Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:


Ziggy is right. It just means adapting to a changing environment.  For example ammonites developed convoluted sutures in response to  a changing marine environment. The later Triassic ammonites are associated with much deeper water assemblages and have convoluted sutures which withstand pressure to a greater extent. The shallower water species of the Jurassic  had relatively simple sutures which worked well for buoyancy control, which was more important in shallow water environments. We can track the lineages of ammonites and their adaptation through the fossil record.  

All this did not help the ammonites very much, because they went extinct (no typo this time Lisa)  at the end of the Cretaceous. The nearest surviving relative these days is the Pearly Nautilus.

In some environments, simpler is better. For example high salinity, the presence of hydrocarbons etc can defeat more complex organisms.

We still have vestiges of this adaptation to older environments in our body structure. For example, the very complex renal system is well adapted for living in saline water.

- and yes, you can go back and change your post, but be careful about it. I sometimes type <edit>. if I go back and change something, unless it's just a typo, otherwise you can be accused of being dishonest.

Creationism is really just an extension of a specific religion or certain sects within that religion. (Abrahamic Monotheism) . It is certainly not a competing paradigm within biology.

- Muso

Just read back .. and realized I had not responded to the above comment.

In stating that the paradigms were competing .. I was alluding to the fact that:

Evolution --->scientific paradigm

Creationism ---> traditional paradigm

As such, they are indeed competing paradigms.

locutius wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 10:15am:



Have you considered that both function much like binary opposites and as such give a better sense of clarity about themselves and each other?

Oh and why hide information?

As I stated above .. people ought to know what these 2 competing paradigms consist of. Also .. people ought to be able to make informed decisions based on the information we have available.

i would suggest that you only use 20% of your brain matter

(the other 80% is activated when you sleep/dream or meditate)

and could have no grasp on the cruciable unless you activate

the endocrine system the conduit to the higher dimensions.

you are a master

in the making.

your ignorance has no bareing upon this fact

and so it is

namaste

PJ:

Quote:


Yes an experiment on a global scale is very limited from a scientific perspective.

Quote:


Natural selection is a scientific theory.

Ziggy:

Quote:


An example is universal common ancestry.

Quote:


Falsification by magic etc does not satisfy the scientific requirements for falsifiability. You have to be able to design a repeatable experiment that would disprove it if it were false. Not just dream up an alternative and hold it as proof of your own theory.

Quote:


The theory makes no claims of directionality of change, with regard to complexity or any other subjective assessment of life.

Quote:


Absense of an alternative does not make it scientific either.

Quote:


I am making claims about science, not belief. Unscientific does not mean wrong. If anything, scientific means wrong.

Quote:


It is not false. The dichotomy between the scientific and unscientific aspects is genuine and enlightening.

Muso:

Quote:


Muso, you are clearly misrepresenting the article by quoting that out of context. It is obviously meant to be put forward as a theory to demonstrate a point, not a fact.

Quote:


According to my high school biology textbook it does.

Quote:


Sacred cows are the greatest threat to the aquisition of new knowledge.

locutious:

Quote:


By any objective measure private schools offer a better quality education.

Ziggy:

Quote:


They have doen so many times. Sometimes they were right. Sometimes they were wrong. Where they are right, they claim it proves the theory. Where they are wrong, they simply alter the theory, or discover they don't need to do anything because the theory didn't actually predict it. Evolution as a theory owes it's survival to it's infinite adaptability more than anything else.

Muso:

Quote:


Another example of the 'flexibility' of 'predictions' based on evolution. This is an after the fact explanation that does not stand up to scrutiny.

The hypotheses are not scientific either.

If you want metaphysical discussions on existence, try Spirituality. There's a new poster called it_is_the_light. You'll get a lot of sense out of him.

Enjoy.

- Muso

Too funny lol

Quote:


Quote:
- FD

I think that may have been what Locutious was actually alluding to FD, the disparity between the level of education opportunities available, and how in an ideal world we could hope to see kids from humble backgrounds, afforded similiar opportunities as are those from the more privileged demographic.
If that was Locutious' opinion, I would agree wholeheartedly, and think we should, at the very least,  be seeking to minimise that gap between what is offered privately, and what is delivered in public schools.