Posted: May 01, 2012 12:42 pm
asyncritus wrote:
I keep asking your to present your case(s) which will account for
a. The origin of the amphibians from fish, specifically how a fish managed to get out of the water and survive)
You mean that all those pictures and explanations I saw offered by other members were totally ignored? Oh how fucking typical.
Try 'mudskipper' and work out why your question is idiotic. There's no fucking crocoduck. No fish just leapt out onto land and survived. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of generations passed between aquatic and terrestrial - try considering what might just have happened in that intermediary period.
asyncritus wrote:
b. The bats' echolocation system
Have you ever seen blind people use echolocation? How does that happen then? Because it works? Oh yes, because it works.
You do realise that bats also have eyes, right?
Let's imagine a species that was not yet a bat, but had some of the characteristics that would eventually survive in bats. It's diurnal. It flies around in daytime. It uses its eyes. There's a feeding period between dawn and dusk. A variation arises that lets bats detect the spaces a little by using their shrill cry... they get an extra 30 minutes prime feeding when all the insects come out. How selected for would that be?
Now, that's an entirely made-up story. It's not what happened in the evolution of bats as their ancestors were actually nocturnal, and terrestrial. As far as we know from the fossil record, they behaved something like modern day small insectivorous mammals; they hunted at night, they climbed trees, and presumably leapt about a bit in the branches to either catch prey or avoid predators (there are plenty such extant animals living in this niche to provide ample comprehension if you struggle). Now, a more interesting question might be whether they started gliding first, or whether echolation came first. The answer, as far as we know, is that gliding came first as Onychonycteris finney, a 52 million year old species, had some traits adapted for flight but lacked the inner ear structure we associate with bats ability to finely process sounds. Now, if you conceive of populations as plastic, morphous entities, rather than the platonic bullshit you keep regurgitating from the 6th century BC, then you might comprehend the notion that there is space for improvement here, and improvements are retained by having more offspring carrying the same 'data' that gave the edge to the parent. Then you have a cycle of positive feed-back - as basic echolation becomes more widespread in a population, other adaptations can arise that coincide with it. A good example would be the slow loss of the ever-more unnecessary eye.
The problem is that you have several notions in your mind that are just plain wrong. No, that's not up for discussion. They are just wrong. This is why you find it difficult to conceive of the answers to your questions. Recall that populations evolve. Recall that every single child is the same species as its parent, but that it may be considered a different species than it's great, great, great (x100) grandparent. That notion of species is simply the arbitrary line we draw around a population in time that has (ironically quite platonic) sets of traits, or characteristics.
The very notion of species is, at least partially, evidence of our human incapacity to comprehend the natural world. It's useful for referral purposes, but it's very damaging to an untutored mind.
asyncritus wrote:
c. The swallow migration
Explained to you so many times that I'd actually rather teach Elementary Thai students the subjunctive than try it again. You just refuse to process information that you ideologically deny. It's Morton's Demon.
asyncritus wrote:and now, to add insult to injury, the migration of the eels.
I'd say 'embarrassing' more than anything.
asyncritus wrote:Have fun, but do try to produce some sort of facts and coherent arguments. If you have nothing to say, please say that.
(If possible, please avoid the 'OHHH-MMMMM mutations and natural selection' reflex mantra.
This translates as: I cannot comprehend what you mean, so please don't use that as I will ignore it.
It's like you asking what 1 + 1 is, then demanding we come up with something other than 2.
You can't have it both ways, mate. Either learn the basics, or go bother some clueless people who might swallow the bullshit you're proferring here.
asyncritus wrote:
Unless, of course, you can present some facts and maybe fossils(?) to support your miserably undernourished case).
Aside from the dozens of pages that makes an absolute mockery out of this hubris, when are you going to get round to presenting some evidence for your Magic Man Magicks It case?