|
God
Oct 3, 2005 9:04:31 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Oct 3, 2005 9:04:31 GMT -4
A species of ants bring leaves , bite them, store them in moisture, so when fungus grows they eat the fungus. How do they know that they should store the leaves in moistureso fungus develops. Sure, they didn't learn by trial and error as humans did in this particular circumstance. Natural selection is certainly a trial and error method, but the individual creature doesn't have to learn something if it's genes have already got the trick. How did you learn how to breathe, to digest your food, to run your immune system?
|
|
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 9:15:59 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Oct 3, 2005 9:15:59 GMT -4
The whole issue is that you don't need to be better than what you are bcz it can make you worse. You don't need to see better than a squid . Imagine yourself seeing the atoms all around you, that will make you dizzy. Natural selection gives you eyes that help you survive. Eyes that could see atoms would be so heavy to carry around that they'd be a hindrance to survival. But you do need to see better than the predator that's stalking you (or at least better than the rest of the herd). The point is, why would a designer come up with so many different designs for eyes rather than giving everything the best design possible? Life has the features you'd expect of an incremental design method rather than a "clean sheet of paper" approach.
|
|
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 9:41:59 GMT -4
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 3, 2005 9:41:59 GMT -4
A species of ants bring leaves , bite them, store them in moisture, so when fungus grows they eat the fungus. How do they know that they should store the leaves in moistureso fungus develops. Sure, they didn't learn by trial and error as humans did in this particular circumstance. Natural selection is certainly a trial and error method, but the individual creature doesn't have to learn something if it's genes have already got the trick. How did you learn how to breathe, to digest your food, to run your immune system? That is the issue, how come the genes, internal thread made of DNA, help the ants function in such a complex way?
|
|
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 9:45:46 GMT -4
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 3, 2005 9:45:46 GMT -4
The whole issue is that you don't need to be better than what you are bcz it can make you worse. You don't need to see better than a squid . Imagine yourself seeing the atoms all around you, that will make you dizzy. Natural selection gives you eyes that help you survive. Eyes that could see atoms would be so heavy to carry around that they'd be a hindrance to survival. But you do need to see better than the predator that's stalking you (or at least better than the rest of the herd). The point is, why would a designer come up with so many different designs for eyes rather than giving everything the best design possible? Life has the features you'd expect of an incremental design method rather than a "clean sheet of paper" approach. God didn't leave the Gazelle alone.He gave it a camouflage color , made it live in a herd so the chance that each one is caught decreases, is very fast,etc.. Imagine if it had also powerful vision in addition to powerful hearing. The lions can't catch it and the numbers of Gazelles will go very high, will destroy vegetation, etc.. Everything in the cycle continues itself. Al Johnston is right, scientists believe in God and others don't indicating that it is more of a personal issue.
|
|
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 9:47:44 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Oct 3, 2005 9:47:44 GMT -4
Natural selection is certainly a trial and error method, but the individual creature doesn't have to learn something if it's genes have already got the trick. How did you learn how to breathe, to digest your food, to run your immune system? That is the issue, how come the genes, internal thread made of DNA, help the ants function in such a complex way? Search me, I'm not a biologist. I'm just making the point that complex behaviour doesn't have to be learned. We're talking about how it was designed, not how the resulting design works.
|
|
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 9:55:14 GMT -4
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 3, 2005 9:55:14 GMT -4
In this design , that is seen by its outward results that are the actions, you can find GOD. Cheers
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 9:55:43 GMT -4
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 3, 2005 9:55:43 GMT -4
Al Johnston is right, scientists believe in God and others don't indicating that it is more of a personal issue. Some of them, not all of them
|
|
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 9:57:26 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Oct 3, 2005 9:57:26 GMT -4
God didn't leave the Gazelle alone.He gave it a camouflage color , made it live in a herd so the chance that each one is caught decreases, is very fast,etc.. Imagine if it had also powerful vision in addition to powerful hearing. The lions can't catch it and the numbers of Gazelles will go very high, will destroy vegetation, etc.. Everything in the cycle continues itself. If you can outrun every predator, there's no selection pressure on running any faster, at least until the predators catch up. The immediate effect of the gazelles eating all the vegetation is that the numbers rapidly decrease due to starvation. This sort of thing happens, but it's explained by theories of ecology rather than evolutionary biology. However, a long term result could be selection pressure for smaller gazelles that eat less.
|
|
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 10:58:53 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Oct 3, 2005 10:58:53 GMT -4
Religion puts the ephasis on faith rather than proof. Why then do some religious people get so upset because Darwin undermined a "proof" of the existence of God?
|
|
|
God
Oct 3, 2005 14:20:33 GMT -4
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 3, 2005 14:20:33 GMT -4
The immediate effect of the gazelles eating all the vegetation is that the numbers rapidly decrease due to starvation.
this is another way to control their numbers, if the predators are dead and the system failed. There is another way to compensate.
what do you mean by your first sentence: if we outrun every predator...? You mean you don't want predators to be found so the gazelles aren't obliged to run fast?
|
|
|
God
Oct 4, 2005 4:31:56 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Oct 4, 2005 4:31:56 GMT -4
what do you mean by your first sentence: if we outrun every predator...? You mean you don't want predators to be found so the gazelles aren't obliged to run fast? I meant that selection pressures only work on characteristics that affect survival. If you are already faster than the predators, there is no selection pressure to go faster. I was picking up your point on super eyesight.
|
|