accident.

Seriously?
So in your opinion there is no general link between culture and the religion you follow if you are a religious person?

That is well noted in the Gospel of John 1.

Then that's something this gospel is demonstrably wrong about.

I am glad for Ehrman that he understands how the Gospel of John represents the divinity of Christ.


Miracle is a potentially misleading term for people in the West. It is colored by the eighteenth century debate on whether miracle, defined as an infraction of natural law, is possible.
But a biblical miracle requires no violation of nature.
A miracle is simply a strikingly surprising event that is beyond normal human ability.

A. E. Harvey:
"Miiracle working is attested of Jesus with a high degree of historical certainty. Though it was popularly believed in the twentieth century that there were a large number of miracle-workers and magicians at the time of Jesus, there is virtually no evidence for this assertion. In the period from 200 BC to 200 AD the number of miracles recorded which are even remotely comparable to Jesus’ miracles is quite small. In Judaism, there are two miracle workers besides Jesus: Honi the Rain maker or Hanina Ben Dosa.
Jesus operated under constraints that conform to no other pattern in the ancient world."

John P. Meier has made a 200-page rigorous investigation using
-five primary criteria
-five secondary criteria
That provides strong evidence for the historicity of Jesus' miracles in the second volume of his series "A Marginal Jew: Mentor, message, and miracles".
I am just going to reference what is of inportance:
"The historical fact that Jesus performed extraordinary deeds deemed by himself and others to be miracles is supported most impressively … The miracle traditions about Jesus' public ministry are already so widely attested in various sources and literary forms by the end of the first Christian generation that total fabrication by the early church is, practically speaking, impossible."
Other literary sources from the second and third generation and among them is also Josephus - only confirm this impression … the tradition of Jesus' miracles is more firmly supported by the criteria of historicity than are a number of other well known and often readily accepted traditions about his life and ministry."(p.650)

Graham Twelftree provides an detailed analysis of the miracles of Jesus in "Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study."

According to Twelftree, about 40% of Jesus' miracles are historically provable; the rest don't contain enough detail to judge.Arguments against it have included a supposed 'contradiction in geography'.
Matthew says '… (Jesus) arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes…' but Mark says, '… they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes.' Luke says, 'They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, across the lake from Galilee.The location is actually the same location.The gospel writers simply identify the same area using different criteria:
-Matthew references the main town in the region, and the other two reference the local village.

We find many things that many people say to be wrong.

Let's continue

N.T. Wright:
"…we must be clear that Jesus' contemporaries, both those who became his followers and those who were determined not to become his followers, certainly regarded him as possessed of remarkable powers."

And ofc , this is just a drop of water in the ocean.
And does not say much , but it tells something.

That we can't dismiss it like that.

I'm not interested in biblical preaching.

You said :
"Not "it's a supernatural miracle performed by the specific god I happen to believe in by geographic accident!"

I never assumed this , i said only that miracles should not be rejected on empty statements.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mute crickets?
Simple natural selection:

How crickets lost their chirp

Crickets living on the tropical paradise of Hawaii have lost their chirp, and researchers have figured out why.

www.thenakedscientists.com

I don't recall them being mute from my recollection. But unable to make a recognizable call. I was hoping it might spark someone else's memory and they could comment.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest in his formal evening attire?

Business casual.

 

[Dimi95]

Give me one example of a "miracle" being verifiably confirmed in such manner.
I won't hold my breath.

Personal Testimony to Archbishop Dimitri's Incorrupt Relics ⋆ Russian Dallas - Русский Даллас

By Vladimir Grigorenko Photo by Vladimir Grigorenko Editorial Note: Vladimir Grigorenko was the iconographer of St. Seraphim’s Orthodox cathedral in Dallas and a close friend of Archbishop Dimitri’s. He was present both at his funeral and the five days until his burial, and at his exhumation and...

www.dallastelegraph.com

You can find the number of the physicians by yourself and ask them of their expertise and knowledge.

Maybe they will tell you also with how many other physicians did they talked about this kind of cases.

Just do it.

There is no point otherwise to continue the discussion.

You think that you will find everything explained in a paper?
You are so naive if you think like that.

I did however look on your reply , maybe i did some mistakes in how i wrote my answers.I could have done better to explain my point.
I apologize for that.
I will do better in future.

But the point is that all kinds of miracles happen.To us is very strange that most of the numbers are in Christianity.
This is not preaching , this is what Historians say.

I am not saying these things in the sense of theology , i am saying them in the sense of History.

You said that you are not interested in biblical preaching , but nothing that i wrote is considered biblical preaching.
About biblical preaching you should adress the Church , but it doesn't matter , I can forget the straw-man and the incredulity.
These are conclusions by actual Historians.
Check , why do you just not check?

That is study in History and not in the Church.
Honest advice to reconsider that again.

This has two ways.
Either you continue what you are doing either you just call and check.

 

[gnostic]

Does it explain this, for the life of me I cannot figure it out:


View attachment 97564

EDIT: I am not sure if everybody noticed. The predator on the left appears to be rather inexperienced and stands out rather abruptly due to a pants error. If you look very carefully there is another predator to the right that is almost undetectable due to its clever use of camouflage.

Well…they look like regular chameleons. If they weren’t carrying their guns, I might have missed them, totally.

 

[Dimi95]

Seriously?
So in your opinion there is no general link between culture and the religion you follow if you are a religious person?

Nobody that is Christian , sorry my mistake.
John 1:12-13

I can not speak for others.

And i am not religious , i want to , but i don't know how.

Then that's something this gospel is demonstrably wrong about.

Well , when we take all religions into account and all beliefs , yes you are correct , but not to Christians.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mute crickets?
Simple natural selection:

How crickets lost their chirp

Crickets living on the tropical paradise of Hawaii have lost their chirp, and researchers have figured out why.

www.thenakedscientists.com

My memory isn't what it used to be. This is exactly the article that was linked somewhere on RF and I can't recall by whom.

Yes, natural selection, resulting in a population with a mix of calling and quiet males.

It is more like camouflage and not really mimicry.

The males have a mutation or mutations that lead to flat wings that do not have the stridulatory ridges used to make chirps. This is driven by the presence of a parasitic fly that targets the crickets acoustically. That selection is reinforced and propagated in the population by quiet males covertly mating with females attracted by calling males.

I found the source of the article you linked. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(14)00524-7.pdf

It is really fascinating stuff. Different mutations in the cricket populations on the two islands lead to a rapid convergent evolution of the same trait.

 

[gnostic]

Somehow, unless someone proves that "wrong," I tend to agree with you. Even when it comes to biologic processes. Just as an example, in the Miller-Urey experiment, the constituents of the experiment did not think for themselves. But they reacted.

So? How is the Miller-Urey experiment, wrong?

Biology, what the cells and every components within in each cell (eg the membrane, the plasma, proteins, nucleic acids like DNA, etc, are basically made of atoms, molecules and compounds, hence it is all chemistry, but more complex than inorganic chemistry, but chemical reactions are still chemical reactions, regardless if these are organic or inorganic.

We have better understanding of proteins and DNA than a decade ago, half a century ago, a century ago, and so on.

And you are stuck on, because it was a chemical reacction?

You do realize chemical reactions just about everyday, in our bodies. Whenever we breathe, chemical reaction are happening, chemically turning oxygen into carbon dioxide, because it go through every system in our tissues, because it turn the oxygen intake that provide energy to each cells. It is the same with the food we eat, we break the down into the vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients, but especially the glucose or sugar, which are the main energy sources for all living organisms, not just for humans. These chemical reactions are called metabolism, whether it come air used respiratory system, or food used in digestive systems.

Metabolism are essential for all living organisms, without them, the cells and tissues would die, the bodies don’t repair damages or injuries, we don’t grow, etc.

Much of what occurred in our bodies, happened without thinking, many of the bodily functions occurred without conscious directions from our minds. The eyes, ears, digestive system (stomach, intestines, etc), circulation system (heart, blood vessels), and many others, all work without us to directing it to the work.

Likewise, plants draw water by its roots, through the stem, branches to the leaves. While the leaves draw in carbon dioxide, and the cells in the leaves, also capture sunlight in which the cell’s chloroplast, the light energy generated the heat required for chemical reaction of water and carbon dioxide into starch (sugar or carbohydrate) and oxygen. The starch, like the glucose that are broken down from food animals eat, the starch is the energy source that keep plants alive, healthy and growing.

So yeah, the Miller-Urey experiment used inorganic chemicals to produce organic compounds of different amino acids, but you needs to remember that chain of more than 1 amino acid is required to produce protein, and proteins themselves are building blocks for tissues for every multicellular organisms, like humans.

Without amino acids, there can be no protein. Without proteins, there can be no tissues. Without tissues, there would be no animals (including humans), no plants, and no fungi.

Other experiments, like that by Joan Oró (1961), used different chemicals to produce amino acids as well as adenine, one of the 4 base molecules that exist in both DNA & RNA.

The Abiogenesis is just about the origin of life, but also the origins of every organic molecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc) that are essential for cellular life form, whether it be multicellular organisms (like fungi, plants or animals), or unicellular organisms (like protists, bacteria or archaea).

One thing is certain, human cannot be made from dust of the earth, which I would assume Genesis 2:7 mean “soil”. Soil type, which are broadly catalogued into 3 main types - sand, silt & clay - are all mainly based on silicon-based minerals, like quartz or feldspar. Well, nothing in human biology have any mineral of silica (sand) or silicate (feldspar, mica). This is why the creation of Adam is nothing more than myth & fiction.

You cannot chemically turn any silicon-based minerals into carbon-based cell and tissues.

 

[YoursTrue]

So? How is the Miller-Urey experiment, wrong?

Biology, what the cells and every components within in each cell (eg the membrane, the plasma, proteins, nucleic acids like DNA, etc, are basically made of atoms, molecules and compounds, hence it is all chemistry, but more complex than inorganic chemistry, but chemical reactions are still chemical reactions, regardless if these are organic or inorganic.

We have better understanding of proteins and DNA than a decade ago, half a century ago, a century ago, and so on.

And you are stuck on, because it was a chemical reacction?

You do realize chemical reactions just about everyday, in our bodies. Whenever we breathe, chemical reaction are happening, chemically turning oxygen into carbon dioxide, because it go through every system in our tissues, because it turn the oxygen intake that provide energy to each cells. It is the same with the food we eat, we break the down into the vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients, but especially the glucose or sugar, which are the main energy sources for all living organisms, not just for humans. These chemical reactions are called metabolism, whether it come air used respiratory system, or food used in digestive systems.

Metabolism are essential for all living organisms, without them, the cells and tissues would die, the bodies don’t repair damages or injuries, we don’t grow, etc.

Much of what occurred in our bodies, happened without thinking, many of the bodily functions occurred without conscious directions from our minds. The eyes, ears, digestive system (stomach, intestines, etc), circulation system (heart, blood vessels), and many others, all work without us to directing it to the work.

Likewise, plants draw water by its roots, through the stem, branches to the leaves. While the leaves draw in carbon dioxide, and the cells in the leaves, also capture sunlight in which the cell’s chloroplast, the light energy generated the heat required for chemical reaction of water and carbon dioxide into starch (sugar or carbohydrate) and oxygen. The starch, like the glucose that are broken down from food animals eat, the starch is the energy source that keep plants alive, healthy and growing.

So yeah, the Miller-Urey experiment used inorganic chemicals to produce organic compounds of different amino acids, but you needs to remember that chain of more than 1 amino acid is required to produce protein, and proteins themselves are building blocks for tissues for every multicellular organisms, like humans.

Without amino acids, there can be no protein. Without proteins, there can be no tissues. Without tissues, there would be no animals (including humans), no plants, and no fungi.

Other experiments, like that by Joan Oró (1961), used different chemicals to produce amino acids as well as adenine, one of the 4 base molecules that exist in both DNA & RNA.

The Abiogenesis is just about the origin of life, but also the origins of every organic molecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc) that are essential for cellular life form, whether it be multicellular organisms (like fungi, plants or animals), or unicellular organisms (like protists, bacteria or archaea).

One thing is certain, human cannot be made from dust of the earth, which I would assume Genesis 2:7 mean “soil”. Soil type, which are broadly catalogued into 3 main types - sand, silt & clay - are all mainly based on silicon-based minerals, like quartz or feldspar. Well, nothing in human biology have any mineral of silica (sand) or silicate (feldspar, mica). This is why the creation of Adam is nothing more than myth & fiction.

You cannot chemically turn any silicon-based minerals into carbon-based cell and tissues.

"he origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified" University of Chicago. The origin of life on Earth, explained.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"he origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified" University of Chicago. The origin of life on Earth, explained.

Was there an answer there? I didn't see one.

 

[gnostic]

"he origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified" University of Chicago. The origin of life on Earth, explained.

Unverified, no. If there were no verification whatsoever, then there would be zero evidence, and no experiments at all.

it “needs more works”, then yes. That’s why Abiogenesis is still ongoing and active hypothesis.

They have found meteorites , especially the larger ones, like the Murchison Meteorite & Allende Meteorite, containing large numbers ogf organic molecules & compounds, so biological matters could certainly arrived from earlier asteroids or meteorites or even from comets.

But other scientists have explored chemical properties and chemical reactions on Earth, that the origins of biological matters could happen on Earth, like through deep sea hydrothermal vents or much much shallow waters.

So what there are “various answers”? It doesn’t means it is unverified. And it is worth exploring as many possible avenues that life could have occurred.

Exploring answers through sciences, is not the same as being stuck in the dogma that a fully formed and grown human male can magically become alive from dust or soil (like Genesis 2:7)…that’s definitely not the answer, because the creation of Adam is the most ridiculous and unrealistic fantasy.