Notices
Results 1 to 45 of 45

Thread: Bytes of Darwin Bits of God

  1. #1 Bytes of Darwin Bits of God 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    103
    Watching a show rehashing the Evolution vs Intelligent design, question's surfaced. The tree of evolution whose branches stem from one seed or commonality, adapting to enviroment by process of selection to turn ape into man. the question is why? what of the enviroment that was so caustic as to imploy a change from ape to man. food theres plenty in their habitat, comfort they were already built to make the best out of there exsistence complete with fur and a opposable thumb. on a celluar level its called genetic mutation for the sake of mutation. if thats true then we as a species have some horrifing changes to look forward too. Just a byte of Darwin. Intelligent design, let there be this and let there be that and so it was each thing after its model. understandable if not for variables, dont see robin/finch see birds, dont see mammals/man see manmals, dont see fish/amphbians see fishbians in other words if we can manage to take some of the stuff we put in it all out of it we might see whats in it. Cosmological order fits because it envades the question why, but hardens to even a inkling of proff, yet the table of faith has four stable legs which are capable of holding your whole self, Bits of God


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I think your question of "why become man?" might be based in a misunderstanding of the situation of apes. It's not exactly a bed of roses. They continually face challenges and hardships within their environment, and for all intents and purposes they're still evolving.

    Also, when the environment changes, the challenges that face a particular species increase even more. If they spent a long enough time in a particular environment, then they had at least begun to adapt to that environment. But when the environment changes, many characteristics that were previously adaptive are now unadaptive, or even maladaptive.

    From what I understand of the current state of knowledge about human evolution, during the transition period from a more ape-like ancestor to a more bipedal, hominid ancestor, the environment of the African content was changing from a dense forest (the environment in which all great apes today live) to grasslands with isolated patches of trees. This was a challenge for our ape-like ancestors, and so they evolved in response to those challenges.

    {edited for poor jeremy's eyes}


    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    1. The ancestor of ape and man became ape and man.

    2. There is no drive to become man. It is a path that became apparent in hindsight. One of the many lineages that didn't die out.

    3. At the time of the evolutionary divergence of man there were changes in the environment. The environment drives evolution. Organisms adapt. Species radiate to accommodate new niches.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Warning: Off topic

    If it's allowed, I'd like to attack your first sentence. "intelligent design"? No. do not give them that dignity. It is not intelligent. It's creationism repackaged to try and shove it into our schools.

    Stop calling it what it is not. It's creationism. The actual phrase "intelligent design" gives me an image of the prospect of aliens engineering genetic data we evolved from. Or any scientist working in a field with genetic engineering. The fact it has been associated with religious fanatics makes my blood boil.

    On Another Matter...

    Do the first two posters not know how to paragraph? Offense or not, that's hard on my eyes.

    And On This One...

    Might I add that this question reminds me of "Why are we here?".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Bytes of Darwin Bits of God 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    the question is why?
    The answer is, survival of the fittest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    anyway. the game isn't over yet.

    We are just an intermediate point.

    One of the intermediate points.

    We have no way of knowing what will be the collection of intermediate points in 600 million years, except that it is for sure that none of them is man.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Do the first two posters not know how to paragraph? Offense or not, that's hard on my eyes.
    Is that better?

    Also, thanks to spurious for the important point that I forgot to mention - evolution doesn't have a goal or purpose. It is simply a population of organisms responding to the environment in which they find themselves.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Bytes of Darwin Bits of God 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    the question is why?
    The answer is, survival of the fittest.
    Isn't survial of the fittest a concept of mans intelligence, or are you saying that genes have a intellegence to know when to lets say grow a stronger beek in response to a harder nut to crack, that would be foresight as well.

    The standard explaination is the passage of time which brings about adaptation, if thats true then why are their apes now (or suppose desendents) why didnt all apes say change to Homo sapiens?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    Isn't survial of the fittest a concept of mans intelligence, or are you saying that genes have a intellegence to know when to lets say grow a stronger beek in response to a harder nut to crack, that would be foresight as well.

    The standard explaination is the passage of time which brings about adaptation, if thats true then why are their apes now (or suppose desendents) why didnt all apes say change to Homo sapiens?
    There is no direction with evolution. Populations shift depending on the environment. Some organisms are able to survive and reproduce, others are not. Those which happen to survive and reproduce are selected for. They are the fittest. Those who don't happen to reproduce are selected against. It happens at the population level.

    There are still apes because they have a set of characteristics with which they can survive in their environment and successfully reproduce. Being human is hardly some pinnacle of evolution... Not to mention that humans ARE apes.

    I think that covers all of your misconceptions... I may have missed 10 or 12, but it's a start. It's been more than 3 years since you began asking these questions. Please dear Thor tell me that you've spent at least a little bit of time educating yourself on this topic since then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Bytes of Darwin Bits of God 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    Isn't survial of the fittest a concept of mans intelligence,
    No. Man's intelligence elucidated the existence of natural selection. Clever rhetoric fashioned the memorable phrase. The process was always there.

    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    or are you saying that genes have a intellegence to know when to lets say grow a stronger beek in response to a harder nut to crack, that would be foresight as well.
    I am most certainly not saying that. I am saying (and one and a half centuries of biologists are saying) that if a mutation occurs that produces a stronger beak and a stronger beak is an advantage in that environment then those individuals having this mutation will be favoured. If no such mutation occurs the creature will have to make do with the beak it has. If the enviroment is such that a stronger beak is a disadvatange then that mutaiton will tend to be suppressed in the population.

    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    The standard explaination is the passage of time which brings about adaptation,
    That is not the satandard explanation. You have an incomplete and consequently misleading understanding of evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    if thats true then why are their apes now (or suppose desendents) why didnt all apes say change to Homo sapiens?
    Why do ones parents and grandparents often continue to exist even after you have been born? Really, if you feel you have asked a serious question you have some major problems to overcome before you can appreciate the elegance and truth of evolutionary theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    103
    inow, you say there is no direction, then why would it always lean towards the strongest, why not to the left, you assume everything they have taught you is correct, i assume nothing especially when it comes to theory.

    And that is why i post on this discussion page.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    inow, you say there is no direction, then why would it always lean towards the strongest
    It doesn't. It leans toward those who are most fit in their environment. Strength is not equal to fitness, nor are all environments the same. When the environments change, so too does the fitness of the organism.

    It's not that I simply "believe what I'm told." I've spent some time educating myself, and have found my position to be the most tenable, the most reasonable, and the most supported by facts and evidence.

    Your position, however, seems supported by little more than misunderstanding and incredulity. I'm going to remain where I am for the time being, thanks though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    ..... you assume everything they have taught you is correct,......
    That is really quite an offensive and ignorant statement. If you have received a good science education - which clearly you have not - then you would have been taught how to think and how to investigate matters scientifically.

    Incidentally you would also have been taught some facts that had emerged from others who knew how to think and to investigate matters scientifically. By sceptically assessing their conclusions and their methodology you could decide which of those conclusions seemed plausible.

    Therefore your claim that inow assumes everything he has been taught is correct is a foolish claim, born out of ignorance. You do not need to remain ignorant. You can educate yourself. Or not. The choice is yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    It simply means that it is far more likely for something to exist that can survive and reproduce, than something that is not as capable of doing so. Also, since small changes are most frequent, things similar to said things are also more likely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    inow, you say there is no direction, then why would it always lean towards the strongest
    It doesn't. It leans toward those who are most fit in their environment. Strength is not equal to fitness, nor are all environments the same. When the environments change, so too does the fitness of the organism.

    It's not that I simply "believe what I'm told." I've spent some time educating myself, and have found my position to be the most tenable, the most reasonable, and the most supported by facts and evidence.

    Your position, however, seems supported by little more than misunderstanding and incredulity. I'm going to remain where I am for the time being, thanks though.
    But aren't all enviroments challenging, at rest or in a state of flux, and as far as my misunderstanding and incredulity goes, sounds like i'am on tract to learn science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    It simply means that it is far more likely for something to exist that can survive and reproduce, than something that is not as capable of doing so. Also, since small changes are most frequent, things similar to said things are also more likely.
    Then why would this something even exist that is not capable, since you seem to suggest that existence is related to capablity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    207
    Then why would this something even exist that is not capable
    Because it may have been capable of surviving in the earlier enviroment.
    However if the enviroment changes then it may be unable to keep surviving.


    But aren't all enviroments challenging,
    yes, which means those who develop ways to make it less challanging will come out on top.
    just wondering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    It simply means that it is far more likely for something to exist that can survive and reproduce, than something that is not as capable of doing so. Also, since small changes are most frequent, things similar to said things are also more likely.
    Then why would this something even exist that is not capable, since you seem to suggest that existence is related to capablity.
    Because variation is random.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    17
    First I like to make it clear that I am not a creationist and I am not an Evolutionist. The directed (creationists) verses undirected (evolutionists) represented as two opposite extremes in their views makes them both questionable.

    I don't believe that all mechanisms that describe life processes in their origin were automated like they are now. Automated systems first have to be designed to be able to work indefinitely that is the living cell with DNA.

    New innovations in life forms that is believed how they emerged was just by tweaking the genes by modification based on random mutations. I see it as experimentation at the molecular level to fit new protein assemblies that will fit with the existing cell structure that eventually produces the desired outcome in the phenotype.

    No one is going to convince me that when life forms first came out of the ocean onto land that is was a series of random mutations and luck that may this possible for them. A lot of reconstruction took place for them to breathe out of water, not dry up, movement, sexual reproduction, new diets, and on and on this list goes that made each new accomplishment provided improved methods for survival.

    Just because science has not found the mechanism to explain the imagination and creative abilities that nature exhibits, the many strategies used in the predator/prey mechanism, the rules of behavior observed in each species group, etc does not mean it is all random accidents.

    We are basically defined as nothing more than a bunch of atoms that continuously react to our environment at the physics level. So are we to accept that a bunch of reacting atoms at some point in history came together and emerged a living replicated cell that purposely developed means in which to survive by accident?

    This definition is not much different then how creationists define it with a God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by barbara
    First I like to make it clear that I am not a creationist and I am not an Evolutionist. The directed (creationists) verses undirected (evolutionists) represented as two opposite extremes in their views makes them both questionable.
    That's illogical. On this basis, if we consider paedophiles and those opposed to child abuse as being at opposite extremes, then the views of those opposed to child abuse are questionable. I think you'll agree that's a pretty ridiculous position, yet it is an exact parallel of your argument.

    New innovations in life forms that is believed how they emerged was just by tweaking the genes by modification based on random mutations. I see it as experimentation at the molecular level to fit new protein assemblies that will fit with the existing cell structure that eventually produces the desired outcome in the phenotype.
    Such experimentation arises from random mutations.

    No one is going to convince me that when life forms first came out of the ocean onto land that is was a series of random mutations and luck that may this possible for them.
    Well, that is good, because that's not how it happened. You are completely ignoring the principle of evolution by natural selection. The mutations may be random, but their success at propogating is most definitly not. That is dependent upon their fitness in the environment. That provides a powerful directional evolution to those populations at that time in that environment.

    Just because science has not found the mechanism to explain the imagination and creative abilities that nature exhibits, the many strategies used in the predator/prey mechanism, the rules of behavior observed in each species group, etc does not mean it is all random accidents.
    Talking of nature's imagination is a pretty metaphor, but it is misleading. Nature arrives at its evolutionary developments blindly. Your inability to believe this is possible does not alter nature's ability to deliver.

    So are we to accept that a bunch of reacting atoms at some point in history came together and emerged a living replicated cell that purposely developed means in which to survive by accident?
    There was no purpose and there was no accident. You are misunderstanding the hypotheses of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution in very profound ways. It is not surprising that you have the doubts you do given this level of misunderstanding. I, and several others on the forum, will be happy to try to remove these misunderstandings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    It simply means that it is far more likely for something to exist that can survive and reproduce, than something that is not as capable of doing so. Also, since small changes are most frequent, things similar to said things are also more likely.
    Then why would this something even exist that is not capable, since you seem to suggest that existence is related to capablity.
    I said more probable, things that are not good at surviving are less probable, but still possible. Look up "genetic drift".

    Unless you are referring to non-living systems, these are more probable due to other factors (eg the laws of physics).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by barbara
    I don't believe that all mechanisms that describe life processes in their origin were automated like they are now. Automated systems first have to be designed to be able to work indefinitely that is the living cell with DNA.
    that's the first time in a long time that i've seen life's processes described as automated - it seems to hark back to the days of the clockwork universe and William Paley's design argument, and the reason why biologists don't refer to life as automated is because it isn't

    it may be self-regulating to some extent, but not automated
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Natural Selection 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    17
    Exactly what circumstances are you applying the mechanism of natural selection to be useful for at the species level?

    Reproduction for choosing mates depends on many factors in their environment that would allow them the flexibility to chose suitable mates. offspring obtain an assortment of good and imperfect genes in the package. Mutations that eventually become useful at the species level occurred many generations prior and many individuals already possess them in the population so there is nothing for natural selection to act on.

    By the time new innovations are observed in the population all of them have them at the same time and it would have to be the case otherwise there would be conflict in the population that could affect the group's ability to survive predation.

    it is not one mutation that is responsible for morphology changes to occur at the species level. This does not include the slight variations in traits that do not classify them as a new species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The depth of your misunderstanding is profound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Natural Selection 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Quote Originally Posted by barbara
    Reproduction for choosing mates depends on many factors in their environment that would allow them the flexibility to chose suitable mates. offspring obtain an assortment of good and imperfect genes in the package. Mutations that eventually become useful at the species level occurred many generations prior and many individuals already possess them in the population so there is nothing for natural selection to act on.
    Hmmm, do you have a reference for this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Natural Selection 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by barbara
    Exactly what circumstances are you applying the mechanism of natural selection to be useful for at the species level?

    Reproduction for choosing mates depends on many factors in their environment that would allow them the flexibility to chose suitable mates. offspring obtain an assortment of good and imperfect genes in the package. Mutations that eventually become useful at the species level occurred many generations prior and many individuals already possess them in the population so there is nothing for natural selection to act on.

    By the time new innovations are observed in the population all of them have them at the same time and it would have to be the case otherwise there would be conflict in the population that could affect the group's ability to survive predation.

    it is not one mutation that is responsible for morphology changes to occur at the species level. This does not include the slight variations in traits that do not classify them as a new species.
    you know, there's one way to describe pronouncements like yours : "you're not even wrong"
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Natural Selection 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by barbara
    Exactly what circumstances are you applying the mechanism of natural selection to be useful for at the species level?

    Reproduction for choosing mates depends on many factors in their environment that would allow them the flexibility to chose suitable mates. offspring obtain an assortment of good and imperfect genes in the package. Mutations that eventually become useful at the species level occurred many generations prior and many individuals already possess them in the population so there is nothing for natural selection to act on.

    By the time new innovations are observed in the population all of them have them at the same time and it would have to be the case otherwise there would be conflict in the population that could affect the group's ability to survive predation.

    it is not one mutation that is responsible for morphology changes to occur at the species level. This does not include the slight variations in traits that do not classify them as a new species.
    Natural selection only affects the frequency of single mutations. This increase in frequency is what makes it more likely that another mutation will build on that mutation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman Chisco1389's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53
    you should read the origin of species. Also this would help.
    http://www.amazon.com/What-Evolution.../dp/0465044255

    I happen to be a theist btw. I choose to believe that there is some divine force. Evolution is just the change is species over time. A trait that increases your chances of reproducing will be passed on and eventually be a part of all members of your species. Its like a row of falling dominoes they do not particularly desire to be standing or fallen. being upright is not inherently better than falling or laying. The external forces are just driving them to one state or another and they are just complying. To nature humans are no better or worse than a bacteria. There is no preferential treatment we are just things serving a role in our particular ecosystem. Why did humans evolve to be humans? because we could fill our niche better than others I.E. Neanderthals.
    Nothing is certain, but uncertainty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Of course evolution itself is a fact, although there is some debate about there being some more methods than natural selection.


    Darwin’s Garden…

    Look to the plants, they flowering in turn, and with certain patterns and colors, so as to gain the full attention of the pollinators. Or even magnolia with but plain white flowers pollenated by crawling beetles, for it first grew before there were flying insects.

    After Darwin sailed to the ends of the earth on the Beagle ship and wrote the Origin, he “retired” to his gardens at down house, and continued his many botanical experiments. These gardens were his engines of war from which he would lob missiles of evidence towards any skeptics—descriptions of extraordinary structures and behaviors in plants that were very difficult to ascribe to special creation or design, a mass of evidence for evolution and natural selection that was even more overwhelming than that presented in the origin, through six botanical books and seventy some papers.

    Then, too, there were the 200-plus specimens that Darwin brought back from the Galapagos, the single most influential natural history collection of live organisms in the history of science. He questioned the efficacy of self-fertilization in plants, discovering, by experiments, that the seeds of those that were crossbred were heartier (“hybrid vigour”), even that plants had structures to minimize self-fertilization.

    Thus, instead of the same old plant just repeating itself again and again, which was not the case in nature, evolution’s change could occur. His central concern, though, was how flowers adapted themselves to using insects as agents for their own fertilization. Thus, again, there were no direct interpositions of a Creator. God was not in the details, but natural selection was, acting over millions of years, details that were senseless and unintelligible except in the light of history and evolution.

    What had once just been a pretty picture of insects buzzing about brightly colored flowers now became a central and essential drama in life, full of biological depth and meaning. The colors and smell of flowers had been adapted to insects’ senses. While bees are attracted to blue and yellow flowers, they ignore red ones because they are red-blind. On the other hand, their ability to see beyond the violet is exploited by flowers that use ultraviolet markings. Butterflies, with good red vision, fertilize red flowers but may ignore the blue and violet ones. So, here was even the coevolution of plants and insects, as illuminated by Darwin.

    Now, if plants were to reach the point of reproduction, they first had to survive, flourish, and find or create niches in the world, and so Darwin was, too, was interested in the devices and adaptations by which plants survived and their varied and sometimes astonishing lifestyles, which included sense organs and motor powers akin to animals.

    It is then, the case that flowers required no Creator, but were just examples of nature’s contrivances, wholly intelligible as products of accidents of selection, of tiny incremental changes extending over hundreds of millions of years—and that was the ‘meaning’ of flowers, the meaning of all adaptations, plant and animal, the meaning of natural selection. Darwin had banished meaning from the world—in the sense of any overall divine meaning of purpose. There was no design, no plan, no blueprint in the world, for natural selection has no direction or aim, nor any goal to which it strives. It spelled an end to teleological thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    122
    Barbara I read all your posts your confusions are profound. This is not meant as a put down, but it is a statement of fact. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    Here is a link that may help http://darwin-online.org.uk/

    Also the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is a good place to start

    Zero
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Simple photosynthetic bacteria, the beginnings of us and all, appear in sediments about 3.5 billion years ago, only about a billion years after the planet was formed. These single cells were all that occupied the Earth for the next 2 billion years, after which we see the first simple “eukaryotes”: organisms having true cells with nuclei and chromosomes. Then, around 600 million years ago, a whole gamut of relatively simple but multicelled organisms arise, including worms, jellyfish, and sponges. These groups diversify over the next several million years, along with terrestrial plants and tetrapods appearing about 400 million years ago, tetrapods being four-legged animals, the earliest of which were lobe-finned fish. 50 million years later we find the first true amphibians, and, after another 40 million years reptiles come along. The first mammals show up about 250 years ago, arising, as predicted, from reptilian ancestors. Mammals, along with insects and land plants, continue to diversify as we approach the shallowest rocks, the fossils increasingly resembling living species.

    Humans are newcomers on the scene—our lineage branches off from that of other primates only about 7 million years ago, this but a sliver of evolutionary time. If the entire course of evolution were compressed into a single year, we would not see the first human ancestors until 6 AM on December 31. The golden age of Greece, about 400 BC, would occur just thirty seconds before midnight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    In their development from embryos, many species go through contortions of forms that are bizarre organs and other features that appear, and then change dramatically or even disappear completely before birth. Mammals like ourselves even produce a yolk sac—one that is vestigial and yokeless, a large fluid-filled balloon attached to the fetal gut, harking back to the egg-laying days of our reptilian ancestors; however, in the second month of human pregnancy, it detaches from the embryo.

    Our blood vessels go through especially strange embryonic contortions. In fish and sharks, the embryonic pattern of vessels develops without much change into the adult system; however, as other vertebrates develop, the vessels move around, and some of them even disappear. Mammals like ourselves are left with only three main vessels from the original six, these changes curiously resembling an evolutionary sequence, the first being that of embryonic reptiles, to which more twists and turns are added.

    This “recapitulation” of an evolutionary sequence is seen as well in the development of other organs: the human embryo actually forms three different types of kidneys, one after the other, the first two discarded (resembling those of jawless fish and reptiles, respectively) before our final kidney appears. There is also a fetal coat of hair that then greatly diminishes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Evolving from those before it, homo habilis, the “handy man” who first used tools, appears about 2.5 million years ago, and may or not be a direct ancestor of homo sapiens, but habilis does show changes toward a more human-like condition, such as reduced back teeth and a brain larger than that of the austrapithecines and it also shows parts of the left lobe corresponding to Brocca’s area and Wernicke’s area, parts associated with speech and comprehension.

    Home habilis, who may have coexisted—in time if not in space—with other hominins, including some that went extinct, such as the “robust, (As opposed to graceful hominins) being paranthropus australopithecus, robustus, and aethiopicus, as well as with three species of homo: homo egaster, rudolfensis, and erectus.

    Homo erectus (“upright man) was the first hominid to leave Africa, its remains being found in China as “Peking Man”, Indonesia (“Java Man”), Europe, and the Middle East. By the time of this diaspora, the brain size of erectus was nearly equal to that of modern humans, although they still had a flattened chinless face—the chin being a hallmark of modern homo sapiens. Their tools were complex. And they had control of fire—a momentous event. Homo erectus was around for about 1.5 millions years, disappearing from the fossil record about 300,000 years ago. It may have left two famous descendants, homo heidebergenis, know as “old archaic homo sapiens”, who first appears .5 million years ago, with a mixture of h. Sapiens and h. erectus features, and homo neanderthalensis, appearing 380,000 years ago.

    What ever happened to h. erectus, every h. erectus population suddenly vanishing, about 300,000 years ago, being replaced with “anatomically modern” homo sapiens? And what of neanderthals, who hung on awhile longer, after finding their last redoubt in caves overlooking the strait of Gibraltar?

    And, in the future, what of us?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Bytes of Darwin Bits of God 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    Watching a show rehashing the Evolution vs Intelligent design, question's surfaced. The tree of evolution whose branches stem from one seed or commonality, adapting to enviroment by process of selection to turn ape into man. the question is why? what of the enviroment that was so caustic as to imploy a change from ape to man. food theres plenty in their habitat, comfort they were already built to make the best out of there exsistence complete with fur and a opposable thumb. on a celluar level its called genetic mutation for the sake of mutation. if thats true then we as a species have some horrifing changes to look forward too. Just a byte of Darwin. Intelligent design, let there be this and let there be that and so it was each thing after its model. understandable if not for variables, dont see robin/finch see birds, dont see mammals/man see manmals, dont see fish/amphbians see fishbians in other words if we can manage to take some of the stuff we put in it all out of it we might see whats in it. Cosmological order fits because it envades the question why, but hardens to even a inkling of proff, yet the table of faith has four stable legs which are capable of holding your whole self, Bits of God
    Can anyone make sense of the above - is there an actual topic to this thread?

    The above posts are written well but are they relevent. indeed are there any coherent questions
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    It seems to be about whether God intelligently directed evolution.

    Many topics seems to get down to God or not.

    People forget that the notion of 'God' merely begs the question instead of providing an answer, for they just halt at that, suddenly accepting a much larger and more complicated 'answer' than they wouldn't accept in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Your inability to believe this is possible does not alter nature's ability to deliver.

    Lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    The Intelligent Designer

    In my imagination I approached a semitransparent theistic embellishment, rather well lit, who was holding out an eyeball—a shove of his hand for me to take note of.

    “Who might you be?” he proclaimed, “For I am the God of Intelligent Design, the one who was made by the signs discerned when the creationists noted them all, unlearned. Lo, they saw inexplicable complexity in nature, and, thus, they leapt and promulgated that nature must have a Grand Designer of its mechanical dance, for how could life have come about by chance?”

    I replied, “You’re right about chance’s stance, but wrong about chance, too; for, little greatness, if any at all, comes about by mere chance, especially as some giant leap in one bound up the sheer cliff-side of Mt. Improbable—to find on its top a great complexity of something like the eye that you show me; however, it is actually quite an error to suppose that chance is the scientific alternative to intelligent design, for that’s wrong and negative. Natural selection is the means of the design, for it, unlike a one-shot chance, being not in kind, is a cumulative effect that ever winds and slowly and so gently climbs around the mountain’s other side, behind the sight, to eventually arrive at the great height of complexity—from which we can then view the beautiful sights through these eyes anew.”

    “But the widespread Watchtower zines always pronounce that the biological designs were created by Me instead of by chance! Just look at these eyeballs—take a glance—and the optic system hanging behind them! How could that come about by chance, these gems?”

    “You, like your followers, may listen, but you do not hear, writing with untruth’s pen. IDers deceive by this wrong approach, whether they mean to or not; I give you reproach. Chance is not the opposite of nature’s design; evolution of the species through the graduality of natural selection is the path to complexity; your ploy falls as flat as an imaginary line. A flatworm has but an optical system’s spark that can only sense but light and dark; thus, it sees no image, not even a part; whereas, Nautilus has a ‘pinhole camera’ eye about as good as half a human eye that sees but very blurry shapes; thus they are examples of intermediate stages. “‘Rome’ cannot be built in a day by chance; chance is not a likely designer at all! Really now, could a 747 ever be assembled by a hurricane blowing free through Boeing’s warehouse of all the parts? Now is this the sum of your conversational art?”

    “No, Austin—it’s quite unlikely—’tis just to confuse, and that’s why we always so misleadingly use this 747 argument as the contrast to ID… So, then, Austie, chance and intelligent design are not the two candidate solutions we’ll find to the riddle posed by the improbable? It’s not like a jackpot or nothing at all?”

    “‘God’, your ID ideas persist, as repetition, but, again, chance, for one, is not a solution to the highly improbable situated nature, and no sane anti-creationist, for sure, ever said that it was; your tale is impure. Intelligent Design, is neither, a solution—because it raises a much bigger question than it solves, as you will soon see, in a lesson.”

    “Well, I’ll be darned,” replied the Designer. “Natural selection is a good answer; it is a very long and summative process, one which breaks up the problem’s mess of improbability into smaller pieces, less, each of which is only slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so, thus it’s reasonable as the product of all the little steps, of which, would be far beyond the reach of chance—it’s rich! The creationists have been looking askance, seeing only the end product, perchance, thinking of it as a single event of chance, never even understanding the great power of accumulation. Such they didn’t know much else—their fall, not having any other natural ideas at all, so, they outright claimed that ID did it, as the tree that can magically grow the all, namely Me.”

    “So, ‘God’, you have now seen the light of the accumulative power’s might; this is the elegance of evolution’s ‘sight’.”

    “Yes, but what is to become of Me, the person, for I only ‘exist’ through their speculation. In fact, the improbability of me is so high, and so much more so from where I lie so ‘sure’, compared to that of ‘simple’ nature, that my own origin…”

    “…is a near-infinitely larger dilemma, mate, for the creationists—the problem that they love to hate; that being that You, therefore, can only be explained by another, Higher Intelligent Designer claimed. Far from terminating the endless regress, they’ve aggravated it with a vengeance that is way beyond repair or redress—as beyond could ever be yonder of! Out west!”

    With that, the poor Guy faded toward oblivion, which, remarkably, which was the very location I was visiting, but, hence He soon reappeared, although in another guise, but quite well attired:


    The God of Irreducible Complexity

    “Hello, Austino, it’s time for more perplexity; for I am now the God of Irreducible Complexity.”

    “That you are, being the unmade all, and so it shall become your downfall.”

    “Eh? I’m never to be at all?”

    “Your believers have given you some fine new clothes: but, intelligent design is falsely based, God knows, on irreducible complexity—so I still recognize you as the God of ID.”

    “That I am is what I really am now.”

    “Well, Darwin said long ago that his theory would break down if irreducible complexity were shown to be true, and, yet, no proposal has ever stood up to the analysis.”

    “Still, here I am, Mr. A, alive merely by possibility, Myself indeed quite complex, even irreducibly, for I am the be all and end all—the Prime Maker, and so I keep tabs on every form and splinter of the universe, planning its every constituent that I designed. So, then, simple I am not. Yes, man, I am an extremely complicated system, yet I have no parts, for then my parts that stemmed would be even more fundamental than Me!”

    “Yes, ‘God’, if you existed you would surely be very very very complex, irreducibly so…”

    “…so…”

    “…So, by the creationist theory, such as it must be, you cannot be explained except by a Larger ID.”

    “I’m falling…”

    “…into the hole that they dug for you.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    The God of the Gaps

    Yet another Theity appeared, out of the mist.

    “I am the God of the gaps, of all those missed. I myself personally fill in all the gaps withstanding in the present-day knowledge of non understanding, albeit a very large and unwarranted assumption, but I surely do fill them all in—via the fiat lent to me by the creationist’s fine endorsement.”

    “These gaps shrink as science advances anew.”

    “And so there is less and less for Me to do.”

    “What worries me is not so much that you may be eventually laid off, having nothing to do, but that those of religion think it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding a quandary; enigmas drive scientists on—they exult in mystery.”

    “True, my believers exult in mystery remaining as mystery, and so they go no further, but, it keeps me from being history! They worship all these evolutionary gaps as being me.”

    “With no justification?”

    “We have a ‘Get out of jail free’ card—a vocation; it’s an immunity to the rigorous proofs of science; we just claim by the ‘say so’. All must respect that stance.”

    “You lead a charmed life, then, one with no faults, but you seek ignorance in order to claim victory by default, as a weed thriving in the gaps of science’s fertile fields. Scientists rejoice in (temporary) uncertain yields, whereas you halt all inquiry.”

    “I remain as a mystery.”

    “You’re the same God of Intelligent Design assumed—now known by a much more desperate nom de plume.”

    “I repeat that I intervene to fill the evolutionary gap. I even alter DNA.” (We could check the evidence for that.)

    “We researchers fill the gaps in the fossil record.”

    “Then there are twice as many gaps. Absurd.”

    “I’d laugh, but I know you’re not joking.”

    “No joke. Try what we’ve been smoking. Lack of 100% complete documentation of evolution means that I aid its motion.”

    “‘God’, that is not a good default stance.”

    “It’s an unknown happenstance.”

    “So, do we let criminals go because we don’t have a video of their every intermediate foot step to and from the lawless event?”

    “No, of course not, but we now have great worry about our precariously perched gappy theory. Also, you made a typo—it’s a God default stance, certified by nothing more than proclamation of our bull of decree covering all instantiation.”

    “An edict, huh.”

    “Why not, duh.”

    “It was also once avowed that an evil spirit, one that you yourself allowed to exist, produced physical illnesses, on us weighing, but, thank God—just an old saying—that scientists persevered, and still do, such as finding out about the immune system’s zoo—our defense against the non evil spirits of germs, viruses, and bacterial fits.”

    “Yes, agreed; that claim was dead wrong; take pills, but evil spirits still cause the nonphysical mental ills that are called sins and bad thoughts, even crimes of wills.”

    “Still trying to halt scientific inquiry, I see, for the burning. Mental lapsing ‘sins’ stem from upbringing, wrong learning, and/or low serotonin and such imbalances, needing cures, not to mention the many differences in cultures, such as other religions existing being a problem of stability, for people think this undermines their own belief’s credibility.”

    “Okay, I give up for now, austintorn. Be. Go on with your work, with my blessing, to discover important truths about reality, but some fossils are evidently missing!”

    “Only a tiny fraction of corpses fossilize; however, not even a single fossil has shown up in the wrong geological stratum; how’s that for absolutely no erratum?”

    “Well… it’s sad for me, but true. I’d still love to find wrong a few, like a fossil rabbit in the precambrian. I’d have planted one there if I existed then.”

    “Dream on. Lazy reasoning is all that’s behind these declarations of the irreducible complexity kind.”

    “Yes, but all this ignorance, for sure, of the possible steps of nature has kept me forever alive, allowing me to ever thrive.”

    “And has just as soon forgotten you, in truth, but for those sustaining your being without proof.”

    “Wait, what about an arch of bricks? (I’ll try to use this one as a trick.) pull one away and the arch falls apart; it cannot survive the subtraction of a part, so, how, then, was it built in the first place? with this insight I can win the human race.”

    “By scaffolding, the same as seen in evolution.”

    “I was afraid that would be the solution.”

    With that, the holely God of the gaps separated and nearly evaporated to become a discontinuity himself, but the creationists gave him help by holding him together with their last ditch effort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    (Yes, ‘gapping’ still goes on, it seems. When the argument first gathered steam, there were but a few transitional forms known, although good ones, enough for the idea to own: one being the bridge to vertebrates and another the bridge to flying creatures. But there are many more now, a wide range, so, then, it is the data that has changed. These ‘gap’ arguments were already down to the faint hope that scientists, as clowns, wouldn’t find any more natural explanations; but the finds were the most inevitable situations. Creationists yet remain at the pointward of not being able to ‘push forward’, so, all that’s left to is push backward, albeit at the firmly established fact words of evolution. Even the Pope concedes this, but tries to salvage the faith, and solve, by saying that the mind is not at all involved.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    The Deity

    Another God appeared, a mere Deity, (meaning no intervention, so he’s not a Theity), and thusly said, “Forget the Theity solution. I am the smart God that seeded evolution. It was I that set the whole universal notion and all of life’s evolution into motion; that was my elegant and foreseeing way of creating the kind of life that would stay.”

    “I thought you were all powerful; why not just make 20-40 million species all fully formed, as immutable as thee, along with their usable natural habitats, for this is how most Gods would do it? What energy loss could that be to you? Your infinity could all this in an instant do.”

    “I’m not so great, plus, since evolution is too stable for some creationists to scoff at, as a fable, they have assigned the job to me, the creator, as all of nature’s natural instigator, because, they must take retreat from the first ID God who zooms souls into humans at birth—it’s so odd. So, now I am not a Theity any more of proof and thus I must ever remain aloof. Of course now I have very little to do and so I am not much needed, true, for I can’t even muddle with their lives; they are all stuck now with their wives.

    I might really just as well retire, for I am superfluous and tired.”

    “Well, you’re still kind of close to our universe, not completely outside it, maybe, the place the worst, as I suppose your successor will have to be placed, absolutely, totally invisible to the human race. At least you made some basic primordial substance and foresaw the billion years of combinatorial chance, predicting every turn, or at least knowing that something neat might probably come out of it, which was still quite a feat.”

    “Thank you, but it was nothing.”

    “On the contrary—I say verily—you’re the super scientist, an engineer par excellance—the ultimate inventor of all time—much better than than the old God of ID.”

    “Yes, I am a scientist, making all that’s real—I had to be, but it was really no big deal.”

    “You’re too modest.”

    “It was just some little quarks and some electrons that I sparked and some forces that arose as reality was composed.”

    “But look what became of its simplicity—through its stages to astounding complexity over billions of years of circumstances; we’ve traced the composites back to simple substances.”

    “Well, um, it did really take that long for my intention, by some coincidence the same as that for evolution; however, I guess I’m just as surprised as you, frown, that when some examine substance and get down to these simple subatomic levels of unadorned things, that they then take a giant leap back, of all things, to the composite complexity of me, the ultimate.

    “Isn’t complexity a much higher product of combination upon combination, and thus not lower than simplicity itself?”

    “Yes, it would seem so; that’s a near empty shelf.”

    Then I suppose you’re some great alien scientist, odd, highly evolved from somewhere else, but not really God.”

    “True, and you, Austin, as a scientist, should seek what underlies the all, not some great complexity who oversees it, for that’s for what the theory calls.”

    “Wise thoughts.”

    “The best that can’t be bought.”

    “Well, whatever on the alien thing of it, but the creationists are not keen on scientists, for scientists regard the honest seeking after truth as as supreme virtue beyond all reproof.

    If they ever found out…”

    “Yikes, they know not what they have made me. As a scientist myself, I truly value honesty and skepticism over the dishonestly faked beliefs, those that only seem to bring Rolaid’s relief.”

    “The founding fathers of America liked you, although some of them, as thomas jefferson, too, were outright non theists, many seeing you as a Deity who just started things up, never interfering with reality.”

    “Funny how President Bush’s america sings, straying so oppositely from its humble beginnings.”

    “Not to mention that some the world’s peoples, really, are squandering their precious time worshiping a Theity, and sacrificing to him, begging, fighting, and dying for him, even threatening the world with its destruction.”

    “What a waste.”

    “Are you real?”

    “No, I am but a figment of imagination, see, but some really do like harmless old Me.”

    “So, what’s really fundamental?”

    “The real fundamentals, just below what you now call ‘fundamentality’, have always existed—the quantum reality.”

    “There’s perhaps no time of ‘forever’ at that level for your ‘always’ ever.”

    “True, they just are, and had to be—the possible, for a state of absolute nothing is indeed impossible.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    AN IDEA WITH NO HAIR

    I read something, but I lost the magazine; so I will try to reconstruct it… We were once very furry, but now have very little hair on our bodies. Most animals still have a lot of hair or fur, but for the larger beasts that ever need to cool a large mass. It’s warmer now, so even the naked elephant is no longer a woolly mammoth.

    When eats and treats were abundant, our furry ancestors could just laze around, not exerting themselves; but, when forest shrank, ‘We’ had to walk/run over long distances to secure our prey and food, and so some thick clogged hair all over would not do so well for us. Hair was thus selected out, in conjunction with the arrival of sweat glands that could dump 12 liters a day. We were pink underneath our fur, this turning to black in the hot regions. Hair on the head still works to ward off the direct sun. Via our new epidermal sweat glands, we could increase our body and brain size and exert ourselves more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    The God of the Agnostics

    I came next upon a God sitting on a high fence and waved to him, saying “come down and talk the whence.”

    “I can’t; I am stuck here, but salutations to you. I am the God of agnosticism, one neither false nor true. None of the agnostics know if I exist or not, so here I must stay put a lot, along with the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, just in case we all might exist or not, as a quadzillion-to-one shot.”

    “Why can’t agnostics make up their minds?”

    “My followers cannot even make or see probability judgments about the question of Me. This is the limitation of agnosticism, perhaps the error of no consideration of the likelihood of that for which evidence seeable is not even the least bit conceivable.”

    “It is a fallacy; what I call the poverty of agnosticism, because, although being agnostic is reasonable criticism for some things, such as whether life exists elsewhere, it is not appropriate for those things undoable for which the idea of evidence is not even applicable; however, actually, we can actually still talk about the probability of the event, while even going for a walk. The true fallacy, however, is that the existence ever and the nonexistence of you never are not even on an even footing to begin with. The two are not at all equiprobable cases. The burden of proof lies with the believers, for anything that we can conceive of can be claimed to exist, as that we love, such as ghosts, spirits, and such forth . Are we then to straddle a fence that has no worth? And, never seen. So, then, at the end of the day, probability creeps into the beliefs of the agnostic way, for in practice they end up in the lurch, not going ‘half the time’ to church, but mostly deciding not to go at all.”

    “Yes, they still decide that which is ‘undecidable’, for the fence is very uncomfortable and so, then, the superposition decoheres into the inclination of non belief—until right here the extraordinary’s evidence appears.”

    He came down off the fence, for he couldn’t exist and not exist at the same time. I continued on through the undulating hills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    (We can refer to the fence sitters as non theists, in order to get away from labels like ‘agnostic’ which might imply that the probability of thinking God, or not, is on some kind of equal footing; plus, that the fence sitters don’t really stay on the uncomfortable fence but usually… Go one way or the other way in life’s practice of the everyday, although some might go to church on alternating Sundays. In between, perhaps they go on wild picnics with their sweetie and drink wine and do all that ‘bad’ stuff that we can’t say here while waiting for some extraordinary evidence to appear. I will soon have a talk with old Jehovah Yahweh’s thee. He’s not so terrible as many have made him up to be, but then again he’s not so great either—he’s quite off, just another poor middle manager caught up in the layoffs. I spoke to the Deity, the God who doesn’t ever interfere in the running of the universe. The Pope doesn’t know it here, but a Deity is what he’s leaning toward when he says, then, that evolution is acceptable now for Catholics to believe in (no mind). The Deity guy was actually kind of a great scientist. I already met with the creationist’s ID God(s), who, while still a designer, is, well, not so cool at all, either, for he gets back to what the fundamentalists believe, and neither, they would say, did evolution happen, or, if it did ever function, God constantly stepped in to rectify its direction. I haven’t really begun to scratch the surface of all the Gods, though, for so many lie now beneath the sod. I’m only interested in the person-type Gods of monotheism, and I’m hardly even getting through those variant theisms that fight amongst themselves over Jesus’ divinity, or if there is a hell, or a devil and some angels about thee, and over so many more and other major differences, totally. Then there are the multiple Gods, now up in the millions, and also the many Gods-who-are-not-persons, plus the Tao, the consciousness and some way-out ones. There are also hundreds of long gone, ‘sure thing’ Gods, which I needn’t get into, except to wonder, and say: is that how the future will look at our Gods of today. I can also skip the many weird offshoots that persist, like those saying that the self is not allowed to exist, even calling it the ‘ego’ to make it seem so much worse; I don’t have time for these and other cult-level verse.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Questor, if nobody is responding please don't feel you need to fill the space up. This is meant to be a discussion forum. if nobody is discussing a topic, please let it sink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Questor, if nobody is responding please don't feel you need to fill the space up. This is meant to be a discussion forum. if nobody is discussing a topic, please let it sink.
    Amen to that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •