Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Presumably you're trying to say that significant changes in nature, not being as man-directed as breeding, take eons to affect?For the kind of changes Rob and I have been discussing, however, that is not true, especially when we're looking at things like diet consumption habits.
That I can illustrate fairly easily, and in a way directly relevant to Rob's "Predator or plant eater" (lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my) proposal:...
There is no micro or macro evolution. Evolution is change over time. It doesn't matter how much time.
Originally posted by Robtard
One thing we do know, animals are generally suited to eat what they eat. So if lions were originally created to "just eat grasses", why the meat specific teeth, the relatively short digestive tract that is ideal for a carnivorous diet, the forward facing eyes and ears that greatly assist in stalking prey, the powerful build that is well suited in holding onto and taking down larger beast, the fangs that are perfectly suited to pierce/hold on to a neck and suffocate prey? Your one story about a vegetarian lion is at best an outlier, at worst, an outright lie.You're ignoring that predators look like predators because they hunt and eat meat.
I am not ignoring that predators look like predators.
It's the "because" part, which you're just assuming, that I am challenging.
Most of what you describe for a lion is present for giant pandas, too, after all, and giant pandas are not exactly known for hunting behavior.
"Forward facing eyes and ears that greatly assist in stalking prey"?
Check.
Except, of course that they panda obviously don't "stalk" the bamboo that is 99% of their diet.
"Relatively short digestive tract that is ideal for a carnivorous diet"?
Check.
Examine your favorite encyclopedic site on pandas if you don't believe it.
"Powerful build that is well suited in holding onto and taking down larger beast
fangs that are perfectly suited to pierce/hold on to a neck and suffocate prey"?
I must admit I don't rightly know about this one. Because I don't know how similar the hunting style of bears is to lions.
But if this is likewise true for bears, it is more than likely true for giant pandas, because giant pandas are bears.
"Meat specific teeth"?
See above. Or, again, check out your favorite encyclopedic source.
I'll start you off with my second favorite encyclopedic source, after World Book Encyclopedia ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it belongs to the order Carnivora, the panda's diet is over 99% bamboo.[4] Pandas in the wild will occasionally eat other grasses, wild tubers, or even meat in the form of birds, rodents or carrion. In captivity, they may receive honey, eggs, fish, yams, shrub leaves, oranges, or bananas along with specially prepared food ...
the giant panda's diet is primarily herbivorous, consisting almost exclusively of bamboo.[22] Pandas are born with sterile intestines, and require bacteria obtained from their mother's feces to digest vegetation.[33][34] However, the giant panda still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes,[35] and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo. Its ability to digest cellulose is ascribed to the microbes in its gut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I am not ignoring that predators look like predators.
It's the "because" part, which you're just assuming, that I am challenging.Most of what you describe for a lion is present for giant pandas, too, after all, and giant pandas are not exactly known for hunting behavior.
[b]"Forward facing eyes and ears that greatly assist in stalking prey"?
Check.Except, of course that they panda obviously don't "stalk" the bamboo that is 99% of their diet.
"Relatively short digestive tract that is ideal for a carnivorous diet"?
Check.Examine your favorite encyclopedic site on pandas if you don't believe it.
"Powerful build that is well suited in holding onto and taking down larger beast
fangs that are perfectly suited to pierce/hold on to a neck and suffocate prey"?I must admit I don't rightly know about this one. Because I don't know how similar the hunting style of bears is to lions.
But if this is likewise true for bears, it is more than likely true for giant pandas, because giant pandas are bears."Meat specific teeth"?
See above. Or, again, check out your favorite encyclopedic source.I'll start you off with my second favorite encyclopedic source, after World Book Encyclopedia ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it belongs to the order Carnivora, the panda's diet is over 99% bamboo.[4] Pandas in the wild will occasionally eat other grasses, wild tubers, or even meat in the form of birds, rodents or carrion. In captivity, they may receive honey, eggs, fish, yams, shrub leaves, oranges, or bananas along with specially prepared food ...the giant panda's diet is primarily herbivorous, consisting almost exclusively of bamboo.[22] Pandas are born with sterile intestines, and require bacteria obtained from their mother's feces to digest vegetation.[33][34] However, the giant panda still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes,[35] and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo. Its ability to digest cellulose is ascribed to the microbes in its gut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda [/B]
Pandas like many bears are omnivores. Though they generally consist on a heavy vegetarian diet. They're an example of a extremely specialized animal and it is due to millions of years of adapatation to their bamboo forest environment. 'Millions of years of adaptation to a given environment' does not support the "6k year old Earth" model nor the 'vegetarians in the Garden of Eden angle'.
You're once again using outliers as a "aha, this proves all predators were vegetarians before!" and cherry picking certain info to support your stance. It's silly and dishonest, so stop?
In short: The few do not outweigh the many 🙂
Originally posted by Robtard
Pandas like many bears are omnivores. Though they generally consist on a heavy vegetarian diet. They're an example of a extremely specialized animal and it is due to millions of years of adapatation to their bamboo forest environment. 'Millions of years of adaptation to a given environment' does not support the "6k year old Earth" model nor the 'vegetarians in the Garden of Eden angle'.
I agree that "millions of years of adaptation" does not support the "6K year old Earth" model. I'm asking you to show me that adaptation took millions of years.
From everything I can tell, you're merely assuming this.
Already, for instance, you have seen animals determine whether or not they would be plant eaters or full-fledged cannibals based on environmental cues and lack of resources, and that in only a matter of hours (Spadefoot Toads).
You've seen animals individually decide, though they were carnivores,
"I'm going to be vegetarian today" (the tiger and lion, respectively).
You've seen animals within a few generations bred from being tough, aggressive fighters with powerful jaws to docile, low-endurance house pets (bulldogs).
None of that required more than a fraction of the scale of time you're alluding to.
Then why should I believe your other unmentioned changes needed eons?
Originally posted by Robtard
You're once again using outliers as a "aha, this proves all predators were vegetarians before!" and cherry picking certain info to support your stance. It's silly and dishonest, so stop?
Nearly every well-known idea given validity now in science, started off as an idea the majority of people considered "silly" and slammed mercilessly.
Merely calling the idea "silly" does not effectively refute it.
Originally posted by RobtardIn short: The few do not outweigh the many 🙂
This is a meaningless cliche where the subjects we're discussing are concerned, and I think I can prove it, and with perhaps the most famous example of "micro"evolution the average reader on these boards knows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Following environmental change, populations can experience dramatic changes, even, in the cases of these moths, complete reversal of what characterized them a scant few generations prior.
Rob, you should begin to see, if you examine the above carefully, your argument of "many outweighs the few" does not hold much weight here.
A person asking, during any of the many years England had severe pollution
"What color were pepper moths, say, 200 years ago?"
would receive the answer, from your "many outweigh the few" position:
"Why, how can you be so silly? Chap, don't you see with your own eyes that these moths are black? Like, 99% of them? Oh, you get the random white one once in a while, but that's, what? 1 in one hundred? 2 in 3 hundred?
Why would you ever assume they were some other color?
White? What, do you propose the moths themselves have been covered in soot and all their flapping of their wings fails to remove it? Are we just looking at really dirty white moths? You're talking random outliers with those white moths. Open your eyes."
Oh boy. You didn't ask any such notion before, so you're playing games. You're also cherry picking the parts you want, as in the article you cited as proof for Pandas, it states the "millions of years / adaptation". So why accept only the parts that fit your point of view? That's dishonest.
I called your tactics "silly" here. So that's a strawman you're using.
Your moth example is a red herring, you're trying to distract away that you cited a resource (Pandas) and then cherry picked only the few segments that fit your narrative.
But did you bother to read the moth snippet you posted? It proves a facet of evolution theory. Animals that happen to be better suited for a given environment after a change/shift tend to live and produce offspring, while those less suited don't. ie The light colored moths didn't just change to dark colored moths, both existed at the same time, but when a change in the environment happened, the dark ones where better suited to survive as were their offspring. Multiply that over many generations and you get more dark moths and less light moths.
BWR has already made it clear that he believes in evolution. If a lion starts as a herbivore and then becomes a predator, that at its most basic level is evolution. However, I don't think he believes in natural selection. In a sense he believes in supernatural selection.
BWR, prove that supernatural exists, and I will listen to what you have to say.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BWR has already made it clear that he believes in evolution. If a lion starts as a herbivore and then becomes a predator, that at its most basic level is evolution. However, I don't think he believes in natural selection. In a sense he believes in supernatural selection.BWR, prove that supernatural exists, and I will listen to what you have to say.
I doubt that I could prove to YOUR satisfaction that I even exist.
One sticking point for me, though is this:
Somewhere, going far enough back in time, there was a point at which life on Earth as we know it came into existence. Natural theories have no answer for how that occurred, and science has no theory, to my knowledge, of how to replicate it.
It's doubtful it ever will, and the transition from non-living to living violates the existing laws, like the law of entropy; or at least the scant bit of that rule that I know, to the extent that science says it could not happen by our known laws.
If naturally, by all known laws, an event could not happen, and yet did,
well, that means something outside of known nature had to do it.
It's "above" all that we know.
A lot of people would call that "supernatural".
If only for the sake of argument today, so will I.
Originally posted by Robtarddid you bother to read the moth snippet you posted? It proves a facet of evolution theory. Animals that happen to be better suited for a given environment after a change/shift tend to live and produce offspring, while those less suited don't. ie The light colored moths didn't just change to dark colored moths, both existed at the same time, but when a change in the environment happened, the dark ones where better suited to survive as were their offspring. Multiply that over many generations and you get more dark moths and less light moths.
I read the moth snippet I posted.
Where do you feel I've ever said anything in contradiction to what you typed above?
Exactly as you just said, though, the few BECOME the many over time, even if they were only a miniscule fraction at the beginning.
So if you're trying to ascertain with certainty what existed in days and years prior, you cannot merely "photocopy" what you see today and blindly assert
"It was always this way!"
For chances are it wasn't.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I doubt that I could prove to YOUR satisfaction that [b]I even exist. [/B]
That is completely untrue. I know you exist.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
One sticking point for me, though is this:
Somewhere, going far enough back in time, there was a point at which life on Earth as we know it came into existence. Natural theories have no answer for how that occurred, and science has no theory, to my knowledge, of how to replicate it.
What? The birth of a planet? Of course they know how a planet is formed. Almost 5 billion years ago a supernova compressed a cloud of dust sitting in space. This cloud gave birth to the sun and a planetary disk. The dust within the disk clumped together. These clumps collided to form asteroids, then over a very long time asteroids became planetoids, and then planet.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's doubtful it ever will, and the transition from non-living to living violates the existing laws, like the law of entropy; or at least the scant bit of that rule that I know, to the extent that science says it [b]could not happen by our known laws. [/B]
No! Life does not violate the law of entropy. Someone has lied to you. Read this book and you will have a better understanding of entropy, and how life does not violate the law.
From Eternity to Here, The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time by Sean Carroll
The universe is not at equilibrium. If it was there would be no stars in the sky. Stars lower the entropy of their systems by fusing atoms in their cores. This lower entropy makes life possible. If the sun was not in the sky, there would be no life on Earth.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If naturally, by all known laws, an event [b]could not happen, and yet did, [/B]
Again, this is just wrong.
The sun has added energy to the Earth for billions of years, and this energy has made manifest the world around us.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
well, that means something outside of known nature had to do it.
That is only one possibility. Even if your false characterization of the laws of nature where true, you can’t illuminate the possibility of novelty. Life could have emerged by chance.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's "above" all that we know.
A lot of people would call that "supernatural".
If only for the sake of argument today, so will I.
It is a misunderstanding of the laws of nature. I truly believe that someone has lied to you. Don’t propagate the lie, find out for yourself.
Originally posted by Robtard
You didn't ask any such notion before, so you're playing games.
That would have a chance of being true if I any idea what notion or question you're referring to here, but I don't, and really would appreciate you telling me in your next response.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your moth example is a red herring, you're trying to distract away that you cited a resource (Pandas) and then cherry picked only the few segments that fit your narrative
... [in] the article you cited as proof for Pandas, it states the "millions of years / adaptation". So why accept only the parts that fit your point of view? That's dishonest.
Rob, with all due respect, if there's any dishonesty involved here, it's coming from you.
My moth example is the most famous example of "micro"evolution that I know of and I've explained why I used it twice now.
If you think I'm trying to distract away from that article I cited on pandas, you're gravely mistaken. Virtually any general mainstream source is going to hold to the theory of evolution or at least give lip service to it.
But what will they back it up with?
Was there any research that went on to determine what they're asserting?
Everything that I concerned myself with citing is something that can be determined by looking at Pandas today.
Sharp teeth? You can see them.
Eyes and forward facing ears? Ditto.
Want to know what pandas eat in the wild today? FOLLOW them in the wild today; there are people that do so on a regular basis.
Want to say pandas have "the digestive system of a carnivore despite their diet"? Do an autopsy of a carnivore bear and a panda bear. Compare them.
Get an herbivore and autopsy them for contrast. A cow would do.
Cows are handy. You can find them anywhere. You can determine the truth
of what you're saying fairly quickly indeed.
When all's said and done, though, you'll still be left with a carnivore, with a carnivore's teeth and stereo hearing and sight, and carnivore's short digestive system, and long claws and surly disposition, who of all things is from a group specifically CALLED "Carnivora"
... whose diet is more than 90% plants.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Somewhere, going far enough back in time, there was a point at which life on Earth as we know it came into existence. Natural theories have no answer for how that occurred, and science has no theory, to my knowledge, of how to replicate it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? The birth of a planet? Of course they know how a planet is formed. Almost 5 billion years ago a supernova compressed a cloud of dust sitting in space. This cloud gave birth to the sun and a planetary disk. The dust within the disk clumped together. These clumps collided to form asteroids, then over a very long time asteroids became planetoids, and then planet.
No. Not the birth of Planet Earth.
The beginning of life on Earth.
Whether you hold that this took place as plants or a plant-like cell or even a soup of amino acids coalescing into one, there was a moment in time on Earth where biological life was introduced to the planet, where what is non-living became identifiably living. Science has not been able to reproduce that moment in a lab or anywhere else.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The universe is not at equilibrium. If it was there would be no stars in the sky. Stars lower the entropy of their systems by fusing atoms in their cores. This lower entropy makes life possible. If the sun was not in the sky, there would be no life on Earth.
I have no plans on raising objection to anything contained in your paragraph above any time soon.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life does not violate the law of entropy. Someone has lied to you. Read this book and you will have a better understanding of entropy, and how life does not violate the law.From Eternity to Here, The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time by Sean Carroll
[You have] a misunderstanding of the laws of nature. I truly believe that someone has lied to you. Don’t propagate the lie, find out for yourself.
I looked up the name on YouTube, googled "Entropy", and then looked up "Entropy and Life" on Wikipedia.
It ... gave me pause.
Here's what is currently written there:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of second law, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase, it does not in any way conflict or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave. Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law.[6] The problem of organization in living systems increasing despite the second law is known as the Schrödinger paradox.[7]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following that was the following paragraph ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars during the upcoming space mission. When thinking about this problem, Lovelock wondered “how can we be sure that Martian life, if any, will reveal itself to tests based on Earth’s lifestyle?” [8] To Lovelock, the basic question was “What is life, and how should it be recognized?” When speaking about this issue with some of his colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he was asked what he would do to look for life on Mars. To this, Lovelock replied:
I’d look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a general characteristic of life.[8]
Thus, according to Lovelock, to find signs of life, one must look for a “reduction or a reversal of entropy.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... but I'm honestly not sure if that really contradicts your assertion.
Certainly, assuming that article was produced by the same person, Wikipedia doesn't think it does.
I may search out your book this summer.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
No. Not the birth of Planet Earth.The beginning of life [b]on
Earth. [/B]
The beginning of life is unknown. I think it was simple, and inevitable. I believe that life is everywhere in the cosmos. We will have to go out and find it first.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Whether you hold that this took place as plants or a plant-like cell or even a soup of amino acids coalescing into one, there was a moment in time on Earth where biological life was introduced to the planet, where what is non-living became identifiably living. Science has not been able to reproduce that moment in a lab or anywhere else.
I don't believe in a boundary between life and none life. I don't believe there was a time when there was not life, and then zap, there was. Life emerged.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I have no plans on raising objection to anything contained in your paragraph above any time soon.
As JIA would say "Can't handle the truth?"
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I looked up the name on YouTube, googled "Entropy", and then looked up "Entropy and Life" on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia? That explains a lot.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It ... gave me pause.Here's what is currently written there:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of second law, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase, it does not in any way conflict or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave. Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law.[6] The problem of organization in living systems increasing despite the second law is known as the Schrödinger paradox.[7]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not part of an isolated system. We are part of an open system.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Following that was the following paragraph ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars during the upcoming space mission. When thinking about this problem, Lovelock wondered “how can we be sure that Martian life, if any, will reveal itself to tests based on Earth’s lifestyle?” [8] To Lovelock, the basic question was “What is life, and how should it be recognized?” When speaking about this issue with some of his colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he was asked what he would do to look for life on Mars. To this, Lovelock replied:I’d look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a general characteristic of life.[8]
Thus, according to Lovelock, to find signs of life, one must look for a “reduction or a reversal of entropy.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sun lowers the entropy of the solar system.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
... but I'm honestly not sure if that really contradicts your assertion.Certainly, assuming that article was produced by the same person, Wikipedia doesn't think it does.
I may search out your book this summer.
Entropy is widely misunderstood.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That would have a chance of being true if I any idea what notion or question you're referring to here, but I don't, and really would appreciate you telling me in your next response.Rob, with all due respect, if there's any dishonesty involved here, it's coming from you.
My moth example is the most famous example of "micro"evolution that I know of and I've explained why I used it twice now.
If you think I'm trying to distract away from that article I cited on pandas, you're gravely mistaken. Virtually any general mainstream source is going to hold to the theory of evolution or at least give lip service to it.
But what will they back it up with?
Was there any research that went on to determine what they're asserting?Everything that I concerned myself with citing is something that can be determined by looking at Pandas today.
Sharp teeth? You can see them.
Eyes and forward facing ears? Ditto.
Want to know what pandas eat in the wild today? FOLLOW them in the wild today; there are people that do so on a regular basis.
Want to say pandas have "the digestive system of a carnivore despite their diet"? Do an autopsy of a carnivore bear and a panda bear. Compare them.
Get an herbivore and autopsy them for contrast. A cow would do.
Cows are handy. You can find them anywhere. You can determine the truth
of what you're saying fairly quickly indeed.When all's said and done, though, you'll still be left with a carnivore, with a carnivore's teeth and stereo hearing and sight, and carnivore's short digestive system, and long claws and surly disposition, who of all things is from a group specifically CALLED "Carnivora"
... whose diet is more than 90% plants.
I get enough games in other parts of the forum, so excuse me while I don't further feed yours.
Where am I being dishonest exactly?
To your Panda debacle, from the very source you cited:
"The giant panda is a "highly specialized" animal with "unique adaptations", and has lived in bamboo forests for millions of years."
So there's your answer, the Panda is a highly specializel animal, a carnivore that adapted itself to feed mostly on a specific plant over very great length of time.
Originally posted by Robtard
In short: The few do not outweigh the many 🙂
Originally posted by Robtard
I get enough games in other parts of the forum, so excuse me while I don't further feed yours.Where am I being dishonest exactly?
To your Panda debacle, from the very source you cited:
"The giant panda is a "highly specialized" animal with "unique adaptations", and has lived in bamboo forests for millions of years."
So there's your answer, the Panda is a highly specializel animal, a carnivore that adapted itself to feed mostly on a specific plant over very great length of time.
Carful now, he might us a Wikipedia reference on you. 😂