It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 34
28
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

About intent and purpose, self assembly of systems - organic systems, inorganic systems, even quantum systems - is something that should be considered in all these arguments about intelligent design and creationism. Intelligent design advocates are flabbergasted that an eye, an ear or a brain is able to exist without a "designer". That it's impossible for something so complex to exist without some outside intervention. Well, the fact is that complex systems are quite capable of organizing themselves without outside intervention. A crystal, although it looks quite simple, is actually a self-organizing system of complex electrochemical interactions. Organic systems are obvious - a fertilized egg would never develop into a whole human being if the system was not self organizing. It's the system itself, reading its genetic code, that organizes into whatever it was intended to be.

And once again, if some part of that system was independent of the genetic code, how would it benefit the organism as a whole? What would be its role in reproduction?

Intent and purpose, in my opinion, are embedded in the code of the organism. The random variables that were whittled down to just one that worked, is the process that decided what that organism was going to be.



edit on 17-4-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

This is typical backward rationalization - you decided on your answer first, then tried to find the evidence, there wasn't any, so you boil it down to a semantical argument. Words are not evidence. Evidence is evidence. You haven't presented any. Still waiting........



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Yet again you are assuming the truth of what you are trying to prove. You need to present evidence that genes determine growth and form.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Krazysh0t


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I think your view is flawed.


Possibly- but only within the current framework of the theory. I think we may soon realize that evolution according Darwin is flawed, if not incomplete.


That is entirely possible and I am ok with that. If we come to that bridge, I am fully prepared to cross it and update my views of the way things work. But right now, there is overwhelming evidence that it is likely true, so saying that there is a chance that it could be completely wrong isn't a valid reason for disbelieving in the theory.



To be honest, I see no rational reason anyone could say a god doesn't exist. An intelligent designer could totally be possible given the knowledge that we currently have.

Really? What knowledge would you be referring to?
And what do you mean by 'god', exactly?


The totality of human knowledge. What humans can show to be true or false. Right now this knowledge is lacking in an answer to the question, "does an intelligent designer exist?" so I nor should anyone else say with definitive reason that one doesn't exist. Of course this also means that we cannot say for sure that one exists either. So I default to the answer, "I don't know."



there is no definitive proof of said god so I see no reason to be able to say that one exists either. But I definitely leave room in the realm of possibility that there is an ultimate creator who uses evolution to develop life.

That's very diplomatic of you....
The problem is in the personification of 'god', or the lack of a concrete meaning of 'god'.
Ask 10 people what that means and you'll get 10, maybe even 11, different answers.


Of course, I'm agnostic.

You are right about the personification of god, if one exists, it certainly doesn't act and behave like a human doe, ie no jealousy, wrath, rage, etc. Those are all human flaws. Of course so is love as the way we understand it. To me, I'd say that if a God exists, it is indifferent to our existence. I see no evidence that humans are any more special in the universe than anything else, so until someone can show that we are more special, then that will be my interpretation of how a deity of the universe would work and operate.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

You obviously are not reading the content of my posts. I have presented the evidence including links to the laboratory experiments which confirm that evidence. That you don't read it or understand it is your problem.

And I don't have to prove anything. That's already been done in the lab and has been accepted by every credible scientist on the planet. If that wasn't the case, molecular biology, molecular chemistry and pharmacology would not exist.

You have yet to present ANY evidence for your position. You continue to deny what is right in front of your eyes.


edit on 18-4-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
"Intelligent Design" is neither self-evident nor a truth.

The universe doesn't need an inventor - as evident by it's existence without one.

It doesn't make the world we live in any less spectacular or precious.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: EnPassant

You obviously are not reading the content of my posts. I have presented the evidence including links to the laboratory experiments which confirm that evidence. That you don't read it or understand it is your problem.

And I don't have to prove anything. That's already been done in the lab and has been accepted by every credible scientist on the planet. If that wasn't the case, molecular biology, molecular chemistry and pharmacology would not exist.
You have yet to present ANY evidence for your position. You continue to deny what is right in front of your eyes.


You are asking me to prove a negative. I am not saying that genes do not determine growth and form, I am saying there is no evidence that they do. This is not the same thing. It is up to you to provide evidence. You have not done so.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
"Intelligent Design" is neither self-evident nor a truth.

The universe doesn't need an inventor - as evident by it's existence without one.

It doesn't make the world we live in any less spectacular or precious.


"Intelligent Design" or ID, is a certain school of thought with regard to evolution. It is not the same as 'intelligently designed'.
edit on 18-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Here is the HARD evidence. Evidence that has been demonstrated in the laboratory that GENE EXPRESSION REGULATES CELL DIFFERENTIATION. I even gave you the definition of differentiation, which you apparently didn't read.

Now where's your evidence?




originally posted by: Phantom423
Here is HARD evidence, evidence that has been tested in the lab, that has been peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community. Your argument, on the other hand, hasn't produced a single experiment to support your case.

Gene Expression Regulates Cell Differentiation
By: Amy Ralston, Ph.D. (Write Science Right) & Kenna Shaw, Ph.D. (Nature Education) © 2008 Nature Education
Citation: Ralston, A. & Shaw, K. (2008) Gene expression regulates cell differentiation. Nature Education 1(1):127

How is it that your body with all of its specialized organs developed from a single cell? Scientists are exploring how gene expression patterns and their timing regulate cell differentiation.
All of the cells within a complex multicellular organism such as a human being contain the same DNA; however, the body of such an organism is clearly composed of many different types of cells. What, then, makes a liver cell different from a skin or muscle cell? The answer lies in the way each cell deploys its genome. In other words, the particular combination of genes that are turned on (expressed) or turned off (repressed) dictates cellular morphology (shape) and function. This process of gene expression is regulated by cues from both within and outside cells, and the interplay between these cues and the genome affects essentially all processes that occur during embryonic development and adult life.



This figure depicts key developmental events together with global epigenetic modifications and gene expression patterns. Very early in development, DNA methylation is erased. In addition, pluripotency-associated genes begin to be expressed, and developmental genes are repressed by the PcG protein system and H3K27 methylation. During the differentiation of pluripotent cells such as embryonic stem (ES) cells, pluripotency-associated genes are repressed, potentially permanently, as a result of DNA methylation. At the same time, developmental genes begin to be expressed, and there is an increase in H3K4 methylation. During the early development of primordial germ cells (PGCs), DNA methylation and repressive histone modifications (such as H3K9 methylation) are also erased. Pluripotency-associated genes are re-expressed during a time window that allows embryonic germ cells to be derived in culture. Imprinted genes are demethylated during this period, and developmental genes are expressed afterwards. Flexible histone marks such as H3K27 methylation enable developmental genes to be silenced for a short time in pluripotent cells. By contrast, DNA methylation enables the stable silencing of imprinted genes, transposons, and some pluripotency-associated genes.
© 2007 Nature Publishing Group Reik, W. Stability and flexibility of epigenetic gene regulation in mammalian development. Nature 447, 426 (2007). All rights reserved.







posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Leonidas
"Intelligent Design" is neither self-evident nor a truth.

The universe doesn't need an inventor - as evident by it's existence without one.

It doesn't make the world we live in any less spectacular or precious.


"Intelligent Design" or ID, is a certain school of thought with regard to evolution. It is not the same as 'intelligently designed'.


Thought experiments don't count.

Evolution is a SCIENCE, not a school of thought. Neither is your Intelligent Design. Again, you pose a semantical argument - "Intelligent Design is not the same as "intelligently designed". Interesting. Why don't you explain the difference.

Intelligent Design is not self evident, or prima facie. It's a hypothesis with no observational evidence.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: EnPassant

You obviously are not reading the content of my posts. I have presented the evidence including links to the laboratory experiments which confirm that evidence. That you don't read it or understand it is your problem.

And I don't have to prove anything. That's already been done in the lab and has been accepted by every credible scientist on the planet. If that wasn't the case, molecular biology, molecular chemistry and pharmacology would not exist.
You have yet to present ANY evidence for your position. You continue to deny what is right in front of your eyes.


You are asking me to prove a negative. I am not saying that genes do not determine growth and form, I am saying there is no evidence that they do. This is not the same thing. It is up to you to provide evidence. You have not done so.


I seem to remember you posting this:

"That is exactly what is disputed and unproved. Genes make proteins/amino acids. That is all they do. "

and this:

"You don't understand what the argument is about. It is about form; the organisation of macroscopic, physical structures. It has not been shown that genes do this"

Are you changing your position now? Where's your evidence? Where's your experiments? Where's your data?
edit on 18-4-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I think we need to look to mathematics and probability theory to visualize some answers. Random processes are a sequence of random variables. That means that there's a random distribution of likely scenarios that might take place. If we think about precursors to living organisms, we would most likely find a distribution of probable candidates who might fill the bill to become the "living" organism (this, of course, assumes there was a "first" - which isn't at all certain).

I tend to think that every possible outcome of life (from cells on up) was encoded into DNA. That every species of organisms to have ever existed, and will ever exist, was/is meant to exist at the opportune time for that species to be activated; preordained with its own "instruction manual" for its own purpose (instinct).

I think every species is given the same/relative chance to give it a go. I don't think that one is better endowed/designed to survive than another. Which is why I don't buy the whole evolution made a lot of mistakes. As far as I'm concerned, there are no accidental existences (as the current evolutionary model would have us think). This might also explain the re-emergence of a species after their previous extinction. (The so called Lazarus Taxa). It's a matter of environmental circumstance that ultimately determines the fate. "Survival of the fittest" is too broad and misleading though. It's not just about competition for survival. It's also very much about collaboration for survival.

What if RNA/DNA is ubiquitous in the universe and that the blueprints for all possible universal lifeforms are encoded within (Yes that means extraterrestrials too)? In other words, all living things in the universe come from the same DNA sequence. However, depending on the environment (planet, moon, etc) the raw RNA/DNA finds itself in, would then determine which lifeforms will be realized. It still could mean billions of different species (unlike anything we could imagine), but their initiation and subsequent development is guided by the environment with which the DNA initially resided. It's wild speculation, but perhaps this could explain what so-called junk DNA is for...


But once the organism is established, in order to survive, it has to adapt. It doesn't matter whether it's on land, in the sea, or under 1000 feet of ice. It has to adapt to survive. More importantly, it has to reproduce and to reproduce, it must be able to pass on a genetic code that will ensure the survivability of its progeny.

All life is programmed to do this. Right from the onset. Even the earliest microbes and cells were still very complex in their physiology and behavior. The fact that survival and reproduction are [purposeful] attributes encoded into the DNA of all living things is a head scratcher. The system of life as a whole has been running successfully for 3.5 billion years and counting. But there's more... Yes, life's intent is to keep on living, and it has phenomena like consciousness and intelligence to aid in this mission. But with these tools life is also very much about interaction, cooperation, and information absorption/transmission. There is a richness to it that, to me, goes deeper than the sort of black and white aspects of reproduction/survival/energy dissipation (metabolism).

Life (matter) can be aware of itself and explore itself. This is bizarre.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I think we need to look to mathematics and probability theory to visualize some answers. Random processes are a sequence of random variables. That means that there's a random distribution of likely scenarios that might take place. If we think about precursors to living organisms, we would most likely find a distribution of probable candidates who might fill the bill to become the "living" organism (this, of course, assumes there was a "first" - which isn't at all certain).

I tend to think that every possible outcome of life (from cells on up) was encoded into DNA. That every species of organisms to have ever existed, and will ever exist, was/is meant to exist at the opportune time for that species to be activated; preordained with its own "instruction manual" for its own purpose (instinct).

I think every species is given the same/relative chance to give it a go. I don't think that one is better endowed/designed to survive than another. Which is why I don't buy the whole evolution made a lot of mistakes. As far as I'm concerned, there are no accidental existences (as the current evolutionary model would have us think). This might also explain the re-emergence of a species after their previous extinction. (The so called Lazarus Taxa). It's a matter of environmental circumstance that ultimately determines the fate. "Survival of the fittest" is too broad and misleading though. It's not just about competition for survival. It's also very much about collaboration for survival.

What if RNA/DNA is ubiquitous in the universe and that the blueprints for all possible universal lifeforms are encoded within (Yes that means extraterrestrials too)? In other words, all living things in the universe come from the same DNA sequence. However, depending on the environment (planet, moon, etc) the raw RNA/DNA finds itself in, would then determine which lifeforms will be realized. It still could mean billions of different species (unlike anything we could imagine), but their initiation and subsequent development is guided by the environment with which the DNA initially resided. It's wild speculation, but perhaps this could explain what so-called junk DNA is for...


But once the organism is established, in order to survive, it has to adapt. It doesn't matter whether it's on land, in the sea, or under 1000 feet of ice. It has to adapt to survive. More importantly, it has to reproduce and to reproduce, it must be able to pass on a genetic code that will ensure the survivability of its progeny.

All life is programmed to do this. Right from the onset. Even the earliest microbes and cells were still very complex in their physiology and behavior. The fact that survival and reproduction are [purposeful] attributes encoded into the DNA of all living things is a head scratcher. The system of life as a whole has been running successfully for 3.5 billion years and counting. But there's more... Yes, life's intent is to keep on living, and it has phenomena like consciousness and intelligence to aid in this mission. But with these tools life is also very much about interaction, cooperation, and information absorption/transmission. There is a richness to it that, to me, goes deeper than the sort of black and white aspects of reproduction/survival/energy dissipation (metabolism).

Life (matter) can be aware of itself and explore itself. This is bizarre.


I agree with you for the most part. But aren't we really talking about the same thing? Interaction, cooperation, information - this is all part of the selection process. Experiments is a better word than mistakes. Nature does its own experiments. What doesn't work goes into file 13. Mutations that are lethal to an organism like inherited diseases can be effectively wiped out if the organism doesn't reproduce.

I don't agree that every organism has the same chance of survival. If the genetic makeup of one frog makes that frog more likely to survive than another frog who doesn't have the genetic advantage, then the one with the genetic advantage is going to survive while the other will die out. There's enough evidence in the fossil history which shows that species which didn't have adaptive traits, simply disappeared. Their genetic makeup didn't provide enough adaptive capability for the organism to withstand environmental stresses.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I believe in evolution. I believe there is intelligence behind it. I don't subscribe to Intelligent Design as a school of thought.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

That is all genes have been shown to do; make proteins.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PhotonEffect

About intent and purpose, self assembly of systems - organic systems, inorganic systems, even quantum systems - is something that should be considered in all these arguments about intelligent design and creationism. Intelligent design advocates are flabbergasted that an eye, an ear or a brain is able to exist without a "designer". That it's impossible for something so complex to exist without some outside intervention.

I can understand the amazement by ID'ers and Creationists, to think that this is God's doing. I'm not in a position to say one way or another that a God of some kind doesn't exist. The underlying problem with this argument, as I mentioned in another post, is the personification of this God, as if it's a human type entity that's behind it all.. It makes for a pretty easy target. The other problem is that we have no concrete notion of what this concept of God really is. Everyone has their own unique idea of what it is or isn't. So to me, the entire argument is flawed on both sides. BUT- I won't rule out the possibility of an intelligently driven process of development. I'm open to the idea that intelligence and consciousness (relatively speaking) are inherent properties of life (and perhaps the universe), on all scales. That's me going out on a limb, but I think we will soon realize this about the world...


Well, the fact is that complex systems are quite capable of organizing themselves without outside intervention. A crystal, although it looks quite simple, is actually a self-organizing system of complex electrochemical interactions. Organic systems are obvious - a fertilized egg would never develop into a whole human being if the system was not self organizing. It's the system itself, reading its genetic code, that organizes into whatever it was intended to be.

I'm not sure why we take for granted the ability of matter to self assemble. We use it as an explanation without any real idea of how it happens in the first place. Like how we tend to categorize certain phenomena as emergent properties without getting to the bottom of why/how it occurs. Have we an explanation for how these things happen? What are the mechanisms behind the self assembly of matter into extremely complex and rich systems?

Take the microtubule- this structure self organizes (and regulates) itself and is responsible for some very integral operations of cell development. Given it's size relative to the molecules that make up its structure, and the manner in which it self-assembles; it's analogous to a skyscraper building itself brick by brick. And that's just one tiny part of a cell, never mind the rest of the self regulating universe that resides within the rest of the cell itself.

So to be able to assert that there isn't any outside intervention responsible for this, and to be correct about that, we must first have the wind of hard evidence at our backs. It doesn't have to be god, but it doesn't have to be magic either. We know that cells don't have brains. So how does it "know" what to do? Where did that information come from? The easy answer is natural selection, right? I have my doubts...


Intent and purpose, in my opinion, are embedded in the code of the organism.

I agree with this.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PhotonEffect

About intent and purpose, self assembly of systems - organic systems, inorganic systems, even quantum systems - is something that should be considered in all these arguments about intelligent design and creationism. Intelligent design advocates are flabbergasted that an eye, an ear or a brain is able to exist without a "designer". That it's impossible for something so complex to exist without some outside intervention.

I can understand the amazement by ID'ers and Creationists, to think that this is God's doing. I'm not in a position to say one way or another that a God of some kind doesn't exist. The underlying problem with this argument, as I mentioned in another post, is the personification of this God, as if it's a human type entity that's behind it all.. It makes for a pretty easy target. The other problem is that we have no concrete notion of what this concept of God really is. Everyone has their own unique idea of what it is or isn't. So to me, the entire argument is flawed on both sides. BUT- I won't rule out the possibility of an intelligently driven process of development. I'm open to the idea that intelligence and consciousness (relatively speaking) are inherent properties of life (and perhaps the universe), on all scales. That's me going out on a limb, but I think we will soon realize this about the world...


There's no objective evidence that a god or gods exist. It's a hypothesis with no observable evidence to test. So in my mind, it's a waste of time to even think about it. It simply doesn't matter whether there is a god(s) or not. It's a lot more productive to think about how an organism came about and how it develops.


Well, the fact is that complex systems are quite capable of organizing themselves without outside intervention. A crystal, although it looks quite simple, is actually a self-organizing system of complex electrochemical interactions. Organic systems are obvious - a fertilized egg would never develop into a whole human being if the system was not self organizing. It's the system itself, reading its genetic code, that organizes into whatever it was intended to be.

I'm not sure why we take for granted the ability of matter to self assemble. We use it as an explanation without any real idea of how it happens in the first place. Like how we tend to categorize certain phenomena as emergent properties without getting to the bottom of why/how it occurs. Have we an explanation for how these things happen? What are the mechanisms behind the self assembly of matter into extremely complex and rich systems?

Take the microtubule- this structure self organizes (and regulates) itself and is responsible for some very integral operations of cell development. Given it's size relative to the molecules that make up its structure, and the manner in which it self-assembles; it's analogous to a skyscraper building itself brick by brick. And that's just one tiny part of a cell, never mind the rest of the self regulating universe that resides within the rest of the cell itself.

So to be able to assert that there isn't any outside intervention responsible for this, and to be correct about that, we must first have the wind of hard evidence at our backs. It doesn't have to be god, but it doesn't have to be magic either. We know that cells don't have brains. So how does it "know" what to do? Where did that information come from? The easy answer is natural selection, right? I have my doubts...

But cells do have "brains". What is a brain? It's an assembly of billions of neuron cells firing away at the tasks the organism challenges it with. It's the same with any cell. The cell is exposed to environmental challenges. It's genetic code enables it to differentiate into a suitable player in the life of the organism. Every cell has the genetic capability to develop into any type of cell i.e. neuron, glial cell, skin cell. If the genetic code didn't respond to the needs of the organism by regulating differentiation, then the cell's final form would be indeterminate.

A good example of this is the experiments done on cell differentiation. Scientists are now able to take virtually any cell and "force" it into whatever they want it to be. For instance, a skin cell can be forced into being a liver cell and vice versa. That says that within the organism, there's a decision-maker, a code, that regulates that cell to be what it's supposed to be.


Intent and purpose, in my opinion, are embedded in the code of the organism.

I agree with this.

edit on 18-4-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
I agree with you for the most part. But aren't we really talking about the same thing? Interaction, cooperation, information - this is all part of the selection process.

We are talking about the same thing but from different perspectives I think. I'm trying to understand how interaction and cooperation are part of the selection process. To me these are fundamentals to life. So in what way do you mean?


Experiments is a better word than mistakes. Nature does its own experiments. What doesn't work goes into file 13. Mutations that are lethal to an organism like inherited diseases can be effectively wiped out if the organism doesn't reproduce.

I'm not sure I agree with the experiment analogy either. What doesn't work for a species doesn't necessarily mean the species (once extinct) never gets to come back. Which is why I brought up the lazarus taxa. All forms of life are already pre-programmed into DNA to be realized at a certain time and place. And it seems they can be realized again and again.

And we need to ask ourselves, what causes a disease. Is it a mutation?? Hmmm (maybe you're thinking disorders?).. What is disease driven by typically? How about things like pathogenic microbial agents; like viruses, bacteria, other multicellular organisms, fungi etc... These are all living things, given the same shot to survive as their host. So what's "lethal" for one organism, or group of organisms, is not lethal for another. In the eyes of nature it's just two groups of organisms equally programmed for survival within the parameters of the current environment.


I don't agree that every organism has the same chance of survival. If the genetic makeup of one frog makes that frog more likely to survive than another frog who doesn't have the genetic advantage, then the one with the genetic advantage is going to survive while the other will die out.


Yes- Here's how I see it though- What Im saying is that nature gives us a green frog and a red frog, same species. By all intents and purposes, from natures perspective, these two frogs have the same capacity to survive. But then a predator arrives on the scene who, like the frogs, has also been given the same chance to survive and perhaps too comes in different colors. Lets say the version of the predator that exists prefers to eat the green frogs. This could be because it can only see green or associates that color with tastiness. But the story doesn't stop there- we shouldn't ignore the possibility that the frog predator may also have a predator of its own, that perhaps took out all the frog predators that liked to eat the red frogs. So all that was left were the frog predators that liked to eat the green ones, thereby allowing the red frogs to continue. It's a long winded example and only represents a small fraction of the process but what I hope it elucidates is that all life forms are created equal, initially, with the same propensity to survive-- what happens after their inception into the world is kind of like hunger games.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I think any exposure the organism has in nature is part of the selection process. As I mentioned before, these are the variables and there's a lot of them including interactions and cooperation. I don't see interaction and cooperation and natural selection as being mutually exclusive. It's all part of the same process.

About lazarus taxa, I don't see any hard evidence that species have the capability to rise again. It's a hypothesis, but is there any species that has died out and has come back in the same form? Not that I know of.

I disagree that species are equally equipped for survival. Mutations in the genome can be rapid and can be lethal. And they can be inheritable. So if an organism inherits a gene for something like Huntington's Chorea, that organism will not survive. We don't all have the same shot at survival - some are more "fit" than others.

As for disease. a disease is nothing more than some outside agent attacking the organism. It also can be an inheritable disease like Huntington's which I mentioned above. There's beneficial microorganism and lethal microorganisms - just depends on how it interacts with another species like humans (BTW, just a note - viruses are not "living" organisms - by definition a living organism has to be capable of reproduction. A virus hijacks the internal machinery of a living cell to reproduce - it has no capability of reproducing itself).

Your example of the frog is exactly my point. The predator whether it only sees one color or whatever, is part of the natural selection process. A species will not survive if it cannot defend itself. Maybe that's why a lot of reptiles change color!! Good example, thanks.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Yesterday I went for Pho. A delicious bowl of soup, noodles and some rare beef. I bit into this tiny little red pepper. It was no longer than 1/2 inch and was 1/16 the size of a pencil. It blew my mouth off. Tears began flowing uncontrollably as my ears began to throb with a burning pain. My tongue swelled as I struggled to gulp down the remains of the sapid bowl of goodness.

And then like a drunken step-father, it hit me...

How did this little pepper ever know to defend itself against herbivores? Its reality consists of nothing more than, well, nothing. It grows, it receives sunlight, it soaks up the rain, then it dies. Its reality is rather boring and uneventful. It knows nothing of mouths and doesn't care about you or me. It can't see, touch, feel or apply any of our senses or those of an animal. It cares not of anything in particular except for some kind of "self-defense" so it may continue to survive. But survive from what? From mouths. What mouths?

How did this little eyeless red sprout ever discover a way to burn your mouth and make steam blow from your eyes and ears when bitten? It doesn't even know what anything is. Why did it adapt this way? My world and a red hot pepper's world are completely different. There is no viable connection that can bind the two worlds together to warrant such a dramatic self-defense mechanism. Other than...plants know they are eaten? They must. How can a plant KNOW anything? But clearly, this little bean carries a big stick.

Hmmm, that was some crazy Pho.




top topics



 
28
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join