John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Stop making appeals to science, or stand recognized as a hypocrite. On that other thread, you said 200% of published science was fraudulent.
Stop making appeals to science, or stand recognized as a hypocrite. On that other thread, you said 200% of published science was fraudulent.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Punctuated Equilibrium is really just one possible pattern of Natural Selection. It certainly does NOT debunk the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
That would be like claiming the existence of jet engines debunks the existence of propeller planes, or something. Airplanes would still exist, either way.
Natural Selection is NOT random change. Natural Selection is a NON-random algorithmic process.
Wikipedia references lots of sources, and summarizes it all for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
I have a theory: It is IMPOSSIBLE to build airplanes! My Proof: Jet engines exist and do not use propellers theorized in early airplane studies!!!
Does that make sense to you?
Lets cut to the chase.
How is a cabbage head jellyfish related to a walking stick?
many of you basically say i dont know what im talking about basically making unsubstantiated claims and stuff, yet you really offer nothing of substance yurself. You say just enough to be in the brown-nose camp with fellow skeptics, and no more. Hollow remarks saying i need to learn facts and other useless general statements. What a joke.
You dont have the answer yourself, that`s why. Lol
You are just guessing that God didnt do it, because you think that sounds like a myth.
How is a cabbage head jellyfish related to a walking stick?
many of you basically say i dont know what im talking about basically making unsubstantiated claims and stuff, yet you really offer nothing of substance yurself. You say just enough to be in the brown-nose camp with fellow skeptics, and no more. Hollow remarks saying i need to learn facts and other useless general statements. What a joke.
You dont have the answer yourself, that`s why. Lol
You are just guessing that God didnt do it, because you think that sounds like a myth.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Because they use the same L-amino acids and D-sugars as all other life on earth.
(Note to the scientists: I'm am using less than precise terms in the interest of clarity)
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
What kind of walking stick? Either way, I somewhat recommend reading this wiki page before even trying to ask for specific DNA similarities, if that's in fact what you're asking for in this vague challenge. You've not shown that you even understand the basics, so I'm not sure if you're even to the point where you can understand the information in that link very well, though.
Well... "What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is a reasonable stance. As it is, quite a few of the dismissals have pointed out where the logic that you're trying to employ simply just doesn't work, though. That actually is offering something of substance, which you've generally failed to actually validly refute. Rather, you just try to use the same arguments over again without actually dealing with the refutations.
Maybe for some, maybe not for some. Either way, you're not helping your credibility here.
Actually, generally speaking, no. Actually fact checking and employing consistent critical thinking to evaluate the arguments for a deity existing in the first place and arguments that are more specifically directed towards why it's reasonable to assume that a "deity did it" have found all the arguments presented for both to fail upon inspection. Thus, it's not because it "sounds like a myth," rather, it is based in that it is illogical to accept things without what one considers valid reason.
Last edited:
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Sour grapes?
Rather than spend so much time whining how no one believes your claim, why don't you simply provide evidence to support it?
Somewhat distantly. Both are animals, but they're in different phylums. Were I to spend time actually researching this (beyond a cursory glance at Wikipedia) I could probably give you more details, such as when each phyla is thought to have branched off.
Of course this question doesn't really "cut to the chase" at all. It's nothing more than a failed attempt at the Nirvana Fallacy. You're trying to find one piece of information that science doesn't have, and if you succeed you would use that as an excuse to discount all the information we do have.
Tell me, how would not knowing the relation between a jellyfish and a walking stick undo direct observation of evolution? If you had asked if we could show how ANY animals were related then that would certainly be a blow against evolution, but those SPECIFIC animals? If I show you the names of two of your relatives from 500 years ago and you're unable to say how they fit into your family tree, would that mean your entire family tree would be completely bunk?
Loonatic93
Scholar
- Joined
- May 24, 2013
- Messages
- 121
I would not say that "God didn't do it." I would say that there is currently no known evidence to support the assertion that "God" even exists, much less, had anything to do with anything.
Now the Goddess Athena... She totally exists.
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,016
That, and their ribosomal structures are virtually identical at the functional level.
As are their genes for energy production.
Their mitochondria are equally similar.
It's possible to study things in jellyfish and then know what proteins in a walking stick will do.
etc.
etc.
None of which would make any sense for created organisms. In fact if life were created I'd give the creator an 'E' or 3/10 for their molecular genetics.
And probably not much more for their biology skills.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
I'm glad you asked that question!
Take a look at The Hillis Plot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillis_plot
All animals are in the top left corner of the giant circular diagram. One of those many branches represents the jellyfish, and another represents the walking stick bug.
Unfortunately, I don't have a link to a good interactive reference that can highlight them, right now. But, if you took the time to look them up on there...
...you would know EXACTLY how related they are to each other!
And it would be a reliable relation, too. Because almost any aspect of biology you can pick on: genetics, immunology, morphology, reproduction, etc. can be mapped according to those same branches!
That is the POWER of science!
(ETA: The plot does not have time frames labeled on it. But, based on what I know about this subject, I can infer that the modern walking stick insect and the cabbage jellyfish shared a common ancestor over 500 millions years ago, perhaps roughly 510 million years, or so, approximately. I figure humans split from our common ancestor with insects about 500 million years ago, and it looks like the jellyfish and insects split from each other about 10 million years before that. It's a rough estimate, which could become more accurate if I had a better chart. But, the fact that we can find these things out, with even these sorts of tools, is amazing!)
Last edited:
I'd also given them very low marks for originality.
Why have so many similar species at all?
Why have lions and tigers and domestic cats? Or zebras and horses? It would be far more fun if they all had different numbers of legs, for example rather than looking as if they'd been modifications to two different basic designs.
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
Ah, a stick insect! I wondered what he was talking about, and if it'd make any difference if the walking stick was made from aluminium instead of wood.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Here's one
And I've even done the work for Iamme:
Ctenophora
Cnidaria
Euphasmida
I wasn't sure which jellyfish the cabbage head was, so included both kinds. Under the pictures on each page is a small part of the tree of life. Anyone who wants to can click the little left arrow on that tree to be taken back one branch. If you do that once for either of the jellyfish you get to the branch marked "Animals". Do it a few times from stick insects and you'll get there, too.
And that's how they're related.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Wikipedia has it's name as cannonball jellyfish with cabbage head being the aka. It's a Cnidarian so the relationship is:
Insect back to Protostome to Bilateria to Animalia.
Jellyfish back to Radiata to Animalia.
With a few ranked and unranked clades that I have excluded.
There are multiple ways to prove it. My favorite is that the genetic code is completely identical for cabbage and jelly fish. In contrast, the code for the Microsoft OS and the Mac OS are not; the latter were designed, the former evolved from a common ancestor.Iamme said:
The common ancestor was a minimum of 600 million years ago (ma), and likely several times further back than that. We can't tell specifically because prior to 600 ma we didn't have a whole lot of fossils, and none that are revealing of morphology or genetics (we have what are called chemical trace fossils, which are isotopic ratios that can only be established via specific metabolic processes). Genetic clocks work to some degree, but I'm always hesitant to call anything found from then a conclcusion, since anything found from genetic clocks is an interpretation, while fossils are data. Anyway, that's where the differences comes from--likely more than a billion years of divergent evolution.
To put this length of time into perspective, a billion years is several times longer than long enough for this to turn into this.
I study this for a living. I make it a point to offer professional and considered opinions in these threads. But this format is not ammenable to the types of demonstrations that prove what you're asking. I'd recommend "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea", "Evolution, Time, and Man", or any good university textbook on evolution if you really want to dig into this information.
Evolution is the foundational theory for multiple branches of science. It is going to take some leg-work to learn. Arguing on an internet forum will not suffice.
Well, since I'm not a skeptic I've no interest in brown-nosing with anyone.
Actually, no. I'm saying it because I've studied a few million fossils (no joke there; some came at me ten thousand at a time); because I've studied a few hundred sedimentary units (including spending three months last year in charge of an entire team doing so); because I've found transitional forms myself; because I've studied the anatomy for over a dozen phyla; because I've seen the genetic codes; because I've run the math, both by hand and by computer; because I've read those textbooks--and many, many more--that I recommended to you and verified as much of the data as possible myself.
God is not necessary to discuss life on Earth. Period. Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that (a priest told me recently that the church's stance was that evolution explains the body, while the Bible explains the soul).
I studied under one of Steven J. Gould's graduate students. I can assure you that evolution and punctuated equilibrium are compatible; we studied that compatibility quite extensively. Short version is that Gould argued for quick speciation IN TERMS OF GEOLOGIC TIME. Speciation, once initiated, requires approximately 10,000 generations to complete (well, most types; whenever you hear someone talking about speciation, assume they're referring to animals unless they specifically mention otherwise). If the populations reunite before that, you get a single highly diverse species. Even for a species that reproduces once a year, you're still looking at 10,000 years--the Holocene, in other words. A rounding error when you're looking at 10 million years, but in terms of human time scales we're talking longer than the entirety of human civilization.Elf Grinder 3000 said:
justintime
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
I have provided a link to my Unified Theory of Evolution.....that is going further than anyone here. It is in the public domain available to all and not just some selected group of people or masked in esoteric high flung dung.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...ory-of-evolution-work-in-progress-t29769.html
It's made-up nonsense that ignores data and isn't supported by any actual science, concocted by a known internet troll. It's intentionally provocative fantasy.justintime said:
Also, I've provided references. I know there's this myth that people have to provide links or it's invalid, but that's not a scientific stance. This is science; it's perfectly acceptable to provide the names of scientific papers or publications as a reference.
haibut
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 96
That link goes to a thread where your "theory" got filleted and then they banned you for trolling? Well, I'm impressed
justintime
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
You did not read the explanation offered for my banning. It had nothing to do with my Unified Theory of Evolution. In fact all 32 pages of it are still available on the site.
haibut
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 96
Your ideas got ripped to shreds. Tiny little bits. Chaff. I don't think a review of all 32 pages is worthwhile