User talk:68.109.234.155

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. . dave souza, talk 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution and related topics

You may find it helpful to read Talk:Evolution/FAQ. . ..dave souza, talk 21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Evolution. - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but there should be some examples that we can see right now. At some point there is a situation where there is a mutation like the one you mentioned above. And according to what you are saying humans should speciate someday into at least 2 different species. If a mutatant develops a much more efficient brain would not they out compete the others. And why did not some dinosaurs develop speech? They would have had an advantate in hunting. Or why were they not 'smart' dinosaurs? We developed 'smartness' in only what 10 million years. The dinos had more time. Where was their tools etc. ? 68.109.234.155 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you assuming dinosaurs did not develop speech (communication)? Lizards traditionally are solitary animals, however if you have group behavior and hunting, such as with raptors; then indeed vocalizations and other methods of communicating would be very advantageous. There is no reason to think they did not develop advanced communications. - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There were likely plenty of smart dinosaurs; don't assume because they are extinct they were "dumb". - RoyBoy 800 :::::00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
We did not develop smartness in 10 million years, our predecessors were plenty smart already. - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
While again, you are assuming dinosaurs used no tools; let us assume they indeed did not. First to use a tool you need the ability manipulate small objects. The predecessor to many dinosaurs were based on, had claws instead of fingers... which were good for defense and killing, but not necessarily great for manipulation. - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
By "more time" you are assuming a number of things, that evolution is progressive and/or has a goal. It is neither. If circumstances do not encourage specific kinds of intelligence; or things are too competitive for that to happen, it won't... either for a long long time, or never. - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, a more efficient brain in indeed good; but it does mean two species would be the outcome. As I mentioned in my example, the more likely scenario is that one sub-species replaces the other gradually; and you do not see what is even going on. Furthermore, if the brain with double the neurons; isn't more efficient, and actually would take far more oxygen and nutrition than an average brain... if those demanding needs are not met, then that individual will not meet their potential and may not even survive. - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In my hypothetical, and in your question about dinosaur intelligence, I must emphasize there is no free lunch in biology. If you are smarter; great, but if it takes more to feed you than is available, then it won't matter. - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
the point is the theory is too encompassing. Smarter dinos should have out competed the dumber ones and within 65 millions they should have become more intelligent. and why did not sea creatures evolve in to whale types? much more efficient. do you see what i am saying?
Yes I do, and I see gaps in your understanding which is why you are continuing to ask these questions. First off Evolution is encompassing; that is the point of having a good scientific theory; it explains things. If it did not, then another theory would need to take its place. Creationists on one hand will say there are "gaps" in the theory; but on the other hand they will say it is too encompassing. While there are gaps in the evidence, evolution is a very thorough explanation of the variety of life we see around us, and how life changes over time in response to the environment. - RoyBoy 800 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, why are you assuming dinosaurs did not become more intelligent? That does occur regularly in predator/prey dynamics; I can virtually guarantee you dinosaurs at the end of their dominance were better adapted to their environment than their ancestors. Does that mean they needed to be smarter? NO. Evolution sticks with what works; that's why certain animals haven't changed much recently (crocodiles), while others have changed a lot (humans, polar bears). Just because dinosaurs didn't become as abstractly intelligent as us means absolutely nothing; apart from you having unrealistic expectations of what evolution is supposed to do. If a species is competing successfully in its current environment, there is no environment pressure on the population to become smarter or more abstract and talkative. A crocodile can kill a herd animal and eat a carcass quite well with the tools it has and doesn't need to talk or own a Rolex to accomplish that. - RoyBoy 800 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
As to whale types, that is a huge step and an example of radical macroevolution creationists propose which is simply unrealistic. For an ocean creature to evolve directly into a whale wouldn't make sense, since it can already breath nicely using gills. It would need to be forced into a land/marsh environment and that would be the environmental pressure to develop breathing like a whale; so that when water did become scarce (during drought) it could breath. Also there are far more considerations to efficiency than breathing; since to have that kind of metabolism also means more food. Then when whale ancestors went back into the open ocean, they were big and social enough not to worry about predators much; and could feast on krill better than they could on the coasts. Natural selection favored larger whales, again, to survive against predators. - RoyBoy 800 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You are still missing my point. I did not say an ocean creature should evolve into a whale but the similart structure and niche. Do you see the tautology. Why did not dinosaurs become intelligent? because it was not in their survival interests to do so. Why did mammals become so intelligent? it was in there survival interests to do so. What does evolution forbid? Sometimes creatures improve, sometimes they stay the same, sometimes change rapidly, sometimes not at all sometimes go backwards, sometimes suddenly appear, sometimes no precedents. Again smart dinos would survive better than dumb ones. OK how would you falisfy 'evolution'? 68.109.234.155 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really, but now your talking. Creatures do not "sometimes suddenly appear, sometimes no precedents." As mentioned previously, the fossil record has gaps, but given how rare and delicate fossilization is; that's hardly surprising. Falsifying evolution is quite easy, rather than coming up with vague objections based on misunderstandings that can be explained by anyone with a familiarity of biology and evolution, find one piece of hard physical evidence... one, that puts evolution and its basis in question. Find one species that doesn't link to others, also rega^

Precambrian bunnies!!! – it's everyone's favourite answer! ...... dave souza, talk 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a well known fallacy. Bunnies in the Cambrian is not a valid falsification. It is very difficult to falsify evolution because it predicts so little. And forbids so little 68.109.234.155 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
^rding prediction, that is entirely incorrect... you'd also have to invalidate predictions evolutionary biologists have made. Before we knew of ring species, scientists could predicted there could be a related spectrum of species on Earth merely separated by geography. They could predict antibiotic resistance and other things. On a more basic level, evolution predicted transitional fossils before any were found... as time has gone on, a more detailed fossil record has been uncovered, including transitional fossils.
I have a question, do you understand why creatures, stay the same, change rapidly, or become simpler ("backwards" implies a creature goes back to what it's ancestor was; that isn't entirely accurate). Do you understand the mechanism of change, how and why it works for microevolution and macroevolution alike? - RoyBoy 800 01:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As to tautology; creatures tend to become as intelligent as they need to in order to survive and thrive. Some have really thrived, such as humans, whales, dolphins, sharks, ants. There is no set level of smartness evolution is going for. You are ignoring my point about the crocodile. Circumstances provided our ancestors with challenges they needed to meet; those who were smarter met them more effectively than those who did not and there was an opportunities for our species to become intelligent. Those circumstances presented themselves (in some form) to dinosaurs; but not enough times to an isolated population to approach our level of intellect (isolation helps the population form new behaviors, and for intelligence genes to become dominant in a population over many generations, without a constant threat of predators; which keeps the prey population lean, fast, and little leisure time to learn nifty stuff like language and culture). If they had, we might be having this same conversation; but with scales instead of skin. It did not happen for dinosaurs, could it have happened? Sure. But again and again and again, you presume to tell me that they had more time and therefore evolution is wrong. - RoyBoy 800 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not how natural selection works; if you knew that, you wouldn't see it as a problem, but just as the reality. If dinosaurs had another 10 million years on the planet, would they have approached our intelligence, I don't know... the circumstances and opportunities had to be there. You seem to think evolution is progressing at a constant rate, why you would think that is beyond me. - RoyBoy 800 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I understand the theory very well. Again the problem is that it does not predict or forbid enough and is not falsifiable. Not so say it is not an interesting study. You have said sometimes creatures will evolve and sometimes they will not. Sometimes they will develop intelligence and sometimes they will not and we have to way to tell what will happen.

Lets take a specific example. The theory asserts that bats came from more primitive mammals through natural selection. Show me how you would falsify that assertion. 68.109.234.155 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't predict or forbid enough? How much is enough; that's a vague objection to one of the most successful scientific theories of all time! Indeed there is no way to tell how something will evolve; because many evolutionary pressures are ultimately unpredictable. Certain mechanisms, such as the predator/prey dynamic, sexual transference, mutations are understood, are constantly happening and are predictable in a stable ecosystem.
But then something specific happens that forces a radical change in a species behavior, in order for it to survive and thrive. Such as the bat example, where its traditional insect prey is becoming increasingly scarce and air born. If the bat ancestor doesn't evolve some way to feed itself it could go extinct. You can falsify the theory that bats came from mammals by looking at its DNA; and even by simply examining its body structure. Instead of feathers, hair, instead of thin boned thickly covered feathered wings, thin cartilaged membranes as wings. Also, the fossil record would have to contradict that as well. I mean just hold a bat in your hand, its like a mouse with wings; the eyes stand out as well... since birds are completely different. Those things are just off the top of my head, gotta go, let the weekend of good weather begin! - RoyBoy 800 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
One minor correction, a species never "stays the same"; it becomes stable. Even humans have continued to evolve; despite being dominant on Earth. - RoyBoy 800 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

""You can falsify the theory that bats came from mammals by looking at its DNA; and even by simply examining its body structure."" What would you see that would falsify?? 69.211.150.60 12:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If DNA or the fossil record contradicts it; then that would put evolution in doubt. Both give us a window into the past; if one of those were to disagree with evolutionary theory, that would be significant. - RoyBoy 800 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Again take the example of bats. Does the DNA disagree with the fossil record? What would we exactly see in the DNA or fossil record that would indicate falsification? 69.211.150.60 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
DNA matches the fossil record, it has to since fossils are simply mineralized bone representations of an animal's structure; which was created from its DNA. If you saw bone structures and/or DNA segments that didn't belong to mammals, that would falsify the idea bats came from mammals. If you want more specifics; read up on mammals and their characteristics. If a bat, or a bat ancestor did not fit that description; then that would be very interesting.
But I get the sense you are missing the larger point as you are looking for specific examples. DNA contains a lot of information from the past, human DNA contains similar and exact sequences from very simple organisms. And while the fossil record is incomplete, the very fact it is there, in many many layers going from very small simple lifeforms then larger more complex ones appear in more recent layers; these collectively represent figuratively and literally mountains of evidence for evolution. Scientists have cataloged 10,000s fossils and

species; and not one has been found to be outside the tree of life. (meaning interrelated through a common ancestor) - RoyBoy 800 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falsification

I think you are missing my point.

Again what would we see in the fossil record or DNA that would FALSIFY that bats came from mammals that existed before them. Just because things have similar parts does not mean they propagated each other. For instance if we go to an undiscovered island and find dogs that look like poodles how could we falsify that they were not bred by humans rather than having come about by natural selection? Do you see my point. Both bred dogs like beagles and wild dogs have much in common DNA wise but that does not mean there was not a breeding process. 209.101.205.82 16:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bred dogs have a very specific DNA characteristics compounded by humans thanks to inbreeding, which is a red flag of human intervention (artificial selection). Wild poodle DNA would have more/different variation, markers and artifacts it in (relative to domesticated dogs); so we could conclusively say they came from a separate lineage that had diverged from breeding dogs XX,000's of years ago. (see Mitochondrial Eve) So even though they look the same; DNA provides a great deal of information to us about the origins, age, variety of a population. However, over shorter periods (1,000's of years) of time we would have to rely on archaeological evidence in order to clarify human intervention. Because, for example, a very small initial population of dogs on the island would inbred out of necessity; even though humans weren't involved.
So the short answer is wild poodles would be genetically healthier and have more variety in their population that bred poodles. Unless, their initial population was very small; and/or there was indeed human intervention.
As to your direct question of "what would we see in the fossil record or DNA that would FALSIFY that bats came from mammals that existed before them," again, in order to falsify it there would need to be DNA sequences and fossils that do not fit with mammal characteristics. If you have an active gene that is associated with birds/fish/insects; you'd know right away something is wrong. If you see a fossil that is in the bat family; but displays structures not found in mammals, again something is wrong. - RoyBoy 800 00:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that animals bred by humans will have some sort of markers that those that were selected by natural forces would not?

Animals bred by humans tend to share a number of characteristics... they are more docile, social, (there are exceptions to this of course, such as guard dogs) and intense breeding (inbreeding) brings significantly more hereditary diseases. Those can be considered markers; also features that do not make them better suited to their environment are dead giveaways as well. (losing the ability to hunt, weird distorted faces, or large eyes to make them look cuter, but have no practical benefits, and actually reduce their eyesight) - RoyBoy 800 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Find a fossil in the bat family that displays non mammal structures? Then it would not be a bat. And what structure would not be found in mammals? 69.211.150.60 14:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would not be in the "bat family", but that does not keep it from being a "bat ancestor". The further back you go in the fossil record, the more animal groups and features converge together (shared ancestry), so any mammal ancestor could have ambiguous or non-mammal features if you go back far enough. That's what evolution requires and predicts, and that's what we see again and again and again in the fossil record.
However, if you found any fossil for any species with contradictory features, or with features in the wrong sequence/time period it would force a rethink on evolution as a gradual process (overall, that does not stop natural selection speeding up if environmental pressures increase) of shared ancestry. If indeed you found species who's fossils are fully formed with no precedents; that would be a big problem for evolution. If you have a bat ancestor with a U shaped ear bone, and the modern bat ear bone is P shaped... from what you have uncovered of the bat fossil record there will be gradual progression from U to P. If you find an X shaped ear bone in the middle; well then you either have different species of bat that happened to be fossilized with the bat you're interested in (assuming an X ear bone is found in mammals); or you have a big problem for evolution. :"D
As to specifics on fossil structures, you will need to read up on paleontology; or learn it from someone more informed about it than me. Here is a link I've found really useful for characteristics between animal groups. (section V: Paleontology) To put another way, getting away from the bat example; if evolution from a common ancestor was not true; there would be zero transitional fossils (or very few depending on your creationist belief). I know creationists passionately dispute every piece of evidence, especially fossils; but it seems reasonable to agree with fossils experts over creationists on what the fossil evidence is telling us. Discussing conflicts of interesting, and getting into semantics of "belief" or "who to trust" etc etc is simply distraction from the hard evidence in front of us. Evidence which convinces intelligent scientists with various religious beliefs that evolution can best explain what they see on a day to day basis. - RoyBoy 800 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I really think that very much of evolution is not falsifiable. If you read articles on paleontology and microbiology I think you will see that it is apparent. The hard evidence is not there. If you read more materail I think you will see that. There are very few or none transisionals for the whale and the bat. If you read the literature I think you will see that. And what is a 'creationist'? Is it simply someone who does not believe in all of evolutions assertions? 69.211.150.60 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't wash for me. Meaning it makes no impact on the discussion whatsoever. I've debated this issue many times, and I've seen this exact statement. "Very few or non transitional" fossils. Make up your mind. Which is it, non or a few? Why would I, or anyone else agree with your assessment of the fossil evidence? Do you have a basis, whatsoever, to say there are too few or too many fossils, and/or transitional fossils. This is a god of gaps argument, or a variation of it, and its overplayed and has no basis. So what if there isn't as many fossils as you expect? Does that somehow invalidate the decades of research and all the other evidence that has been uncovered, that without exception agrees with evolutionary theory. I sincerely doubt it. - RoyBoy 800 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then how does one falsify whale evolution through the fossil record? You cannot. Now that is OK. Darwinism and ID both could be said to be not falsifiable. Bat evolution falsifiable? How? There is no way. Really the fossil trail for whale evolution is extremely sparse. And it is against the actual laws of evolution that that type of backwards evolution would happen. The speed is too fast and in the wrong direction. Just answer this: I was told that the reason that dinos did not develop intelligence was that it was not advantageous to do so in their environment. And how do we know that? Because they did not develop intelligence. You honestly do not see the tautology there? 68.109.234.155 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
On one hand you say the fossil record is "extremely sparse", then you presume to know it is "too fast," based on what? As to the rest of your objections, I have no idea what you think is "backwards" about whales, or what/how in the hell evolutionary forbids it in any way! You are still coming to grips with how natural selection occurs at different speeds based on environmental pressures, but you actually think you understand other aspects of evolution without misconceptions or false expectations? - RoyBoy 800 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who said increased dino intelligence was not advantageous in their environment?! Please try to avoid using your misinterpretations as arguments! To more accurately summarize my explanation, in a competitive environment animals tend to be as smart as they need to be to, on average, to catch prey or not be caught. Everything we see about dinosaurs indicates they were in a very competitive environment, requiring claws, armor, speed, sharp teeth and/or extreme size to survive etc etc.
Investment in a larger brain and learning are very costly and wasteful investments if an animal is too slow and is eaten. (as a result of increased nutritional demands and weight, especially for young individuals, of a larger brain) I will reiterate, intelligence can be much more quickly fostered by an isolated population, largely free from concerns of predators. If those circumstances, or other such circumstances do not occur (there is no guarantee they will), evolution will not have the luxury of an highly intelligent population... because they will tend to develop too slowly to survive. Again, there is no free lunch in biology; or put another way, every advantage has a disadvantage. - RoyBoy 800 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Put even another way, imagine an Einstein gazelle with a brain 1.5 or even 2 times the normal size. How long do you think that individual would survive with lions and tigers on the prowl... looking for any individual that is slower than the others. Just because Einstein is capable of being much smarter than any other gazelle, doesn't mean its going to learn much from its dumbass parents; nor that its going to survive even one probing from a competent predator... since its large brain makes its head droop from its neck, shoulders, and indeed entire body not being well adapted to take on the extra weight. Heck, even I could catch Einstein and either teach him the alphabet, or kill him and put his skull on display to show how evolution isn't directed, and doesn't have a master plan of what is "forward" or "backward". - RoyBoy 800 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Beware, RoyBoy, our friend may have discussed this in depth already! ... dave souza, talk 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. - RoyBoy 800 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raspor

Just curious if anyone has ever called you Raspor here. Mr Christopher 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you are really concerned about the articles here. I think you have some sort of ax to grind. I will not be repsonding to you. This is disruptive. Good Bye. 68.109.234.155

Same city as the banned individual known as Raspor. Hmmmmm. Orangemarlin 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop it! Everyone who calls you on your unobjectivity is a sockpuppet. Nice try! 68.109.234.155 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I rarely accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. First is Raspor. Second is VacuousPoet. I was proven correct in both cases. Your IP address points to Parma, OH. Raspors various sockpuppets pointed to Parma, OH. Raspor edited on several Creation and Evolution articles. Raspor used an annoying habit of using multiple indents. Raspor tried to engage in discussions civilly, but rarely did they continue. Case closed. Please pack your bags quietly. Orangemarlin 23:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. I never accused Raspor of employing sockpuppets. I apologize for my error. SeeWikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor however. Orangemarlin 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems like the accusation of sockpuppets is often used against those who feel the

ID article is biased. Just look through the records. I think rbj was accused of being a Raspor and quite a few others. It is scapegoating. Who should we blame for that fire that was started outside the government building? It has been a power technique used since biblical times. Nice try. 68.109.234.155 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and fixed the header for this section. - RoyBoy 800 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)