Gnostic Bishop wrote:

ant wrote:

American wants to rule the world

Which Americans have said they wish to rule the world?

Please do not include conspiracy theories or speculation as evidence for your claim.

Thanks

If control of the world is not the agenda, why is the U.S. military force, what, 7 times the size of the closest competitor?

The U.S definitely does not need that much for security at home.

Regards
DL

Its a conspiracy! Our military is really out to conquer the world!!!
Down with American colonialism!
Remove Emperor Obama from his evil throne!

LOL

ant wrote:You just "know" there isnt intelligence behind complex life and his ignorance keeps him from seeing what actually has not been tested and evidenced. It's pretty obvious where you plug in narrative to explain something that remains consistent with your worldview, Interbane.

We've been very patient with your metaphysical additives, your ad hoc explanations, and your trump card of "argument from ignorance" when in fact a lot of your explanations are cloaked ignorance that you pawn off as already a scientific conclusion.

Why would I need to appeal to ignorance when I can appeal to evidence?

Ant wrote:
Why would some organisms continue to adapt in an environment they achieved optimal adaptation?

What would be an example of continued physiological evolutionary adaptation during a period of physical optimization? such as the period we find ourselves in now.

Taylor wrote:Quote:
Ant wrote:
Why would some organisms continue to adapt in an environment they achieved optimal adaptation?




What would be an example of continued physiological evolutionary adaptation during a period of physical optimization? such as the period we find ourselves in now.

Hi Taylor. That's a good question.
What's the theory? Natural selection favours creatures who are "fit" and who reproduce and eliminates all not adapted so as to survive and do this.
This surely must be true in all generations. On what grounds could we say previous generations of creatures were somehow less optimally adapted to their environment than the present one?
If they were as well adapted as the present day survivors then what caused major changes in creatures? Changed environment?
Well that would likely eliminate less "fit" creatures but how would it promote genetic and phenotypic change?
Drought may eliminate many finches with small beaks for a while and the ones with larger ones would survive and reproduce, but the drought neither created the already existent larger beaks or the finches themselves.
My gripe with macro-evolution is the problem of gradual change to complex systems. People can kid themselves but to get from a therapod dinosaur to a bird requires wholesale change to the respiratory system among other things and you can't do this gradually.
That particular story is now questioned within science anyway and it's now thought by many that they did not evolve from dinosaurs.
Unlike Darwin, Richard Dawkins neither inherited or acquired a propensity to doubt any of these things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg
Since this video was made a whale fossil bone dated back to 49 million years has been found which is a fly in the ointment but R.D. wouldn't have known about that then. Rhodocetus? Gingerich says it did not have flippers and doubts it had a whale fluke.

What's interesting is that there are various schools of theory on origins and evolution often complete with philosophies.
Here's an interesting article by Edmond Jacobiti where he assesses them from his perspective. He neither advocates intelligent design or creation but gives a good appraisal of various views.
http://www.sine.edu/EASTASIA/Jacobitti_072601.htm This link doesn't work. Google; Edmund Jacobitti. Theoretical approaches to evolution if you are interested.
To underline my point on the systems problem here's a talk by Prof Andy Mc Intosh on the evolution of flight. My main point of the bird's respiratory system starts about 40 minutes in.
He's a creationist which will probably put many off but it's interesting on the whole subject of flight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw245ENPDAc

Flann 5 wrote:
What's the theory? Natural selection favours creatures who are "fit" and who reproduce and eliminates all not adapted so as to survive and do this.
This surely must be true in all generations. On what grounds could we say previous generations of creatures were somehow less optimally adapted to their environment than the present one?

It seems to me much more than evolution has demonstrated optimization of past species that in their own rights were dominant. Extinction events quelled many genomic sequences, I think that when Interbane writes of our current optimal level of being evolved, its merely a corollary event, T Rex was certainly optimal given its world. How much better can a fruit fly get in todays environment? Same too with humans, we're very well adapted to be human. What would be a necessary evolutionary change for the improvement of modern man?, As has been pointed out by Interbane, we're optimal. Being "fit" is another way of saying optimal.

As to birds having evolved from theropods I've understood that as an idea that came about because of similar skeletal structures between the two.
Evolution of beaks from what I understand doesn't come about from specifics but for specifics, It holds that a long beak indicates a corresponding food source.
Natural selection seems a part of a co-variant system, For me, I think that simple to complex is a natural exchange, our planet has changed over billions of years, the sustainment of complexities as we know them today, wasn't compatible in early stage development, of course we'll never really know for sure as not enough from then survives today, as it is, when new discoveries are made its a genuine needle in the hay stack.

Getting back on topic
If there were laws against public institutions that lie for money, each gov't would necessarily outlaw them selves. Does one want a life of anarchy?. (That's for you GB)

Flann 5 wrote:
What's interesting is that there are various schools of theory on origins and evolution often complete with philosophies.
Here's an interesting article by Edmond Jacobiti where he assesses them from his perspective. He neither advocates intelligent design or creation but gives a good appraisal of various views.

Your beyond doubt about the articles value
here's the correct link to the article http://www.siue.edu/EASTASIA/Jacobitti_072601.htm

It took me about 4 hours to read through the entire thing but it certainly presents what has been the crux of much of whats been discussed here on Booktalk, I recommend anyone not familiar with the various theory's on origins and evolution read it for them selves, particularly you lurkers out there, you my just learn something, I know I have.

I think that there is merit in a combination of the theory's discussed, Taken as individuals there appear to be hole's but when combinations are made, ideas become stable with logic.
This maybe simplistic but the way I see it is " big fish eat little fish, an imaginary fish may feed the [soul] but the imaginary one will ultimately leave the belly grumbling"
So I guess that's the side of the fence I occupy, but it should be known that my fence is only three feet tall and chain linked, Its very clear to look through and is only there to keep my dog from wandering the neighborhood.

Thanks Taylor. I expect your head is seething with ideas having digested Jacobitti's essay. It's very useful in clarifying what the issues and differences actually are.
He comes from a postmodernist perspective philosophically,(which I don't share) but his analysis of strengths and weaknesses of competing theories is very good and he's clear and readable and quite witty.
He's mainly focused on secular theories. There's always the presupposition of philosophical naturalism here.
He baulks at design primarily I think because of the problem of evil as he say's himself. As a theist I appreciate his not presenting stereotypical caricature of this position and recognising valid criticisms from that source.
One point on this. It's often asserted that 99% of all species have gone extinct and Christopher Hitchens often made much of this when debating.
I wonder about the reliability of this stat.Is it of actual known species or does it include innumerable never discovered imaginary intermediates which the theory dictates must have existed? I'll have to investigate this stat.
I did a quick search on this. It's complex. Stephen Jay Gould said that 99% of all species had gone extinct with most not leaving a trace in the fossil record. This suggests to me an extrapolation but based on what? The degree of estimated incompleteness of the record or the required intermediates for the theory or both?
I'll look into it.

I disagree with him that I.D./creationists "shoehorn the evidence" and when it comes to the fossil evidence I would say the shoe is on the other foot.
Still it's a well considered essay with plenty of food for thought for anyone interested in these matters.

First; thank you.
I agree caricaturizing should have no place in the debate, its use is debasement and should be scorned.

Flann 5 wrote:
He baulks at design primarily I think because of the problem of evil

The questions of evil and freewill and determinism etc... are subjects I am greatly interested in, the differences can be quite confusing for a non-initiate, I'm working on it.

I also agree with the question of 99% of species extinction, it seems a leap of faith, I don't think I'm inclined to put to much doubt toward the number given time scaling in the geologic context though. I imagine there is inclusion of speculated life forms but I just know to little to think for certain.
Lastly; typically there are two pair of shoes, I would say shoehorning is part of both.

Something the article fails to mention directly;
A male bear will wander the country side looking for food, if it encounters a female, the male will ether attempt to eat her cubs (if she has any) or he will attempt to hump her (if she'll have him, good for him), if she wont have him, the male bear will go on his way, continuing to forage for food. Given that scenario, is reproduction the driver of evolution, or an empty stomach?.

Taylor wrote:Natural selection seems a part of a co-variant system, For me, I think that simple to complex is a natural exchange, our planet has changed over billions of years, the sustainment of complexities as we know them today, wasn't compatible in early stage development, of course we'll never really know for sure as not enough from then survives today, as it is, when new discoveries are made its a genuine needle in the hay stack.

Just thinking about these things Taylor. Actually the simplest cell is incredibly complex and the simple life form such as a bacterium is exponentially more complex at the biochemical level. Add to that the fact that a bacterial flagellum which is just a part is considered the most efficient machine currently known,then you have complexity right at the beginning if that's how things started.
The program of mutational breeding constituted a field test of the theory and turns up the law of recurrent variant.
We have living fossils apparently unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. The point is that mutations are the provider of significant change according to neo-Darwinism and they are random they say.
Why then over all these millions of years did random mutations not change these creatures? Of course complex creatures appear suddenly in the record in relative terms,fully formed and functional without ancestors and you have to judge for yourself whether the explanations given for this are satisfactory or not.
The theory doesn't seem to require optimisation either now or in the past but what is sufficient for survival and reproduction at any given time.
In the end there are philosophical elements which are hard to separate from interpretation of the evidence in an objective way.
Suffice to say it has critics not lacking in specialist knowledge in these areas and it seems to come down to how data is interpreted.
I take the view of design and purpose but not without supporting reasons. So do others like Prof of biology Scott Minnich.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm-Ukz72AdA