Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 737
view profile
History
Evolution. Page 30 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
There's plenty new, and it hasn't been there forever. The sticklebacks on west coast islands are distinct species which have existed probably less than 10000 years. Thousands of species of cichlids in the African rift lakes also arose within the last 10000-14000 years [they're found nowhere else, and their habitats didn't exist before then]. The subway mosquito is only a couple centuries old, MAX. The Lake Murray shrimp is less than a century old. Far from forever. Us? Like a great many species, we have existed less than 2 million years. By comparison, apart from birds, dinoaurs all died 65 million years ago, and existed collectively for well over 160 million years. Nothing is forever. The fossil record is replete with organisms which only existed for one or two million years, before being replaced in the record by something similar and distinctly different. That chain is major supporting evidence for evolutionary theory, as following the chain of similarities back, invariably shows that small differences add up over time.

Of course, I'm repeating myself, as I've provided the very same examples more than once before.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 738
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:15:34 AM
really, its just a rearrangement of existing matter, is what I am saying.

I work with wood and can 'create' some cool 'new' things, but I am just working with existing stuff, that's all I am saying.

there seems to be evidence that much has died.

and species appearing overnight.

it seems like these days more is disappearing than appearing.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 739
Evolution.
Posted: 4/15/2010 6:53:07 AM

really, its just a rearrangement of existing matter, is what I am saying.

I work with wood and can 'create' some cool 'new' things, but I am just working with existing stuff, that's all I am saying.


If, by this, you mean basic elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, then yes. You are correct.

However, if you talking about pre-existing "created" species - the 'micro,' not 'macro' evolution argument - then no.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 740
Evolution.
Posted: 4/19/2010 11:54:56 AM
And on this day in 1882, Charles Darwin died of a heart attack. He now lies interred in Westminster Abbey along with kings, queens and intellectual giants such as Isaac Newton and Michael Farraday. And he only wished to be buried in his own home cemetery. Humble to the end.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 741
Evolution.
Posted: 4/19/2010 12:05:39 PM
And on this day in 1882, Charles Darwin died of a heart attack. He now lies interred in Westminster Abbey along with kings, queens and intellectual giants such as Isaac Newton and Michael Farraday. And he only wished to be buried in his own home cemetery. Humble to the end.


Good call bro'

A toast to ol' Chuck, ...may his legacy outlast the species itself (heh heh...)
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 742
Evolution.
Posted: 4/19/2010 2:39:23 PM

until he can show me the trademark "Made in Heaven" etched into my Gene Molecules, I still call him a bubble head on that one.


Actually, I'd like to see him examine my DNA & show me my "best before" or "expiry date"
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 743
Evolution.
Posted: 4/19/2010 4:00:31 PM

susan_cd: Actually, I'd like to see him examine my DNA & show me my "best before" or "expiry date"

Evolutionary speaking we both reach(ed) that when we cross(ed) into the 40s.


I know ( some "intelligent design")... and being an atheist I can't sell my soul for more time

 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 744
Evolution.
Posted: 4/19/2010 4:45:15 PM

I'm taking my Tonka Toy home and not letting anyone play with it!


Well, now! THAT'S not very evolved of you!
 CrossOTzodiac
Joined: 12/5/2009
Msg: 745
Evolution.
Posted: 4/23/2010 2:25:14 PM
I havmy posted in quite some time, and Im not replying to any one particular post, but I do have a simple brain teaser. This is about nipples. In all the lower mammals, cats, dogs, just about anything that gives birth, etc , they have 8 nipples. 4 nursing stations down one side, and 4 down the other. These nipples grow off a strip of tissue known as the "Milk Ridge". This Milk Ridge runs down either side of the abdomen. Starting in the arm pit (more or less) running down both sides of the abdomen, and curving in towards the inner thigh. This biological fact number 1. A certain amount of humans are born with an extra superfluous nipple. Sometime even a 4th nipple. That is biological fact number 2. The reason for these extra nipples is because humans have that SAME Milk Ridge running down both sides of their abdomens too. So if any extra nipples are going to form, they would grow off one of these two strips. That is biological fact number 3.

So heres the question; Assuming that god is a super efficiant, cost effective architect, gods not going to create waste. .......So what are humans doing with a strip of tissue that only a lesser evolved mammalian life form would have, unless it was a genetic reminder of something we used to be?

Why bother bringing in all this very technical and complicated scientific evidence to argue over, when the simplest evidence is right under our nose. Along with tailbones and smaller jawbones that cant handle the extra wisdom teeth. So simple
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 746
Evolution.
Posted: 4/23/2010 3:24:48 PM

So what are humans doing with a strip of tissue that only a lesser evolved mammalian life form would have, unless it was a genetic reminder of something we used to be?


It goes even further than that! I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's book Greatest Show On Earth. Definitely recommended reading!

Anyway, you want to see inefficiency in design, take a look at laryngeal nerve which comes off the vagus nerve in the chest, even though it passes mere millimeters from the vagus near the voicebox it controls. Or the vas deferens which flips up over the ureter from the kidney to the bladder from the testes before descending to the urethra. Then there is having the appendix which actually is more risky for human beings to retain. And the list goes on.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 747
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 4/24/2010 7:53:41 PM
More to the point, female is the default gender. Individuals of most species start off with the same basic anatomy, and it's only a later hormonal boost as the animal develops, which determines which sexual features develop. Sometimes that's determined by temperature during development, sometimes by a male chromosome, and sometimes a female chromosome. In a number of cases, adult animals will change sex, either because of age or because of certain environmental or social circumstances.
Nipples? Same tissue. Labia majora and scrotum - same tissue. Glans penis and clitoris - same tissue.

For those who wonder why I say females are the default gender - that's because there are many all-female species, a fair number of male-optional species, and zero all-male species. A male by definition cannot reproduce alone, whereas females often need only a small genetic change or developmental error to reproduce alone. Typically, adult females more strongly resemble juveniles than adult males do.

The bottom line is, mammary glands are more or less essential in mammals, and an adult female will not have them if they don't begin development long before gender development is triggered. Males, on the other hand, don't need them, but gain nothing by losing them. There's no selective pressure to eliminate male nipples.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 748
Evolution.
Posted: 4/24/2010 8:29:37 PM

thinking we know what God thinks/plans seems rather presumptious


Going by the Bible, why would anyone assume God thinks? Or why would they assume he thinks ahead? The Bible says He created Adam & Eve, but being omnipotent & omniscient he'd know they would eat the forbidden fruit. Then hhe decides todrown almost the entire population because they were sinners... knowing thatwas going tohappen, why allow them to come into being in the first place? And what about the children & infants of the people he drowned? Guess they were guilty by association, even tho they had no free will or choice.

Add to that that this all-knowing god doesn't even know a bat ISN'T a bird, & it don't seem like he's all that smart.

Leviticus11:
13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15Every raven after his kind;
16And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
 CrossOTzodiac
Joined: 12/5/2009
Msg: 749
Evolution.
Posted: 4/24/2010 10:37:45 PM
Frogo is right. But you know what buddy...with this crowd you really gotta draw them a picture. So here goes. Feel free to correct me if i miss something.

The sex organs that develope from the same gene or embryonic tissue are called "Homologous sex organs" For every sex organ of homologous origin in the male (or female body) the opposite sex has a corrosponding sex organ. All the genes that are assigned to develope into male or female sex organs are all housed in the X chromosome. Thats why the egg doesnt know whats its going to be, so it has to be prepared to go either way. Here is a partial list of homologous sex organs....Ovaries/testes, clitoris/glans of penis , skenes gland/prostate gland, breast-nipples/ breast-nipples. All these sex organs start out as one singular piece of embryonic tissue with the capability to develope into either the female organ or the male organ depending on what command its given. All homologous sex organs receive their command from the male and female sex hormones with the exception of the gonads (ovaries / testes)

Every fertilized egg wants to automatically develope into a female first. Thats why they say the default state for humans is female. Its the most cost effective and efficiant way for nature and evolution to reproduce. The female, for lack of a better term, is essentially Xeroxing herself. Even if the egg was fertilized with a Y choromosome, it still wants to develope into a female first. The way you get a male is because of a very special gene located on the Y chromosome called the SRY gene. It is the master switch that unleashes the program that converts the embryo into a male. Somewhere between weeks 5 and 7 it gives the command to the gonads to begin favoring the developement of the male organ. And so instead of ovaries you get the testes. At around week 10, the first batch of testosterone created from the testes gets released into the fetus, giving the command to the rest of the homologous sex organs to begin developing into the male organs. At this point the phallus begins to enlongate as the penis begins to grow.

But since the egg didnt know if it was going to be a female or not, the tissue set aside to become the breasts still developes in the males. Basically leaving us with these under developed leftover parts. The reason they dont really grow is because the tissue that will become the breasts doesnt react in the presence of testosterone. It remains dormant. And that is why males have nipples. But if you shoot up a male with enough female hormones the breasts WILL grow. Because thats what they're waiting for. Just like if you shoot up a female with enough male androgens (steroids or testosterone) the clitoris will grow because thats what IT'S been waiting for. Thats right..the clitoris is a tiny under developed penis. It wont grow 6", but it will grow. But just try opening THAT Pandora's box in this politically correct, feminized society. If women want to know why most of them struggle to have orgasms, thats the reason. What your attempting to do with your clitoris is NOT what it's designed for. Which of course is perfect evidence against ID (god)

Oh btw, sometimes that SRY gene is missing, or deformed in some way, or for whatever reason just doesnt do whats it's supposed to do. When that happenes the egg will stay on the default path and develope into a female even tho it has a Y chromosome. The female just wont have any Ovaries. It's called "Swyers Syndrome" And I believe Jamie Lee Curtis was born with that. Which is what led to that viscious rumor that she's a hermaphrodite. Isn't science a wonderful thing? And I never went to college. Look what you can learn when you search for it? Silly silly pitchfork and torch carrying religionists!
 CrossOTzodiac
Joined: 12/5/2009
Msg: 750
Evolution.
Posted: 4/25/2010 9:05:29 AM

thinking god would be efficient is not a good argument

Of course it is...then why call him god? If god is perfect, then he's omnipotent. and if he's omnipotent, then gods incapable of making a mistake. And omnipotent perfection is not going to create something that has no purpose (like extra nipples on humans, and too many teeth for our jawbone) And falling back on the old "Well god must have had a reason" is a complete cop out! The evidence for evolution is so clearly obvious, it's an insult to peoples intelligence to keep denying it.

Also, who said that males at one time shared in the breast feeding duties? Did I read that right? Thats absurd. Granted breast developement in males is not some rudimentary design, like ours are some less evolved version of the females. Our breast design is fully evolved, it's just underdeveloped. Thats like saying a dwarf or a midget is a less evolved human. And the only way to develope it to the point where we could lactate and breast feed is the introduction of much more estrogen that we are already manufacturing. But how the hell is that going happen in the wild? Meaning out in nature under normal conditions. You think Neanderthal man suddenly started creating more estrogen so he could help out with the breast feeding duties? I hardly think so.

Your original question was "Why do men have nipples" I answered it. It's a left over part. We have them because the females HAVE to have them. And the gene that controls the developement of the breast is in the X chromosome which we have.
 CrossOTzodiac
Joined: 12/5/2009
Msg: 751
Evolution.
Posted: 4/25/2010 9:18:07 AM

as for the real answer [what I think] to why males have nipples .... its called aesthetics.
we like the look ... so breeding has complimented that aspect .. just like peacock feathers


Pleeeeease tell me your kidding me with this explanation? It's sarcasm right? Because if your not kidding, then that answer ranks right up there with, "The reason alligators are ornery is because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush!"
 CrossOTzodiac
Joined: 12/5/2009
Msg: 752
Evolution.
Posted: 4/25/2010 9:33:02 AM

Once again - attempts to disprove the existence of God do nothing in support of evolution.

Im not attempting to disprove god...science and evolution does that all by itself.


Maybe God has more on his mind than mere human beings!!!!


And maybe your just making excuses for god like people always do? I knew there was a reason why I stopped coming here...adios
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 753
Evolution.
Posted: 4/25/2010 10:17:09 AM

Im not attempting to disprove god...science and evolution does that all by itself.


Actually, one really has little to do with the other and it's a huge mistake to hold that science can disprove the existence of anything. That's not its job. And, as the SETI folks are fond of saying, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Of course, scientific methods have done brilliantly at collecting evidence that show evolution as the best explanation for how life developed from earlier, simpler ancestry to our modern biosphere. But any self-respecting scientist understands that a standing theory can be rewritten by the discovery of falsifying evidence i.e. the proverbial mammal fossil in cambrian-era rocks.

Where these discussion invariably collapse is between the rabid atheist vs. the rabid creationist. Two mutually exclusive and largely immovable positions and both equally prone to dogmatism.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 754
Evolution.
Posted: 4/25/2010 3:31:08 PM
Maybe the male nipples are because god IS omniscient, & knew that some guys would want something up there to pierce....
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 755
Evolution.
Posted: 5/4/2010 12:26:34 PM

"The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution" - Richard Dawkins (Just for a recently published book that beautifully explains [again] evolution being both FACT & Theory)


The main problem with the creationist/ID crowd is that if you take the trouble to look at the word "theory" in the dictionary, there are several examples in the definition and of course the anti-evolution crowd will cherry pick & take the definition ( generally example 6 or 7) that suits their purposes:

the·o·ry
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.contemplation or speculation.
7.guess or conjecture.
 hanskloss7
Joined: 2/10/2010
Msg: 756
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/28/2010 8:47:06 AM
Evolution is for the IGNORANT.

and you know you are ignorant. You just talk ignorance to other ignorants and it makes you ignorants believe that, you actually constitute majority.

nope. You, as most idiots, are simply more vocal.

Public schools repress Creation, not evolution. The government is promoting Evolution and therefore it even pushes and promotes homosexuality in schools!

When parents oppose, they are persecuted and ostracized!
 hanskloss7
Joined: 2/10/2010
Msg: 757
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/28/2010 8:54:34 AM
"And omnipotent perfection is not going to create something that has no purpose (like extra nipples on humans, and too many teeth for our jawbone"

well, evolution is supposedly ONLY developing what is NEEDED. So how come EVOLUTION would make this "mistake"???

For evolution to make a "mistake"??? It doesn't make mistakes, does it?

As far as God is concerned, we simply don't know why we have nipples. How about if this is the way it's supposed to be?

As in: my car has extra seats, that doesn't mean it evolved from a bus.
It means, it's supposed to have 4 seats, wheather I use them all or not at all.

It's easier for constructors to make most cars like this, without changing much of the design!

How about perfect God, not having to CHANGE HIS BASIC DESIGN a lot, for the creation of another kind? How about using already existing PARTS to create another life form?

It's like all species have eyes, because, it's enough to change a variable in the "eye design" equation to create just a "different" eye, without having to invent totally NEW design.

Pawel Kolasa
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 758
Evolution.
Posted: 10/28/2010 9:46:52 AM

Evolution is for the IGNORANT.


Oh hans...trolling for attention are we?

Clearly we could go into great length about scientific theory, evidence for evolution, the absolute nonsense that surrounds creationist arguments but there is simply no point.


The government is promoting Evolution and therefore it even pushes and promotes homosexuality in schools!


Yes...nonsense like this. The teaching of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with "promoting homosexuality," although it is one of the straw men usually erected by right wing, uber-religious nutjobs that usually scream the loudest about "repression" of their rights. The fact that attempts to legally force creationism into schools were rejected strongly on the grounds of piss-poor "evidence" should compel you to go back and look at why evolution works better than 'magic sky man' as an explanation.

Tell ya what...you keep your religion out of our science classes and we won't preach evolution in your church. Mm-kay!?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 759
Evolution.
Posted: 10/28/2010 10:56:29 AM

well, evolution is supposedly ONLY developing what is NEEDED. So how come EVOLUTION would make this "mistake"???

For evolution to make a "mistake"??? It doesn't make mistakes, does it?


That's frickin' hilarious.

Just not in the way the poster intended.

Read Stephen Jay Gould's book about the Field shale find. Evolution is all about mistakes - heck, you can't make any progress without making mistakes. It's God that's not supposed to make mistakes - Creationism is all about a perfect creation magically "poofed" into existence.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 760
Evolution.
Posted: 10/28/2010 12:46:17 PM
well, evolution is supposedly ONLY developing what is NEEDED. So how come EVOLUTION would make this "mistake"???

What ever gave you that idea?

For evolution to make a "mistake"??? It doesn't make mistakes, does it?

Unlike god, evolution doesn't knowingly do anything. It doesn't require a lot of observational power to look around and note that things look pretty much like you'd expect if there was no one in charge of designing anything.

It's easier for constructors to make most cars like this, without changing much of the design!

Which would be more of an argument for evolution than divine creation. If the average human engineer can figure out that it's easier to leave out a totally non-functional part, I'm sure than an omnipotent god can afford to be even pickier about design changes to ensure optimal performance. Evolution just works ``good enough.'' What doesn't work good enough to survive doesn't replicate. What does work ``good enough'' to survive does so even if a few no longer needed odds and ends are still there.

ke all species have eyes, because, it's enough to change a variable in the "eye design" equation to create just a "different" eye, without having to invent totally NEW design.

First of all, there are animals without eyes. Second, the modern eyes in humans are not the only ``design'' that evolved. Vision has evolved independently at least 11 different times in the last 4 billion years here on earth. [V. Stenger: God: The Failed Hypothesis, and references therein]

Third, the human eye is designed rather badly for it to have been a designed. There's a blind spot where the optic nerve attaches to the retina. The image is inverted on the retina so that you would be looking at an inverted image of the world if your brain didn't reinterpret the image to compensate after the fact. If there was a overall design you would think even a human engineer wouldn't start with an inverted image and design a complicated scheme to interpret it when it would be simpler to add one part to reinvert the image. Eyes are very slow at image processing. The reason you see a spinning object start to rotate backwards as it speeds up is because the low framerate in human vision results in aliasing. All visual media exploits what would be called design defects in vision if the eye were actually designed. That's cool for nifty optical illusions and data compression, but it's not a design feature.

One of the key aspects of a good design is reproduciibility and interchangeable parts. If an engineer designed a product that required such a large percentage of product owners to purchase additional aftermarket products (e.g., eyeglasses that sit on your nose and are held on by attaching things to your ears) to kludge it into working the way it was supposed to work, the engineer would be considered a disgrace to his/her profession and the manufacturer would be out of business before the second production run. Interchangeable parts seem to be limited to corneas and lenses with less than desirable results. Presumably, a god that could do anything and do it right, could come up with something better than the human eye as visual apparatus.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 761
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:21:22 AM
So if someone expresses an opinion different from yours, they are trolling? A bit sanctimonious I would say.............


Don't just look at the sentence but look at HOW it is written and tell me it wasn't intended to be provocative. And then read what follows.

Perhaps if you wish to be righteously indignant, you might want to take something in its entirety. It's entirely too common in North America that the trumpeting of righteous indignation occurs after only a partial reading and/or comprehension of what is being stated.

Conversely, do you immediately jump to the defense of those who only support your opinions?


PS..... By the way, the correct term is "theory of evolution"..............


Along with Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Plate Tectonics Theory, Chaos Theory, Bacterial theory....shall we go on. Interesting the "theory" that some people prefer to attack as somehow less sound than others, though.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >