I wonder if the button on those jeans is a licensed projectile?

The study of evolution goes on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22695914

First of all it is apparent from grammatical oddities and spelling errors that "Muslim Scholar" is likely not an English/American speaker by birth. Secondly he doesn't grasp the idea of proof very well nor of either personal or professional accountability (the last the hallmark of any serious scholar). Worse, he meets the definition of "delusional" very well. He holds a strong, emotionally reinforced belief that has no objective support for its validity. The specific course of correction here is to ignore irrational behavior and support the rational. If you attack him for his falsifiable beliefs he's going to build up stronger defensive barriers to correction. Just my 2cp.

Isn't it funny how these "intelligence"-es always seem to find beauty where the claimant finds it- how come we never here about the beauty of pathogens? In any case, it's difficult to ignore the irrational when it starts at the parking garage and continues all the way to the penthouse.

(May 30, 2013 at 1:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: Isn't it funny how these "intelligence"-es always seem to find beauty where the claimant finds it- how come we never here about the beauty of pathogens? In any case, it's difficult to ignore the irrational when it starts at the parking garage and continues all the way to the penthouse.

I've found some images of viruses to be lovely....

(May 28, 2013 at 2:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Wrong, I'm asking for non-sense mutations that lasted for generations!

Like my webbed toes or red hair? If a mutation is detrimental It wouldn't last generations, some minor mutations will.

---

non-sense mutations are not non-perfect organs
my proposition has 2 aspects
Members with non-sense mutations must out number all others and they must be found in the fossil records.
[/quote]

How do you make that out ?????? The type of gross mutation you seem to be thinking of is rare, and the chances of finding such an INDIVIDUAL in the fossil record remote in the extreme.

(May 29, 2013 at 3:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: So you knew the human body isn't symmetrical really (of course there's variations, yet more testament to this being a natural process and not having a designer behind it!) and yet you still claimed it was when it was convenient. Yet more dishonesty, I see. And yet, apparently, you can't see that this runs contrary to your own stance...

Do you mean that the grooves inside your ears or your fingerprints patterns will make a difference in your survival if it was asymmetric

Quote:A beautiful form... when just a post ago you were claiming symmetry is beautiful, and yet above you admit that some asymmetry is present... God you're dumb.

Yes it is beautiful from outside, but who cares from inside?

---

(May 29, 2013 at 4:06 am)orogenicman Wrote: Ahem. I give you one of the most common lifeforms on the planet:



Not a lot of symmetry there. Clue - symmetry is not a terrific indication as to whether or not a fuzzy sky daddy exists.

The example conforms my theory not refutes it
The existence of symmetrical species proves that it is a matter of beauty
Because God selected those species to be like that
while asymmetrical shape is not an obstacle against survival.

Wait............... I may be wrong
If you have an asymmetrical shape you will be considered ugly from female point of view and would not get many chances of sex, then your offspring will distinct quickly

---

(May 30, 2013 at 8:31 pm)Terr Wrote: Like my webbed toes or red hair? If a mutation is detrimental It wouldn't last generations, some minor mutations will.

I mean total nonsense, for example fish with a third leg on their back, you claim that fins started to grow into legs, why only the two bottom ones?
For many generations they will have no advantages till they are really functional, natural selection doesn't predict the future, so we should find fish with a third leg on their backs, or incomplete third eye that never developed into real eyes, etc.

Quote:How do you make that out ?????? The type of gross mutation you seem to be thinking of is rare, and the chances of finding such an INDIVIDUAL in the fossil record remote in the extreme.

They should exist in all forms and almost in all fossil record that we find, actually non-existence of many mutations in most of the species is a proof of intelligence by itself another proof is that most mutations doesn't go to offspring.

---

(May 29, 2013 at 11:57 am)Rhythm Wrote: Mads HOX/BOX handles pattern formation (in plantae and animalia, for example). Symmetry in life is a matter of division. The way it works is that one cell becomes 2. 2 become 4 - and so on. All complex pattern formation is built upon this simple scheme and so it's no surprise to find symmetrical - even legged (for example) things all over the place. Even in the case of non-legged things growth occurs bi-directionally, plants don't "grow up from the roots" they grow up -and-down. Even here, when we see asymmetry in action between roots and shoots the process itself enjoys symmetry in mechanics.

You cannot have it both ways!

If the process is symmetrical, every thing will be
It cannot explain the asymmetrical organs and also cannot explain which part is grown to fit its purpose against symmetry.

(June 1, 2013 at 5:52 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Do you mean that the grooves inside your ears or your fingerprints patterns will make a difference in your survival if it was asymmetric

Okay, look: you said that the human body was symmetrical as an act of beautification, despite the fact that you also knew the human body is asymmetrical. That's dishonesty.

Quote:Yes it is beautiful from outside, but who cares from inside?

Make up your mind; is it symmetry that's beautiful, or asymmetry? Because you've now claimed both.

Quote:The example conforms my theory not refutes it
The existence of symmetrical species proves that it is a matter of beauty
Because God selected those species to be like that
while asymmetrical shape is not an obstacle against survival.

So, basically, symmetrical species prove your point, and you're just going to ignore the asymmetrical ones, because... well, just because! You're such a fucking liar, "Scholar."

Quote:Wait............... I may be wrong
If you have an asymmetrical shape you will be considered ugly from female point of view and would not get many chances of sex, then your offspring will distinct quickly

It's not just that, as I explained to you a page ago...

Quote:I mean total nonsense, for example fish with a third leg on their back, you claim that fins started to grow into legs, why only the two bottom ones?

Because dorsal fins are generally used for stability and not propulsion, as the lower fins are. There are exceptions like the Sunfish, but in most species of fish the dorsal fin isn't a limb.

Quote:For many generations they will have no advantages till they are really functional, natural selection doesn't predict the future, so we should find fish with a third leg on their backs, or incomplete third eye that never developed into real eyes, etc.

Why? You still haven't evidenced your assertion; where is the mainstream scientific evidence for this assertion? Why haven't you published? Why haven't you even gone so far as to address the examples of nonsense mutations I have given you?

You're looking for redundant limbs, which would, in fact, be disadvantageous in most cases just by dint of being additional matter that does nothing; it's a slight downward pressure, but having an additional leg in a place where it can't assist in locomotion means you're dragging around an essentially useless piece of flesh that weighs you down, catches on things etc etc.

Quote:They should exist in all forms and almost in all fossil record that we find, actually non-existence of many mutations in most of the species is a proof of intelligence by itself another proof is that most mutations doesn't go to offspring.

Evidence, "Scholar." You have none. And your petty assertions mean nothing to anyone. If you're so smart, write a paper and get it peer reviewed; we'll see how far you get.

Go on, super genius. Show us how scientific your thinking really is.

(June 1, 2013 at 6:49 am)Esquilax Wrote: Okay, look: you said that the human body was symmetrical as an act of beautification, despite the fact that you also knew the human body is asymmetrical. That's dishonesty.

Quote:it doesn't matter if some are asymmetrical either from inside or outside,
Evolution cannot explain this, because asymmetrical is not a disadvantage.
While minor symmetry is not an advantage as well.

[quote][quote]I mean total nonsense, for example fish with a third leg on their back, you claim that fins started to grow into legs, why only the two bottom ones?

Because dorsal fins are generally used for stability and not propulsion, as the lower fins are. There are exceptions like the Sunfish, but in most species of fish the dorsal fin isn't a limb.

Mutation and natural selection don't know that, so some mutations (the same imaginary ones that turned fins into legs) will turn the upper fin into legs as well, then it will take millions of years till natural selection deselect them!

Quote:You're looking for redundant limbs, which would, in fact, be disadvantageous in most cases just by dint of being additional matter that does nothing; it's a slight downward pressure, but having an additional leg in a place where it can't assist in locomotion means you're dragging around an essentially useless piece of flesh that weighs you down, catches on things etc etc.

Quote:Evidence, "Scholar." You have none. And your petty assertions mean nothing to anyone. If you're so smart, write a paper and get it peer reviewed; we'll see how far you get.

I'll do that.

(June 1, 2013 at 5:52 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(May 29, 2013 at 4:06 am)orogenicman Wrote: Ahem. I give you one of the most common lifeforms on the planet:



Not a lot of symmetry there. Clue - symmetry is not a terrific indication as to whether or not a fuzzy sky daddy exists.

The example conforms my theory not refutes it
The existence of symmetrical species proves that it is a matter of beauty
Because God selected those species to be like that
while asymmetrical shape is not an obstacle against survival.

Wait............... I may be wrong
If you have an asymmetrical shape you will be considered ugly from female point of view and would not get many chances of sex, then your offspring will distinct quickly

---

Yes, you are completely wrong. Symmetry may have the subjective quality of beauty to us human beings, but it is irrelevant to the question of the existence of a fuzzy sky daddy.