ryan_paskadi
New member
NERD WARS!
Evolution and Coral
- Thread starter thecichlidpleco
- Start date
MCsaxmaster
New member
Ha. "Nerd" is what future scientists, doctors and engineers get called in high school by future gas station attendants 
Also, yay Will Ferrell
Also, yay Will Ferrell
ryan_paskadi
New member
nothing wrong with being a petrol dispenser engineer and calling nerds “nerdsâ€Â, nerd. 
j/k.....I work in a marine symbiosis and evolution lab and we like to call discussions like this NERD WARS becuase its funny.
j/k.....I work in a marine symbiosis and evolution lab and we like to call discussions like this NERD WARS becuase its funny.
MCsaxmaster
New member
Haha, no worries
KingDiamond
New member
The content of this thread reminds me of another one hummm..
You are only a nerd if you don't admit you are one!
You are only a nerd if you don't admit you are one!
MCsaxmaster
New member
Pssssch, that's terrible logic. So, if I deny that I am a rocking chair, does that make me a rocking chair?
KingDiamond
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283056#post12283056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCsaxmaster
Pssssch, that's terrible logic. So, if I deny that I am a rocking chair, does that make me a rocking chair?
Wearing a pocket protector, collecting comic books and playing Dungeons and Dragons does not make me a geek!
Poorcollegereef
Future Doc
Calling someone a "nerd" is a public announcement made by the "caller" of the nerd comment to the "receiver" of the nerd comment that the “receiver†has a vastly superior intellect than the “callerâ€Â
Legal Definition found at the Case: Drikin v. Ate (1998) and Wat Chintee v. Naked (1973)
Now, on the rocking chair comment:
MCsaxmaster: we have no means of verifying that you are not, in fact, a super intelligent rocking-chair with typing skills. Besides being on a computer forum (Which lacks traditional existence sensory inputs), there is a strong possibility that an sensory information that I can experience about you existence could be flawed. As a result, the only existence I can be fairly sure of is my own. (Descartes) Reguardless of MCsaxmaster existance of being a rocking chair, acropora, or human, I would say, my perception has found MCsaxmaster to be rather intelligent, so thanks for the educational moments.
Now, (flying spegetti monster save me) scientific classification is merely a human construct. While we (as humans and scientist) attempt to place order in the world, nature really does not wear name tags of which KPCOFG or S they belong to. Yes, humans can identify things based on an order that we perceive. Scientific and Biological is the accepted tradition, but even this tradition does change. DNA has allowed us to refine our classification, but it is a system of perception just like identifying colors... and it will change as our perception changes.
Finally, back to the original topic... kinda...
Darwin did receive a strong education in theology (think of it as a general requirement of the time). Naturalism (in many cases) began as a ‘hobby’ of the clergy… that being said, I think there is an argument that has gone unsaid. Because Darwin used geology, would it be better for cichlid to explore the differences in the coral species based on region the reefs location either in the world or by their location on the reef itself. I think that the potential adaptations would support Darwin’s ideas and may have some similarities with Darwin’s work on how bird species differentiated based on environmental demands. Would this be helpful?
Legal Definition found at the Case: Drikin v. Ate (1998) and Wat Chintee v. Naked (1973)
Now, on the rocking chair comment:
MCsaxmaster: we have no means of verifying that you are not, in fact, a super intelligent rocking-chair with typing skills. Besides being on a computer forum (Which lacks traditional existence sensory inputs), there is a strong possibility that an sensory information that I can experience about you existence could be flawed. As a result, the only existence I can be fairly sure of is my own. (Descartes) Reguardless of MCsaxmaster existance of being a rocking chair, acropora, or human, I would say, my perception has found MCsaxmaster to be rather intelligent, so thanks for the educational moments.
Now, (flying spegetti monster save me) scientific classification is merely a human construct. While we (as humans and scientist) attempt to place order in the world, nature really does not wear name tags of which KPCOFG or S they belong to. Yes, humans can identify things based on an order that we perceive. Scientific and Biological is the accepted tradition, but even this tradition does change. DNA has allowed us to refine our classification, but it is a system of perception just like identifying colors... and it will change as our perception changes.
Finally, back to the original topic... kinda...
Darwin did receive a strong education in theology (think of it as a general requirement of the time). Naturalism (in many cases) began as a ‘hobby’ of the clergy… that being said, I think there is an argument that has gone unsaid. Because Darwin used geology, would it be better for cichlid to explore the differences in the coral species based on region the reefs location either in the world or by their location on the reef itself. I think that the potential adaptations would support Darwin’s ideas and may have some similarities with Darwin’s work on how bird species differentiated based on environmental demands. Would this be helpful?
thecichlidpleco
New member
Wearing a pocket protector, collecting comic books and playing Dungeons and Dragons does not make me a geek!
I know you do 2 of those things, you guys gotta get some pocketed t-shirt uniforms
I know you do 2 of those things, you guys gotta get some pocketed t-shirt uniforms
tankjunky
Active member
evolution is not real. darwin himself even said his theory is not true. To beleave him is to say that we are all retarded siblings from monkies. This world is way to complex for all the things in it to just form perfectly and work great. Just try to spell your name with scrabble letters by throwing them all in the air then see how long it takes you, it would be just like animals evolving into something else.
KingDiamond
New member
Huummm....Nah!
greenbean36191
Premium Member
It doesn't do much for your argument when almost every claim you make is either a straw man, completely false, or demonstrates ignorance of the basic principles of evolutionary biology.
To say that things are so complex that there's no imaginable way they could have evolved just shows a lack of imagination, not the lack of possibility.
No he didn't. Besides, whether he did or didn't, the theory rests on the evidence, not his opinion.
No. This is a straw man and demonstrates clear ignorance of evolutionary theory. We did not decent from monkeys and we certainly aren't retarded siblings. In the distant past we shared a common ancestor with monkeys and apes and since that time all 3 lineages have continued to diverge.
Things don't work perfectly. There are too many examples of less than ideal "design" to list. Human retinas are the classic example, but horses eyes are even worse. Sea slugs are another good example. As larvae their internal organs coil up just like all other snails and then as they develop the coiling is undone again. In grasshoppers the neural circuit for the wings goes from the head to the abdomen and then makes a 180 back to the middle of the body where it finally connects to the wings. The urethra in humans passes right through the prostate gland, which often becomes enlarged and causes blockage. The division of genes between the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes isn't the most efficient way of doing things either. Flatfish start with both eyes on one side of the head and both eyes only migrate to the same side and become useful as the fish matures. Humans grow more teeth than can normally fit in the adult mouth which can cause serious dental problems. The list goes on.
To say that things are so complex that there's no imaginable way they could have evolved just shows a lack of imagination, not the lack of possibility.
It is not at all analogous to evolution. A much better analogy would be to throw the scrabble letters in the air and keep the ones that are in the correct places and throw the others again until you get the desired word. Mutation, which provides the new information is random, but the selection of that information is nonrandom.
blufish
10 & Over Club
No offense intended, but these tired old canards that you quote in your post are typical of the kind of nonsense that you will find on creationists websites. They are quoted so frequently, usually by someone who hasn't the foggiest idea of what evolution really is or how it works, that they've become a source of great amusement by those who see them pop up in the most unlikely places.
Here's a news flash for you; the whole scientific debate about whether evolution is a valid theory was settled about 150 years ago. You are really late to the party, and all the snacks are gone. There is no scientific controversy about the validity of evolution in mainstream science. Done, over, settled. 150 years ago. The only sound you hear are the crackpots who refuse to go home.
Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, genetics, paleontology, medical science, etc. It is such an integral part of modern science that if there was any real problem with its validity, it would have been demonstrated long ago. In fact, if you can truly overturn evolution as a scientific theory, a Nobel prize surely awaits you.
The only people who don't accept the evidence that demonstrates the validity of evolution are those who simply want to believe something else. You are free to believe whatever you want, of course, but you are not allowed to call whatever you believe in "science."
But don't feel too bad. There are still people who believe in a flat earth, astrology, ghosts, magnetic bracelet "cures", and the demonic possession theory of disease.
MCsaxmaster
New member
Not only is it real, we have measured the rate of evolution hundreds of times in higher organisms, and thousands of times among lower organisms. Evolution is demonstrable fact.
Oh come ooooon. That's not just untrue, it's utterly ridiculous, and I think you know that
Ha, well, not really. "Retarded" has a specific meaning, and doesn't apply. "Siblings" doesn't even apply in a broad, metaphysical sense. "Cousins" would be a more apt term, if we are looking at things through this lens.
Ha, well, it might be a common feeling among folks that haven't studied biology (especially physiology) that living things are formed "perfectly and work great," but with even a cursory study of physiology we see that in fact, living things are far, far removed from perfection and that they only work well enough to get by, nothing more.
No, actually that would be the polar opposite by evolution by means of natural selection. In your example you are suggesting that the letters should simply fall into place all at the same time to achieve the final product. That is NOTHING like evolution by natural selection. Mutation provides random variation within the genome of individuals, but natural selection NON-RANDOMLY promotes the survival of some genes and the death of others. That is, by definition, evolution. As subsequent generations obtain more and more new genes, or new combinations of old genes, they evolve into organisms distinct from their ancestors.
Evolution in animals has been documented and measured countless times. Speciation has been directly observed dozens of times, at the very least. Organisms evolve--there's no legitimate basis to suggest otherwise. Natural selection looks to be the primary, or at least a significant, driving force for evolution.
Chris
MCsaxmaster
New member
Agreed, this is getting pulled somewhat off topic, but I don't think anyone here has said anything particularly objectionable, just off topic.
I hate to be blunt guys, but if you have complaints about evolution in general, this really isn't the place to voice them. This thread is about coral evolution specifically and it simply serves no purpose to muddy it with complaints, misinformation or untruths about the process of evolution in general.
Chris
Greetings All !
The molecular genetics & Paleoecology stuff is more than a little fascinating, but if folks will forgive me .... back to the original question.
Here are arguably three guys whose ideas were necessary prerequisites .... Sir James Hutton, Sir Charles Lyell, and Vice-Admiral Robert FitzRoy. Hutton was the first to lay the groundwork for the concepts that would become known as "uniformitarianism", and "geologic time". Lyell wrote the book (Principles of Geology) that gave full run to Hutton's work, and FitzRoy, the master of HMS Beagle ... a strict Scripturalist ... gave a copy of Lyell's book to Darwin. The rest is, as they say ... history.
If you want to get into the foundations of Darwin's beliefs regarding "natural selection", there's another guy you need to be aware of ... Thomas Robert Malthus. Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population. Its influence on Darwin's thinking ought not be over-looked.
No one has mentioned the guy without whom Darwin may never have quilled a word ... Alfred Russel Wallace. Pity. Wallace's work may actually be more relevant to this thread's original post. While Darwin emphasized intra-species competition, Wallace emphasized biogeographical and environmental pressures as the most significant forces in play regarding speciation.
If you're interested, these will get you started ...
Sir James Hutton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton
Sir Charles Lyell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell
Vice-Admiral Robert FitzRoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_FitzRoy
Uniformitarianism ( ... worth LOTS of scrabble points. :lol: )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)
Geologic Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time
Thomas Robert Malthus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus
Alfred Russel Wallace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wallace
(An overview)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
There's no need to "interpret" Darwin's beliefs ... just read what he wrote.
JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:
The molecular genetics & Paleoecology stuff is more than a little fascinating, but if folks will forgive me .... back to the original question.
If you're really interested in where Darwin's belief system regarding coral formations comes from, you're going to need to get into his perspective on a word that didn't enter the English lexicon until near the end of the 18th century ... Geology. Folks forget that many of Darwin's later contemporaries regarded him as a "geologist" ... and a less than accomplished one, at that.
Here are arguably three guys whose ideas were necessary prerequisites .... Sir James Hutton, Sir Charles Lyell, and Vice-Admiral Robert FitzRoy. Hutton was the first to lay the groundwork for the concepts that would become known as "uniformitarianism", and "geologic time". Lyell wrote the book (Principles of Geology) that gave full run to Hutton's work, and FitzRoy, the master of HMS Beagle ... a strict Scripturalist ... gave a copy of Lyell's book to Darwin. The rest is, as they say ... history.
If you want to get into the foundations of Darwin's beliefs regarding "natural selection", there's another guy you need to be aware of ... Thomas Robert Malthus. Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population. Its influence on Darwin's thinking ought not be over-looked.
No one has mentioned the guy without whom Darwin may never have quilled a word ... Alfred Russel Wallace. Pity. Wallace's work may actually be more relevant to this thread's original post. While Darwin emphasized intra-species competition, Wallace emphasized biogeographical and environmental pressures as the most significant forces in play regarding speciation.
If you're interested, these will get you started ...
Sir James Hutton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton
Sir Charles Lyell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell
Vice-Admiral Robert FitzRoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_FitzRoy
Uniformitarianism ( ... worth LOTS of scrabble points. :lol: )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)
Geologic Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time
Thomas Robert Malthus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus
Alfred Russel Wallace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wallace
I always get a little amused at this. Darwin never wrote about "evolution". He was interested in natural selection. More specifically ... On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
(An overview)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
There's no need to "interpret" Darwin's beliefs ... just read what he wrote.
JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:
cutegecko3
Member
Jellyfish may be considered on topic.Two modern species have recently gone back from 300 million years ago to 505 million years ago.
MCsaxmaster
New member
What do you mean when you say "have recently gone back"???
cutegecko3
Member
That would be defined as being discovered in 2007.There are four jellyfish now known from the cambrian but we had no knowledge of their morphology because they normally fossilize in sandy sediment as formless blobs.Last year some were found that were very spectacular and it put that type of jellyfish back 200 million years sooner than we previously knew.
