Fun for Evolution :D

[Just_me_Mike]

Here is a soft ball for you, please explain why this is rubbish for me. Thanks!

A problem evolutionists can't explain is symbiosis.

When it comes to symbiosis (def. an interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, usually to the advantage of both parties.) evolutionists go quiet because they can not explain why in the fossil records insects appear at the same time as flowers, which needed them for pollination. such flowers could not propagate even for one season if the insects were not there. The flowers would have died without the insects. There are also the total lack of insect fossils where wings are beginning to grow. Flying insects appeared at the same time as non-flying, fully functional in what ever form they are in now.

Source

 

[Nepenthe]

It's another classic creationist claim. They do love quoting Darwin's "abominable mystery" or any sincere uncertainty Darwin expressed. Anyway, it's a silly claim since all flowering plants don't require pollination and insects are not even responsible for all forms of pollination either- the wind also helps disperse and would've been a major player in early forms of pollination. So the argument is silly on its face.

Anyway, Land plants appeared about 450 mya, flowering plants, or angiosperms, 130 mya and just took over the planet in about 30 million years- an evolutionary blink of an eye. But we've learned a lot since Darwin- all of which creationists ignore- and the fossil record does indicate early stages of angiosperm diversification showing a relative equilibrium throughout the early Cretaceous. The Amborella trichopoda first appeared about 130 mya and it shows unique features indicating a link between modern flowering plants and their ancestors. Amborella is an anatomical bridge showing the structures of cone bearing plants to flowering plants. So while the fossil record for the transition from an extinct ancestor and the angiosperm is less substantial than scientists would like, it's fortunate we also have molecular evidence- the genome of these plants has cleared up a lot of the mystery.

While the fossil record on insect wings is scant, the insect wings thing is just another variation of the "transitional forms are useless" nonsense where half a wing is allegedly detrimental as is half an eye. Of course this is ridiculous; a fraction of something is often better than nothing- subtle variations allow natural selection to statistically "select" those traits that perpetuate the organism's ability to reproduce. A light detecting molecule is better than no sight at all. Yet again we have genetic evidence that insect wings can be traced to gills with intermediate stages of gliding (see this awesome bristletail study and this excellent explanation of the study). So while the fossil record is stubbornly ambiguous on insect flight, the genetics are an open book. Taylor's blog has an excellent article on the evolution of insect flight: http://catalogue-of-organisms.blogspot.com/2010/01/origin-of-insect-wings.html

 

[Autodidact]

I'd say it betrays the usual creationist ignorance. Biologists don't "go silent." There are probably around a million scholarly articles in various journals of biology exploring the evolutionary history of each and every symbiotic relationship.

In a sense, your entire body is one big symbiotic community.

And the last sentence is simply a lie.

Also notice how they assume what they're trying to disprove, which is that various forms of life appeared gradually billions of years ago, not suddenly 6000 years ago.

 

[fantome profane]

In his most recent book “The Greatest Show on Earth” Richard Dawkins describes this symbiosis between certain plants and insects as a form of natural selection that is a close parallel to artificial selection. Even the most ardent Creationist will acknowledge the power of selective breeding to achieve a desired characteristic. What happens with these plants and insects is not all that different, only in this case it is the insect that does the selecting. The insect selects the flower that is most appealing to it (looks like the female genitalia for example). And at the same time the flower is selecting the insect that is most capable of pollinating.

And like in artificial selection this kind of natural selection can produce very rapid changes in both species (rapid by evolutionary standards of course).

 

[painted wolf]

Insects are way older than flowers.
And yes, we have fossils of transitional flying insects.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

The "source" is a creationist site. Are you seriously expecting accurate scientific analysis from such a site?

 

[Noaidi]

The symbioses we see today are simply that - what we currently observe. The other plant species that the insect pollinated may have gone extinct, leaving the insect with only very few (or one) currently available.

 

[Nepenthe]

Insects are way older than flowers.
And yes, we have fossils of transitional flying insects.

wa:do

Yeah, flowering plants around 140 mya and insects during the Silurian over 400 mya. It's bizarre creationists questions like that in the OP's link that still make me suspect creationism is a vast Andy Kaufman-esque prank and any day now they're gonna admit it. Then again I think the same thing with right-wing politics and Ayn Rand's objectivism- it's all a huge prank.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, flowering plants around 140 mya and insects during the Silurian over 400 mya. It's bizarre creationists questions like that in the OP's link that still make me suspect creationism is a vast Andy Kaufman-esque prank and any day now they're gonna admit it. Then again I think the same thing with right-wing politics and Ayn Rand's objectivism- it's all a huge prank.

Objectivism is a strange one to lump in with creationism since they're entirely at odds with each other.
What's you objection to objectivism?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Key word in the OP is "soft ball"

 

[Nepenthe]

Objectivism is a strange one to lump in with creationism since they're entirely at odds with each other.
What's you objection to objectivism?

I'm not comparing objectivism and creationism against each other- I'm disagreeing with both, specifically Rand's ideas of rational self-interest as achieved through laissez faire capitalism. Objectivism's defense of an objective reality that can be explored is commendable and the basis of scientific inquiry- I just hate Rand and the whole economic mess attached to her philosophy.

But as a libertarian you suspected that's what I meant- right?

 

[painted wolf]

Key word in the OP is "soft ball"

I have yet to run into a creationist question that isn't "soft ball"... despite the fact that they refuse to step up to the plate.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not comparing objectivism and creationism against each other- I'm disagreeing with both, specifically Rand's ideas of rational self-interest as achieved through laissez faire capitalism. Objectivism's defense of an objective reality that can be explored is commendable and the basis of scientific inquiry- I just hate Rand and the whole economic mess attached to her philosophy.

But as a libertarian you suspected that's what I meant- right?

The economic mess was the result of regulation far more than free market capitalism. The bad loans which precipitated the
crash were a direct & predictable result of gov't requirements to make risky loans & the gov't subsidy & guarantee of risky loans.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (the 1st to go) are entirely gov't creations with gov't guarantees to the investors. Essentially, gov't
placed disasterous incentives in the loan marketplace. I saw this instability decades ago when I was a real estate broker.

Now before you get your drawers in a bunch, I approve of some regulation. Example: Real estate appraisers got some much
needed standards to meet when Michigan began licensing them separately from brokers. Prior to this, they'd cook appraisals
for buyers. This played a large role in the S&L scandal. Regulation should provide incentives which enhance stability, rather
than increase the likelihood of catastrophic failure. But alas, no one learns from history, & Congress is at it again, pushing
for hi LTV loans to risky homeowners. Oddly enuf, the fed is now requiring one of my lenders to refuse to renew loans like
mine, which will put me in default next year, even if I make my payments. So much for regulation enhancing stability, eh?

Free market capitalism is a lot like evolution from a systems analysis standpoint. It is a very large scale stochastic process
with a survival fitness function. Socialism is much more like creationism in that some central authority designs everything,
except that socialist leaders make poor gods.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I have yet to run into a creationist question that isn't "soft ball"... despite the fact that they refuse to step up to the plate.

wa:do

Ooooh I like how you slipped that "step up to the plate" in there. It was a real home run

 

[Nepenthe]

Ooooh I like how you slipped that "step up to the plate" in there. It was a real home run

She's a regular Stephen J. Gould with the baseball analogies.

 

[Valjean]

Batting 1000

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think someone should throw another.

 

[Gunfingers]

Yeah, that'd really get her the hat trick!

Wait...i screwed that up! ****!

 

[painted wolf]

That's strike one for Gunfingers!

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

The economic mess was the result of regulation far more than free market capitalism. The bad loans which precipitated the
crash were a direct & predictable result of gov't requirements to make risky loans & the gov't subsidy & guarantee of risky loans.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (the 1st to go) are entirely gov't creations with gov't guarantees to the investors. Essentially, gov't
placed disasterous incentives in the loan marketplace. I saw this instability decades ago when I was a real estate broker.

Sources? This flies in the face of both commonsense and every analysis of the situation I've seen so far.

Now before you get your drawers in a bunch, I approve of some regulation. Example: Real estate appraisers got some much
needed standards to meet when Michigan began licensing them separately from brokers. Prior to this, they'd cook appraisals
for buyers. This played a large role in the S&L scandal. Regulation should provide incentives which enhance stability, rather
than increase the likelihood of catastrophic failure. But alas, no one learns from history, & Congress is at it again, pushing
for hi LTV loans to risky homeowners. Oddly enuf, the fed is now requiring one of my lenders to refuse to renew loans like
mine, which will put me in default next year, even if I make my payments. So much for regulation enhancing stability, eh?

Too late -- my panties are already in a bunch!
Seriously, though, I think you're ignoring history. Every time we relax restrictive regs and oversight we get a recession. When we maintain strong government regulation we get stability and growth.

Free market capitalism is a lot like evolution from a systems analysis standpoint. It is a very large scale stochastic process
with a survival fitness function. Socialism is much more like creationism in that some central authority designs everything,
except that socialist leaders make poor gods.

Balderdash! "Free market" leads to exploitation and monopoly (corporatism). It's been disasterous everywhere it's been tried.

The 'socialism' we liberals advocate is not the central planning and government ownership of the means of production so diasterously demonstrated in the USSR, it's the socialism of Denmark or Norway. It's shared, public ownership only of the commons. It's a coalition of labor and management. It's government as a mutual, self-help co-operative.