Split-colour bird is half male, half female

[shawn001]

Gynandromorphism


Split-colour bird is half male, half female

Split-colour bird is half male, half female - life - 29 December 2014 - New Scientist

 

[te_lanus]

Must be the work of the "Devil" since God only created Male and Female, anything that deviate from it is unnatural.

 

[shawn001]

Hmmm, well that would seem to conflict with the Bible according to the Bible.




For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" Colossians 1:16
"King James Bible


For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Timothy 4:4

 

[shawn001]

I meant to add good point.

 

[Nietzsche]

...

I'm waiting for some dark-coloured bird to swoop in out of the night to fight this Two-Plume. Maybe with a sidekick.

 

[Etritonakin]

Since someone brought up the idea that it must be of the devil, because God created male and female, I thought I would point out that the whole reason we are not to sin is so that the creation is not harmed.

Though such things as disease and mutation caused by man's actions may not all be specifically addressed in "the bible", (though there are verses which do address the subject overall) they essentially did not have the chance to be included in God's word to man, because man continually refused to hear and do.

The "tree of life" included God's continual oversight of and instruction about all things.

I am not saying that ALL disease and harmful mutation is the direct or indirect result of the actions of man coupled with our ignorance -but it would be extremely interesting to know the true statistics.

The fact is that things we do can and do cause intersexuality -though perhaps not in all cases.
Still -it would be interesting to know statistics concerning how man's actions may have even indirectly caused such in any case where it is not readily apparent.

It is said that God gave the creation over to futility in hope -so being cast out of the garden of Eden, as it were, could include God ceasing to maintain the creation -giving it over to whatever should befall it.

If God created a species after its kind male and female -and it was "good" -it does not mean that what he does cannot be made "not good".

We know that diet can affect health and even mutation -so the changes in dietary laws are also interesting in that regard. In Eden, they were vegetarian -if not Vegan. Afterward, God allowed all things to be eaten -though it's not as though some men needed to be told it was "ok".
Then -some things -and again -in the future, no flesh will be eaten.

Then there is the matter of manmade chemicals, medications, etc. Which can cause all sorts of "not good".

We often allow things we know will have harmful effects on each other, the environment, future generations. That is not to say that the devil didn't instigate the whole thing -but evil doesn't require much sustained effort or oversight.

 

[Revoltingest]

Must be the work of the "Devil" since God only created Male and Female, anything that deviate from it is unnatural.

I'll wager this bird is an......ATHEIST!

 

[David M]

If God created a species after its kind male and female -and it was "good" -it does not mean that what he does cannot be made "not good".

I've always wondered how the multitude of species that reproduce asexually, having no males or females, or are hermaphrodites fit into this model. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

 

[Etritonakin]

I've always wondered how the multitude of species that reproduce asexually, having no males or females, or are hermaphrodites fit into this model. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

I'm aware of no model -and no statement in the bible that says every single life form had a male and female.

Just so you know -I do not deny what is known about evolution, and I do not believe all life on earth began 6,000 years ago. I also do not believe the bible says that such is the case -though I can see why some believe it does.

While some species reproduce asexually, I don't believe equating such with human intersexuality -if that's what you meant to do -would be accurate.

Some changes/mutations can rightly be seen as abnormal for a species -and not all are "natural" -and certainly not all beneficial. It might be argued that anything man does is natural and part of evolution -but as we are the only species to be aware of such things and knowingly affect such things, I define unnatural in reference to evolution here as apart from human influence -as we are not merely subject to it (and are far more capable of affecting ourselves and the environment than any other species, even in ignorance).

So -while a species may be normally male and female -(anything) causing it to be other than such can be rightly seen as "not good" in reference to normal function -whether you consider original intent or not.

 

[shawn001]

...

I'm waiting for some dark-coloured bird to swoop in out of the night to fight this Two-Plume. Maybe with a sidekick.

Where is your compassion for the poor bird?

 

[shawn001]

I'll wager this bird is an......ATHEIST!

LOL

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm aware of no model -and no statement in the bible that says every single life form had a male and female.

Just so you know -I do not deny what is known about evolution, and I do not believe all life on earth began 6,000 years ago. I also do not believe the bible says that such is the case -though I can see why some believe it does.

While some species reproduce asexually, I don't believe equating such with human intersexuality -if that's what you meant to do -would be accurate.

Some changes/mutations can rightly be seen as abnormal for a species -and not all are "natural" -and certainly not all beneficial. It might be argued that anything man does is natural and part of evolution -but as we are the only species to be aware of such things and knowingly affect such things, I define unnatural in reference to evolution here as apart from human influence -as we are not merely subject to it (and are far more capable of affecting ourselves and the environment than any other species, even in ignorance).

So -while a species may be normally male and female -(anything) causing it to be other than such can be rightly seen as "not good" in reference to normal function -whether you consider original intent or not.

Only if you equate normal with good, and abnormal with not-good. Personally, I don't.

 

[029b10]

Yet the genetically mutated bird died off without reproducing and that proves man originated from random genetic mutations over long period of time. LOL.

So if someone get in a car crash and loses a limb, is that a form of evolution too?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yet the genetically mutated bird died off without reproducing and that proves man originated from random genetic mutations over long period of time. LOL.

Uh... no.

So if someone get in a car crash and loses a limb, is that a form of evolution too?

It's personal evolution, yeah. Won't have any bearing on the species as a whole, though.

 

[Etritonakin]

Only if you equate normal with good, and abnormal with not-good. Personally, I don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by "good", but I'm just saying that... for example.... a bowl is abnormal if it has a hole in it -and it's not "good" for containing things, which is its normal function.
An organ is abnormal if it does not perform its normal function -and so is not good.
This is different than a system in species changing from a previously-normal function to another normal function which is "good" because it is of benefit.

Overall, good -as a moral concept -is not different, but includes an overall ideal or optimal state -and can include an author or initiator of such, purpose and intent.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not sure what you mean by "good", but I'm just saying that... for example.... a bowl is abnormal if it has a hole in it -and it's not "good" for containing things, which is its normal function.

It's only not-good when the things it has to contain are smaller than the hole.

An organ is abnormal if it does not perform its normal function -and so is not good.
This is different than a system in species changing from a previously-normal function to another normal function which is "good" because it is of benefit.

Overall, good -as a moral concept -is not different, but includes an overall ideal or optimal state -and can include an author or initiator of such, purpose and intent.

Optimization doesn't really exist in nature, and I've basically discarded "normal" from my conceptual vocabulary as a social construct.

 

[Etritonakin]

It's only not-good when the things it has to contain are smaller than the hole.



Optimization doesn't really exist in nature, and I've basically discarded "normal" from my conceptual vocabulary as a social construct.

True -but the point is still valid.

---------

Optimization exists in nature -but do you have an aversion to the word due to possible association with intent of an original designer?

Even animals seek optimal methods by decision.
Do you not think the species and mutations thereof which survive are optimized to do so by "evolution"?
Even if one does not see decision or intent behind evolution, it does have an overall vector (for lack of a better term) -does make life more able to survive, and generally increasingly complex, able and aware.

It could be said that life on earth has undergone a process of optimization -to have increased understanding of, awareness of, and dominion over its environment -to the point that life is no longer simply subject to evolution -but can willingly direct it.

 

[Riverwolf]

True -but the point is still valid.

---------

Optimization exists in nature -but do you have an aversion to the word due to possible association with intent of an original designer?

As someone who's learning the art of design and the craft of optimization, I see neither in the natural world.

Even animals seek optimal methods by decision.
Do you not think the species and mutations thereof which survive are optimized to do so by "evolution"?

No, they weren't. Certain traits were selected for given certain environments. A trait that works in one environment is not necessarily suitable for survival in another.

Even if one does not see decision or intent behind evolution, it does have an overall vector (for lack of a better term) -does make life more able to survive, and generally increasingly complex, able and aware.

It could be said that life on earth has been optimized to have increased understanding of, awareness of, and dominion over its environment.

This is a very archaic, and long discarded, way of looking at evolution. It has nothing to do with increased complexity, nor is it directional; it's purely reactive to a given environment.

 

[Etritonakin]

As someone who's learning the art of design and the craft of optimization, I see neither in the natural world.



No, they weren't. Certain traits were selected for given certain environments. A trait that works in one environment is not necessarily suitable for survival in another.



This is a very archaic, and long discarded, way of looking at evolution. It has nothing to do with increased complexity, nor is it directional; it's purely reactive to a given environment.

I don't see that such a way of looking at evolution can be discarded except by not looking at evolution at all.

Life on earth has become more complex, more aware of its environment, more aware of itself, more able to manipulate its environment, and has become able to knowingly self-evolve to a certain degree thus far.... Step by step by step....... Forward in order/time......

Unless you're saying it happened by something other than evolution -or that evolution isn't the complete story.

--------

I understand the desire to use or even create words which express things more correctly or specifically, but at this point it seems we do not have enough of a common vocabulary to continue.

Also -the way we look at evolution continually changes as we know more -and some ideas once discarded as archaic or incorrect are being reconsidered -and some which are widely accepted become considered archaic.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't see that such a way of looking at evolution can be discarded except by not looking at evolution at all.

Well in the consensus, it's been discarded for decades, now. The only conception that still uses it is the popular conception, which has never been much of an accurate representation of the scientific consensus.

Life on earth has become more complex, more aware of its environment, more aware of itself, more able to manipulate its environment, and has become able to knowingly self-evolve to a certain degree thus far.... Step by step by step....... Forward in order/time......

Unless you're saying it happened by something other than evolution -or that evolution isn't the complete story.

Or that that's a very homo-centric view that's not actually accurate.

--------

I understand the desire to use or even create words which express things more correctly or specifically, but at this point it seems we do not have enough of a common vocabulary to continue.

Also -the way we look at evolution continually changes as we know more -and some ideas once discarded as archaic or incorrect are being reconsidered -and some which are widely accepted become considered archaic.

That is indeed how the sciences operate. But it's not dependent on a single individual. Hence why it's called a consensus.