http://www.szgdocent.org/ff/f-lep2b.jpg
I posted a picture of this creature in another thread but I thought it would bring it to some biologist's attention and ask some questions.
How did this thing evolve?
I don't understand how it's genes could "learn" from its ancestors that mimicking a completely different animal(a viper) would be a good defense.
Doesn't this break all the rules of evolution? Genetically its about as far from a snake as you can get so how did it even "know" there was such a thing as snakes and that they were feared?

Hehe, if you were a small bird would you eat something that looked like a viper? Most likely you would fly away for you life! Mimicry for warding or scaring off predators is quit common in nature and does not violate the theory of evolution.

I'm not denying it would work, I just don't understand how mimicry occurs in evolution. I know there are many mimmicries in nature and they all baffle me but this is the most bizarre of all.
I'm sure someone can explain, I just don't understand and thats why I'm asking.
My knowledge of evolution can't fathom a species mimmicking a completely different species.
Ok so some members of a moth species branch off and start living a different lifestyle to their ancestors, their physical appearance may change to better suit their environment and so on, but, how did they know about vipers? What type of interaction would be required for their genes to start shaping them like vipers as a defense? I don't get it...

It not hard it just that one animal may kind off look like another by random luck of mutation, if this similarity in appearance is a benefit then evolution kicks in and the similarity is refined to mimicry.

Refined? Pretty refined alright! It looks EXACTLY like a viper. I understand what you said and I can see how that would happen with say, a snapper turtles tongue looking like a worm, but this seems a bit more specialised and unlikely to have just accidently happened. It really does seem as though the caterpillars would need to observe vipers and understand they are feared or something weird like that. I prefer to think nature is in control but I know this is frowned upon by fundamental evolutionists, so I ask how this caterpillar naturally came about? I still can't understand.
Also why will the cure to an insects sting likely be found in a plant near the insects place of origin? In case you don't know this is a common occurence, for example; often in an area populated by bull ants a type of tree who's leaves harbour a soothing juice that renders said bull ants sting painless will be in the area.
There are many many many little coincidences in nature that don't fit evolutions strictly business reputation.

Had to stretch a little for that one...didn't you..? (Amazing photghaph)

After publishing "Origin of the Species" Darwin concluded The holes in his theory, the....."missing links", were getting farther apart rather than closer together.

He would have abandoned it altogether, if atheists hadn't rallied around it as "proof" the bible was wrong at last, and pumped life back into it's dead carcass.....finally overturning the teaching of creation in public schools in 1925.

Yet another example of the "so-called" impartiality of the scientific method hijacked by a political agenda.

Although the theory of Evolution is flawed, there was a missing link.
The bible has hidden the knowledge of the missng link for over 3500 years......and science still hasn't a clue where it is.

I would have to disagree about that, but now we are go into how our threshold of to-complex-to-happen-evolutionarily varies. I have no problem with the moth evolving that level of mimicry by normal evolution... you on the other hand do

There are many many many little coincidences in nature that don't fit evolutions strictly business reputation.

Aah there coincidences! hence they are not a problem, just flukes.

TheVisitor,

Don't start bringing fallacies in this forum ok? Even if Darwin repented it does not affect the validity of his theory (Ad Hominem Tu Quoque). Also claiming the nature of those who follow has anything to do with it is also ad hom. Fallacy.

As for the link problem that has been solve UNARGUABLE by genetic testing which shows all life related and who evolved from what… we can even trace the individual mutations over the eons.

I still totally believe in evolution and don't think this adds any credibility to any existing religions by any means but I think it does go against some of the common ideas on evolution. You don't seem to be perplexed by it at all wellcookedfetus so I assume you know the explanation but find it hard to explain right now and I understand. But I for one am still confused.
Its a very strange thing to adapt. Its like if a caterpillar developed a butt that resembled a hand giving the middle finger to ward off easily offended children or something.

How does it know about snakes? You can say it happened to look sort of like a snake after evolving for a while and then it turned out that worked so it kept it, but it would take too much trial and error to make it look EXACTLY like a green tree viper, colourations and all. A viper that happens to reside in the same area.

Its like something people would think of to scare something away and the only reason we could come up with the idea is if we had a knowledge of vipers and had seen them and knew that what we were trying to scare off was afraid of them. Clearly caterpillars don't know this and I can't see how there genes would either, mother nature would know all this though of course.

No I just explained it to you in my first post... you just don't seem to see that a viable?

The caterpillar never knew about snakes. once the was a caterpillar that had a butt that look some kind like a snake (lets say it had two black spots on it, that all!) this deformity was able to make some bird not eat the caterpillar and as such the caterpillar reproduce better then its comrades. After many generations the mutation was refined to be better and better at tricking the birds... in the end it was so good it could even trick a human.

Ok, I guess that could be possible, thats what I figured but it seems to me that there hasn't been quite enough years in earths history for the caterpillars shape to trial and error all the way to perfectly resembling a snake.
I mean how many shapes would it need to try before it got the perfect vipers head shape and texture and everything? Regardless of how it came about it surely is remarkable, I am starting to think you are right but, as is often the case, the explanation is even more astonishing than the imagination. It still conjures up questions, is it likely that the evolutionary process we know of on this earth is standard and fairly similar throughout the universe? It seems to me that on any fertile planet the process would start out the same as ours and considering the similarities common on our planet, wouldn't it be fair to say similar creatures would be on other life harbouring planets? I mean in an ocean isn't there bound to be flat ray like creatures on all the planets because it is a natural adaptation to the sea floor?
This is hard to explain, do you know what I mean?
I've heard people say life on other planets would be completely different to our own and wouldn't work in a similar way at all but I'm starting to think it would be fairly paralell to our evolution with some minor differences on account of the events that occured.

Its like if a caterpillar developed a butt that resembled a hand giving the middle finger to ward off easily offended children or something.
But that mutation wouldn't be able to continue on. Sure, easily offended children would run away, but the other children would get angry and kill the caterpillar out of spite, because, "hey, a bug just flipped me the bird."

The problem I see is this. You are looking at the situation from the standpoint that the caterpillar is in control of what it looks like. That it has to be aware of its surroundings, and know what will work and what won't. That, however, is not the case. It is as WellCooked described.

You have an interesting theory there, regarding life in other systems. I would tend to agree with you, under the assumption that the conditions are similar to earth, with a carbon-based life system and whatnot. The thing people are grappling with is whether or not that is the case. The life in other situations could be based around a different element (perhaps one that doesn't exist here). Although, from our observation it certainly appears as though carbon is the only choice.

Amazing!

...more amazing stuff:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0920_octopusmimic.html

That is very interesting, Vortexx, but not quite the same as what we were discussing. Octopii are highly intelligent, and have learned that they can escape danger by looking deadly. I didn't read the whole thing, but did it say that there are numerous specimens doing this, or only a few?

I ask this, because I saw a show about a heron that learned through observation that fish came up to eat bread that children had thrown in the water for ducks. So the bird gets in the middle of all the ducks, takes a piece of bread, and flies to another area of the waterway. Then, it puts the bread down, and waits for a fish. There was only one bird they saw doing this, and since they can't teach eachother, it will be the last. It showed camera footage of it doing it too. Very cool.

I find it very unlikely that life exist in non-carbon bases form… well at least natural life, but hey that my biochem. prospective.

Don't you dare say there are other elements out there, because there are not! Well unless you mean qurktronium (the stuff at the center of a neutron star)? Ya now that I think about something could hypothetically live as strong matter... ya it would weigh a million pounds per cubic mm and only in a neutron star. It would also be very very small.

That was cool vortexx
National geographic news huh? I'll have to check that out more often. The story about octopai having a brain in each arm was fascinating too.

The only problem I had with the costa rican moth caterpillar was how perfect its disguise is, it still blows my mind, I know you are probably right but think about it, thats pretty amazing. To hit and miss its way to looking exactly like the local tree snake, I mean how many changes can it make in say a million years? not many, and it would have to try different shapes and colours to realise they don't work. So the fact that it has been crafted into such a perfect disguise is phenomenal.

(I know it doesn't "realise" anything I just don't know how else to put it, like I know any caterpillar with a bad disguise will get killed and good disguised caterpillars become moths and breed, but when did it go from being a good disguise that confused predators, to a perfect mimmicrie of a different animal?)

DrL+tV

just because you cant see something, it doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.

just because you dont understand something it doesnt mean it cant happen.

Of course, both of these apply to jesus freaks and aethists so maybe the bickering over who is right will stop. EVERYONE IS RIGHT!!! =)

....at least in their own mind ;)

I don't know what this has to do with the subject but;
yes everyone is right in there own minds, but the fact is there is a definitive answer to everything.

Now how about the costa rican moth caterpillar? Its pretty cool huh?

ok 3 moths
moth A = normal
moth B = looks 1% like a viper (by chance pigment change)
moth C = normal

bird comes in.. eats moth A and moth C. not sure about moth B. leaves it alone so now we have.

moth B = 1% like a viper
moth B alive and well so flys off to have children:

moth D = looks 1% like viper
moth E = looks 0% like viper
moth F = looks 10% like viper

bird comes in. eats moth D and E. not sure about F. lets it go

moth F has children:

moth G = looks 0% like viper
moth H = looks 10% like viper
moth I = looks 100% like viper

bird eats G and H
moth I has children.. all 100%

Dr Low comes in.. takes picture. posts on exosci :-)

its called: natural selection:D

...the endresult is still mindblowing!

another possible scenario:

we know that there are many moths with 'eyes' (fake eye decorations) on their wings. Not that many people have problems with seeing that this could have evolved.

let us just take it from there. We have the 'eyes'. The eyes are more efficient the further away from the body they are. There is a period of selection for this feature: the eyes are now quite far from the body.

The eyes work better with high contrast: The area around the eyes gets darker.
At the same time the survival rate is higher if the main body remains camouflaged. Hence an darker area with bright eyes evolves with a more camouflaged body.
They eyes also work better if the shape is similar to the shape of the head of a snake. We have a selective pressure towards shape.

in the end we have some finetuning, because the moth lives in a area with a specific dangerous snake. The more it resembles the snake the fitter the moth.

all these processes could have occurred separately and still be functional or they could have happened at the same time. There are so many possiblities that it is often impossible to tell for sure how an adaptation occurs. But it is usually always possible to think of several distinct intermediate steps that could explain the end-adaptation. It can be difficult though, and if a structure serves several purposes at the same time or changes function several times it might be almost impossible.

I think it can be agreed then that for this mimmicry to be so accurate that this moth must have an incredibly long line of ancestry, it must be a direct descendent of the first moth to ever have spots. That first spotted moth must have appeared at least hundreds of millions of years ago.
Moths don't breed particularly fast.
The amount of trial and error that would be required for this caterpillar to stumble onto a perfect mimmicry by chance is mind blowing. An almost infinite number of possibilities would need to be tried before you got it perfect because we know it wasn't aiming for viper.
It got the colour, shape and texture perfect and it even behaves like a viper.
All this developing due to random mutations occuring in new generations, taking what works and then randomly building on that again, taking what works again etc etc, is alot for a simple mind like mine to comprehend.
I believe it but thats got to take a HELL of alot of time.
Makes me realise how insanely short my time on this planet has been and will be....

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I think it can be agreed then that for this mimmicry to be so accurate that this moth must have an incredibly long line of ancestry, it must be a direct descendent of the first moth to ever have spots. That first spotted moth must have appeared at least hundreds of millions of years ago.
Moths don't breed particularly fast.
The amount of trial and error that would be required for this caterpillar to stumble onto a perfect mimmicry by chance is mind blowing. An almost infinite number of possibilities would need to be tried before you got it perfect because we know it wasn't aiming for viper.
It got the colour, shape and texture perfect and it even behaves like a viper.
All this developing due to random mutations occuring in new generations, taking what works and then randomly building on that again, taking what works again etc etc, is alot for a simple mind like mine to comprehend.
I believe it but thats got to take a HELL of alot of time.
Makes me realise how insanely short my time on this planet has been and will be....

what's fast? if the generation time is one year than a lot can be done in a 1000 years.

you do not need an infinite number of possibilities. You need eyes. You need a specific colour. you need an extension of the body. You need a change in shape of the body.

You do not need any new genes for this. Just some minor changes in the development of the animal. Some adjustments in the developmental regulatory networks and voila! Changes in shape really need minimal changes in genetic information.

Some existing behaviour can then be adapted to mimic some elements of snake behaviour.

I have a section on Camouflage (or mimicry) in Chapter 15 of God Gametes. This section makes reference to and “arms race’ that Richard Dawkins argues in The Blind Watchmaker drives species to adopt more complexity than would be expected by environmental pressure.

From Chap 15 of God Gametes that can be downloaded free from www-e-publishingaustralia.com

With camouflage we can again see the result of a one-to-one battle between predator and prey yet it is difficult to believe that a leaf insect on which even the veins of a leaf have been accurately duplicated, could be accomplished by an arms race. The Darwinian belief is that survival of the leaf insect relates directly to how well its camouflage can deceive predator birds. They argue that the copy of the leaf became so good because any imperfection could have been spotted and their true identity revealed.
It is true that many leaf insects will be eaten and thereby fail to pass on genes because a bird has recognised them for what they really are. What is difficult to explain is why the copy of a leaf on the body of the insect needs to be so good when its legs and eyes are clearly visible. Surely there could not be any advantage in perfecting every detail of the leaf when a close examination by their predator will certainly reveal their true identity.
But the arms race theory argues that the one-to-one battle between improvement in insect camouflage and the improved sight of a bird drove the leaf insect to near perfect representation of a leaf. For this argument to be true we need to accept the following:

· Birds that prey on leaf insects can spot even a tiny flaw in the copy of a leaf.
· A less than perfect copy of a leaf on the body of a leaf insect confers a survival disadvantage to one individual when all members of the species have poor quality camouflage for legs and eyes.

Even if we accept the above we also need to believe that leaf insects were able to create such perfect copy by way of mutation and random selection.
The Darwinian argument could only be true if birds were consistently eliminating from the population of leaf insects, individuals with less than perfect design. But natural selection has also driven the eyespots common on the wings of moths and butterflies. According to this argument a spot on the wing of an early ancestor to moths or butterflies must have accidentally looked a bit like an eye. When a bird approached it saw the markings and mistook the insect for a predator and flew away. So moths and butterflies with these markings had a selective advantage and over many generations an arms race drove the spots to look more and more like the eyes of creatures that prey on birds (such as cats). If therefore the eyesight of birds was so good that it drove the leaf insect to such a perfect camouflage, it is surprising that they mistake moths and butterflies for predators.
There needs to be some reason why leaf insects have evolved a camouflage far better than could be justified by selection pressure. We also need to know how they did it. Is it seriously suggested that selection is solely responsible for such an exact duplication? Did random selection hone into place the very last detail of vein of leaf so perfectly copied by these creatures? Or is Dawkins arguing that for some strange reason birds could not see eyes and legs but developed a healthy appetite only for individuals with body-markings not exactly proportional to a real leaf?
Even if eyes and legs were as well camouflaged as the body we would still have to accept that insects having a slight imperfection must have had true identity revealed to extremely observant birds, to be eaten, thereby failing to pass on genes of the flawed copies to offspring. Should we believe this did not really matter because in the broad picture leaf insects came up with a random mutant gene that mastered the design? Did natural selection then design a perfect leaf insect so over-zealous birds that memorise every last detail on the veins of real leaves could no longer spot the difference?

don't discount the 0.000000001% chance that a moth happened to have one really screwed up gammete, and the child just happened to have a weird growth off it's but which looked exactly like a viper. from 0-60 in 1 generation. Not likely, but always possible.


and for those tryignt o figure out how long these things have had to evolve this trait, keep in mind that modern vipers have only been around for so long, so this species of moth propbably evolved post-that.

There is also a 0.000000001% chance that the moths looked like this for other reasons before they found themselves living near vipers, and the similarities just allowed for another reason to keep the look around.

There needs to be some reason why leaf insects have evolved a camouflage far better than could be justified by selection pressure.
maybe the birds in question have eyes which are better suited for distinquishing green color differences than brown/black.

How good are you at telling the sexes of trees from a distance? does that mean anything more than you have no inherent need to do so, so you have not evolved the ability? I doubt it. If suddenly the human race had to know if a pine was a male or a female (say male began to seep sap which was deadly to humans), we would either die off as a species, or quickly learn how to identify the tree's sex from a distance. those individuals who were better at it would live to reproduce, creating offspring which are on average, better then the last generation. over a hundred million years, assuming no other evolution was prompted, we would have a species who doesn't even think twice about being able to identify pine tree sex at a glance.

If the leaf insects suddenly died out, I bet that bird would suddenly get better at identifying moths vs/ preditors, as they would need a new main food source.


And don't forget that often times eye spots aren't mimicing preditors, but are mimicing the creature's own eyes. a preditor bird will approch, and peck out the "eye", assuming that this will render the thing harmless. but instead of dying, the ting keeps flapping around, and maybe even flying, as if it was perfectly fine. What sort of wacked out monter can take a beak to the eye, and be fine?? It looks like a moth, but it must not be! Moth die when you peak out their eyes! I've done it before! I'm getting the hell out of here!
It's fear of the unknown, which is also pushed by evolution. Those aniumals who run away from something dangerous because they didn't know what it was is more likley to survive to reproduce.



I honestly wouldn't mind discovering that God exsists, and evolution is wrong. but I don't see any serious holes in evolution yet. You look at things deeply enough, often times the most simple answer to a "how did it evolve" question is just a conglomeration of randomness, sex, environment. Once you get to that answer, only a few more questions crop up. Once you add God into the mix, more questions than answers arise. And that seems to make it less likely for me.

as for the octopi - wow that's awsome!!

Keep in mind that octopi are exceedingly smart- my Ichthyology professor in College was doing his graduate work on grunter fish (they have two bone plates which they vibrate to make a grunting sound- can be found along the eastern US coastlin between NJ and Georgia or so (estimate)).

He came into work and one of his fish was gone. 'Stupid pranks' he though. oh, well, not a terrible problem, he had alot of fish to work with.

the next day, another fish was missing. Same thing the following day.


so he set up a video camera.

You'll never believe what he caught on the tape- the octopus that a collegue was studying, in an aquarium across the room, reached out of the fencing covering it's cange, unlatched it, opened it, dropped to the floor, across the room, up the table, opened the aquarium w/ the grunters, grabbed one, *re-closed the grunter's cage*, back across the room, into it's own aquarium again, and then *closed and re-latched it's own cage*. :eek: :eek: :eek:

If this octupi had not re-latched it's own cage, they would have figured out what was going on. if the octopus had stayed in the grunter's aquarium, which I would have expected (lots of food), it would have been caught imeediatly. But for whatever reason (patterned behavior, actuall logical deduction, or something else entirely (mayby his cage was the only one w/ the right salinity levels, and he re-lacthed the cage top because he had to un-latch it to escape, it was just a backwards pattern. no logic involved)), he actually covered the tracks of his crime.

astounding.

river-wind

>>> I honestly wouldn't mind discovering that God exists, and evolution is wrong. <<<

These two are not mutually exclusive. No sensible person would deny that evolution happened. The questions are “why” and “how” did it happen. It may have been because of a God or there may have been a reason (or no reason) that it is impossible for us to contemplate.

>>> Once you add God into the mix, more questions than answers arise. And that seems to make it less likely for me. <<<

You can try to simplify the big questions but by doing so you will inevitably come up with bullshit answers. You only have to look at our history to see that? I would take the opposite view. I do not think we will ever be able to answer the really big questions like “who created it” or “why is there anything at all”. God Gametes tries to answer “what are we doing here” and that is a very big question. I will be very happy if I have made a tiny scratch on the surface of that one.

From Chapter 15 of God Gametes which can be downloaded free from www.e-publishingaustralia.com

Displays

Deer antlers provide a good example to explain displays. The male deer has large antlers that in earlier stages of development were probably used for defence but have evolved into a camouflage to look like branches of a tree. Antlers appear to have been driven by an arms race and would now impact in a negative way on the survival prospects of their species. They are certainly a disadvantage when running, something extremely important for deer defence. Large antlers are only on the male and are far too cumbersome to be useful for fending off prey or help in a physical contest against rival deer. It is possible they still assist in camouflage but it is more likely they have evolved into a display.
Deer antlers confer a number of disadvantages outweighed by any benefit derived by camouflage or defence. But his objective is not simply to survive but to evolve greater complexity. His display is saying two things. Firstly he must project the image that his genes are so good that he has survived easily. His message says, “Look at all those other weaklings that do not have to carry all this weight on their heads. Carrying the heaviest antlers makes me the best. If life continues good, you get to produce the offspring of the best looking buck in the herd but if the environment should change for the worse, it is a fair bet that some of my progeny will inherit my strength but not cumbersome antlers.”
He is also saying, “Not only am I strong but you see I am in touch with our EGP (external gene pool). I collaborate with genes of many other species so can pass on good things to progeny, longer legs, sharper teeth, anything they’ll need to face tomorrow’s environment.”
A strict interpretation of the Darwinian theory of evolution would suggest that the long horns of deer or tail of the peacock is advertising a survival liability, not an advantage. To interpret displays as presenting physical features that confer a survival advantage is to assume that nature is guilty of false advertising. It is saying that these species have mistaken a trait for a benefit that is in fact a liability. We need to recognise that species that display are successful. They have been displaying for millions of years and continue to evolve even more elaborate displays.
Darwinists misinterpret the meaning of displays because they misinterpret the meaning of life. If they assume that the reason for life is simply to survive, they have to argue that displays confer a survival advantage. But if the reason for life is to evolve greater complexity, an individual with an elaborate display is honestly representing the quality of genes that will pass to offspring. If the doe or peahen want progeny to evolve greater complexity, be able to adapt to environmental change and have access to genes not currently available in their species gene pool, they are very wise to be attracted to a male’s elaborate display.
Displays are not primarily designed to advertise health or well adapted physical traits, but access to the external gene pool. In a changing world where species are programmed for greater complexity, availability of genetic resources will confer a greater survival advantage than a well-adapted gene pool.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
Darwinists misinterpret the meaning of displays because they misinterpret the meaning of life. If they assume that the reason for life is simply to survive, they have to argue that displays confer a survival advantage. But if the reason for life is to evolve greater complexity, an individual with an elaborate display is honestly representing the quality of genes that will pass to offspring. If the doe or peahen want progeny to evolve greater complexity, be able to adapt to environmental change and have access to genes not currently available in their species gene pool, they are very wise to be attracted to a male’s elaborate display.
Displays are not primarily designed to advertise health or well adapted physical traits, but access to the external gene pool. In a changing world where species are programmed for greater complexity, availability of genetic resources will confer a greater survival advantage than a well-adapted gene pool.

you misinterpretet darwinian evolution by stating it is about survival. It is about reproductive success, and if an impressive tail garantees more offspring than there can be selection for this feature, even if this means that the mail peacock is more obvious to predators.

spuriousmonkey

>>> you misinterpretet darwinian evolution by stating it is about survival. It is about reproductive success … <<<

Give me a break? If a creature survives it is going to reproduce and that is obviously what was intended to be the main thrust of my argument.

>>> … if an impressive tail garantees more offspring there can be selection for this feature, even if this means that the mail peacock is more obvious to predators. <<<

I don’t think natural selection would drive the evolution of displays that confer such obvious liabilities? Your argument is saying that there has been a big miscalculation here. That species select a trait believing it is an advantage; but in fact it is a liability. I am of the belief that nature is more clever than that and any confusion relating to this issue can best be attributed to our own ignorance and not of nature.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson


I don’t think natural selection would drive the evolution of displays that confer such obvious liabilities? Your argument is saying that there has been a big miscalculation here. That species select a trait believing it is an advantage; but in fact it is a liability. I am of the belief that nature is more clever than that and any confusion relating to this issue can best be attributed to our own ignorance and not of nature.

You are merely stating your opinion that an impressive tail is a liability. Reality shows that female peacocks pick the mail with the most impressive tails and display.

edit: if you do a search you might find out that sexual selection is a topic that is quite well researched and supported by data.

spuriousmonkey,

Good job, keep it up!

Robert Jameson,

God gametes this, God gametes that, look everyone I'm my own PR machine!

river-wind,

Funny, but what you getting at?

>>> Reality shows that female peacocks pick the mail with the most impressive tails and display. <<<

For heavens sake!! I know the peahen is picking the male with the most impressive display. But why the hell is she doing it when it can only confer a survival (reproductive) liability on her progeny?

>>> if you do a search you might find out that sexual selection is a topic that is quite well researched and supported by data. <<<

I address the subject of sexual selection in several sections of God Gametes. The following quote is from Chapter 13

Is Intelligence Sexy?

In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins discusses the evolution of human intelligence in terms of ‘sexual selection’ and ‘explosive evolution’. This concept is discussed in more detail in the ‘Arms Race’ in Chapter 15 but the basic concept is that there may arise in any population a sexual preference for a long tail on a bird, long antlers on deer, or in the case of humans, more intelligence. His argument is that there may not be a significant advantage in a particular trait but if it is selected, genes for selecting trait (and having trait) will compound and be expressed in increasingly exaggerated ways as each generation refines these features. Once a peacock’s long tail is selected, male offspring will have long tails and female progeny a sexual preference for long tails. For example, it is thought that the combined selective pressure of peacocks needing longer tails and peahens preferring them pushes the length of tails a long way beyond the optimum length for the species: (page 215 of “The Blind Watchmaker”)

“Setting wrens on one side, peacock fans, and widow bird and bird of paradise tails, in their gaudy extravagance, are very plausibly seen as end?products of explosive, spiralling evolution by positive feedback. Fisher and his modern successors have shown us how this might have come about. Is this idea essentially tied to sexual selection, or can we find convincing analogies in other kinds of evolution? It is worth asking this question, if only because there are aspects of our own evolution that have more than a suggestion of the explosive about them, notably the extremely rapid swelling of our brains during the last few million years. It has been suggested that this is due to sexual selection itself, braininess being a sexually desirable character (or some manifestation of braininess, such as ability to remember the steps of a long and complicated ritual dance).” 8

Even if it were possible to evolve these traits by way of cumulative selection we are as well asked to believe that species are programmed to select for characteristics that impact in such a negative way, on their chance of survival. There is little doubt that the tail of a peacock is beautiful so it is possible that the peahen may decide to mate with the male with the most impressive display purely on aesthetic grounds. But if survival of the fittest is driving the evolution of species, there is no escaping the conclusion that genes for growing a long tail and also for preferring a long tail would soon be lost because of the unjustifiably high costs they impose.
It is also difficult to believe that human intelligence evolved because our ancestors needed to remember the steps of a dance. This overlooks the fact that greater brain volume could never outweigh the numerous other physical and social costs this evolutionary course has imposed on our species.
More importantly though, it makes the completely false assumption that dance is related to intelligence. Dance is an expression of emotion and an artistic display of body movements that has little to do with remembering steps. It is possible that academics who spend the bulk of their lives closeted on university campuses may come to think that braininess is sexy but it is doubtful if this view is shared by the outside world. The music industry makes billions of dollars promoting sex and dance and there is little evidence to suggest they are interested in presenting popular ‘body movers’ as intelligent. If the promoter of some future rock star were to later discover that his ‘body shaker’ was not just sexy but also intelligent, it would likely be regarded as an unfortunate oversight to destroy his career if made public.
There seems little evidence to suggest that society has ever regarded intelligence as sexy. If being able to dance were driving our evolution, emotional expression and a good sense of rhythm might well have been caught up in a spiral of explosive evolution, not intelligence. Mastering the theory of relativity or designing microchips is not sexy. Darwinists need to come up with a far better explanation than ‘remembering steps of a dance’ to explain the rapid evolution of our human brain.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
For heavens sake!! I know the peahen is picking the male with the most impressive display. But why the hell is she doing it when it can only confer a survival (reproductive) liability on her progeny?



An explanation is that she is picking a male who is apparently fit. It doesn't matter to her progeny that the males are more obvious to predators. The female progeny is not and her male progeny has a better change to reproduce if they have a more impressive display. The female peacocks favour impressive displays after all. There is a balance better being obvious to predators and higher succes rate of mating for the males. A male can be perfectly camouflaged and teriibly fit in that sense, but if all females favour more colourful males than the evolutionary fitness is absolutely zero.
Also a male that can survive while being conspicuous is obviously in prime condition or extremely lucky. A prime candidate for any peahen


edit: and for intelligence as an example of sexual selection in humans. That is Dawkins problem. There are obviously simpler ways to explain the development of intelligence during human evolution.

>>> An explanation is that she is picking a male who is apparently fit. It doesn't matter to her progeny that the males are more obvious to predators. The female progeny is not and her male progeny has a better change to reproduce if they have a more impressive display. The female peacocks favour impressive displays after all. There is a balance better being obvious to predators and higher succes rate of mating for the males. A male can be perfectly camouflaged and teriibly fit in that sense, but if all females favour more colourful males than the evolutionary fitness is absolutely zero. <<<

I do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Robert, spurious is saying that a peacock can be camouflaged well, without the impressive display to attract mate, and improve his chances against predation. However, when it comes to mating, and passing on his traits, he will be overlooked by the peahens, who are looking for the impressive tail feathers. This leaves him in a bad position as far as evolution is concerned.

Again; that assumes the peahens are recognising the peacock’s display as an advantage when it is obviously a liability. Either the peahen is mistaken or we are incorrect in thinking that a successful species would consistently be making such a fundamental mistake. My money says that mother nature knows what she is doing and the Darwinian theory of natural selection has got it wrong.

The arms race also applies to species that do not reproduce sexually. The following is a quote from Chapter 15 of God Gametes that can be downloaded free from www.e-publishingaustralia.com


Height of Trees:

There is another problem with the arms race theory. It can be correctly argued that natural selection will put a sudden break on an animal species less well adapted than a rival. If there is limited food supply it is easy to see how ‘survival of the fittest’ ensures that only the best adapted genes are passed down to future generations. A hungry animal will scavenge for the last morsel of available food in its territory and thereby deny a living to a less well-adapted rival. A cheetah that cannot kill a gazelle will starve. And a gazelle only needs to lose one battle to be eliminated. The survival of the fittest model however, does not fit so well when applied to trees.
Dawkins argues that the height of trees has been pushed up because of competition for sunlight. Yet sunlight is not a finite resource. It is true that a heavy forest canopy effectively shades light from shorter trees yet we need to ask if this is the sole reason trees continue to ‘push up’. Most forests do not have canopies that block all light and it is unlikely that trees shade out light in a territory from competitors in the same way animals can deprive rivals of food. The struggle for light can seldom be compared to the life or death struggle between animals when one seldom has a second chance.
Most tall trees have only a slight advantage over the smaller and there is still enough light for many species to survive on the forest floor. We must also remember that the tall trees need to reproduce from ground level and if they shaded out all light they would prevent regeneration of their own species.
Trees would have evolved in an environment where there was only a slight difference in height and amount of sunlight. Taller trees would have gained a little light, something not in short supply and never has been. When both taller and shorter trees were at or below optimum height, the taller would be healthier and produce more seeds but shorter trees would certainly live long enough to produce the seeds needed to ensure their genes were passed on and would be less inclined to suffer storm damage, their newest growth being less exposed. As taller trees get taller however, they pay a higher price so the cost would soon outweigh the slight advantage received by capturing slightly more light.
The point here is that smaller trees would have lost the first round when all trees were shorter but when taller, the smaller is favoured.
With animals, the arms race theory correctly predicts that it would not matter if a species could win the second race for only the first is important. But this seldom applies to trees. The giant sequoias in the west of the United States live more than 3,000 years. Even if shorter trees do not live as long, they still live for many centuries, certainly long enough to carry forward genes for less tall and even more efficient trees. Genes for a more economical height have always been present. There has not been a selective process eliminating trees that lost the race for the last available light photon.
God Gametes does not claim to know why some forests grow taller than optimum height. Presumably the 90 meters to which the sequoias grow is not economical and this poses a problem for Darwinism. It is suggested they have been forced to grow taller than efficient by an arms race yet are in fact a very successful species. The theory of natural selection cannot explain why they live longer than most trees not caught up in an arms race, trees free to grow to their optimum height.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
My money says that mother nature knows what she is doing and the Darwinian theory of natural selection has got it wrong
Really? Is that what you have been saying?
You could have been clearer, with all the god gametes this and that I struggled to see what you were trying to say.

You know, I used to be 99% sure this was the case, that mother nature was in control and the planet earth was a living being that activated species for a purpose and so on. I also believed when we die we become one with the earth and so in a way our second life is actually being earth along with the rest of physical history.

Now I'm not so sure. I'm 50-50 at this stage.
I do favour that theory because it makes this coldly logical universe seem prettier but I try not to let that sway my judgements.

The people here have taught me alot and I am starting to see how it is possible that this is all random.
When I made this thread the point I was trying to make was that it seemed mother nature was in control and that it was aiming for viper when it "activated" deformities in the caterpillar's genes.
I've seen some pretty good retorts to that possibility though.
None have made it seem absolutely impossible, just not necasarily the case.

I find it strange how nature is a web of efficiency, so genius are all the little coincidences that make it all tie together that it is easy to feel like earth knows what its doing.

Every single species in an area is keeping all the other species in that area alive in some direct or indirect way. Its truely amazing.
The oceans plankton moderators(whales, anemone's, etc) are keeping all life on land alive and if it weren't for histories plankton moderators that fish could have never crawled out of the ocean in the first place. 70% of earths oxygen is produced by plankton, once it would have been a hundred percent because I think plankton came before tree's even, if it didn't get preyed upon, it couldn't have stayed around this long( Just like we won't stay around for long because we don't get preyed on but that comes later).

More plankton moderators have arised since then and how very lucky, if the whales ancestors didn't go back to the ocean and get to work on the plankton there is no way earth could have provided enough oxygen for six billion humans. What guided the whales ancestors to go into the ocean? Well there is a lot of very logical explanations but there is also the zany idea that earth was preparing herself for the homo-sapien invasion. Guiding her history by playing around with the instincts of individuals. Mind-control if you will. But only controlling the subconcious. Things are born with their instincts and they must change over generations for anything to change. I think earth might be somehow doing that.

This is really hard for me to explain for some reason and it appears difficult for you too jameson.
I will cut to the chase.
My theory on why humans are here which alot of people here are probably sick of;)

I think humans were a "procedure" activated by mother nature on purpose. For whatever reason it was time for a change and we are altering this globe like nothing else in history. Alterations have occurred before but humans are a new shinier ice age of sorts.

Now mother nature used her mind control techniques and ingrained instructions into our instincts; "Destroy and alter me, while in the process killing yourself off as quickly as possible", and we like the servants we are, got to work. We will allow for new species when we are gone, very different ones that will be perfectly adapted to our ruins.

The whale just likes to eat plankton and play and dream, it just so happens that it is also helping the planet breathe, we like to progress and build and make ourselves comfortable and so on and so forth, it just so happens that that drastically alters the earths environment and will inevitably render us extinct relatively prematurely. It seems to me that earth can judge what consequences will be reached by making animals want to do things.

Fairly accurately, notice the sudden influx of environmentalists? They didn't used to exist, at all. I believe earth might have got a little worried and "implanted" environmental awareness into the brains of some individuals to slow down the process of our alterations. Make us aware of what the consequences of our actions could be. Now environmentalists aren't necasarrily more intelligent than other people but why do they notice these dangers and none of the genius' of history did? Its almost like we only notice what earth allows us too.

I also think maybe the bible was "inspired by god" like all the fanatics think. Inspired in the sense, environmentalists were suddenly "inspired". But earth never said it wasn't allowed to lie. The bible was a trick to boost us into the "alteration direction", the morals and values it teaches are flagrantly setting us up for a short lifespan as a species and telling us we are more important than earth. The things it says are "wrong" are righter than right in reality. Killing eachother is "right" for an efficient planet to stay basically the same. Treating every member of your species as a brother or "member of your clan" is very wrong if a balance is to be kept. Why does the bible contradict nature so damn much? It tells us to do the opposite of what everything else is doing, the opposite of what the animals that are keeping this globe spinning are doing.

Earth set the instincts of humans back then to think like that to start these alterations. Looking after every member of your species is a good way to become overpopulated and overpopulation is a good way to alter the earth. Especially when accompanied by the ability to alter which grew from sharing knowledge with members outside of our family clan.

So yes I think humans are a procedure similar to pruning the leaves on a tree or a forest fire. We will allow for new life and the nature of evolution is to make creatures more and more efficient. By killing lots of animals like we have we will be helping their species evolve.

We didn't quite render whales extinct did we? For a long time no one cared, whales were thought of as mindless hunks of floating resources, but the environmentalists were activated just in time, now the whales have the ability to become even better at survival than they are now because of the inbreeding that will undoubtedly occur due to their lack of numbers, thus making deformities, some of which that will be beneficial and built upon until new more efficient whale species emerge. By that time our task will be over and the memory of humans will be circulating around the new food chain. A food chain that was bettered by our actions.

No matter what the truth is, earths history is a strange tale, filled with mind boggling coincidences, and genius links and events.
Science fiction seems so bush league compared to the story of this planet we live on.

Dr Lou Natic,

I read your post and thought it very good. I will make a couple of brief comments now but it is late here (down under) so I will look at it again tomorrow.

>>> I think humans were a "procedure" activated by mother nature on purpose <<<

On purpose but for what purpose. You need a “how” and “why”. That was the beauty of Darwin’s theory. I do not agree with it but he appeared to have a model that explained the how and why and that is no doubt why he was so successful. (Apart from the fact that he was from a wealthy family and had influential friends that helped promote his concept.)

>>> Now mother nature used her mind control techniques and ingrained instructions into our instincts; <<<

I will go along with that. But who is mother nature and why is she doing it?

>>> "Destroy and alter me, while in the process killing yourself off as quickly as possible", and we like the servants we are, got to work. We will allow for new species when we are gone, very different ones that will be perfectly adapted to our ruins. <<<

Why would mother nature give us the instincts to create a complex society just to kill it off?

>>> I also think maybe the bible was "inspired by god" like all the fanatics think. <<<

If you are interested in theology then Chapter 18 of God Gametes is on Eastern Mythology and Chapter 19 on Christianity.

Robert:

that assumes the peahens are recognising the peacock’s display as an advantage when it is obviously a liability.
You haven't explained why it is an obvious liability. I don't see it as such. It could also be that this is a selective breeding done by humans. Peacocks have been kept in gardens of the wealthy for quite some time, where they are not subject to predation. Also, the people who tend them are likely to have chosen the birds that looked the best in order to impress their guests. A bit of behavioural evolution, and we have females that favour the more lavishly plumaged individuals.
The arms race also applies to species that do not reproduce sexually. The following is a quote from Chapter 15 of God Gametes that can be downloaded free from www.e-publishingaustralia.com


Height of Trees:
I don't know if those were intended as separate statements or not, but trees reproduce sexually.

In response to the tree paragraphs:
We must also remember that the tall trees need to reproduce from ground level and if they shaded out all light they would prevent regeneration of their own species.
Yes and no. There is light that gets through, but you must realize, which I'm certain you do, that the energy requirements are very little at the early stages in comparison. Also, there is a different ratio between the amount of foliage and the woody tissue in younger trees than there is in mature ones. The increased foliage allows for a higher intake in energy.

Trees can also become dormant for extended periods, with growth slowing down until another source of light becomes available.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert Jameson
On purpose but for what purpose. You need a “how” and “why”. That was the beauty of Darwin’s theory. I do not agree with it but he appeared to have a model that explained the how and why and that is no doubt why he was so successful. (Apart from the fact that he was from a wealthy family and had influential friends that helped promote his concept.)
Well thats what makes darwin's theory a scientificly accepted one and mine a post on a message board;)
I think I know what purpose we are here for but as to how or why any of this is happening in the first place is far beyond my knowledge. I(like you) merely see indications of there being more to it than what darwin's theory suggests.

I will go along with that. But who is mother nature and why is she doing it?
I think "mother nature" is the planet earth itself, I don't see what else it would be.
The common consensus is earth is just a rock because it has no brain or anything like that but I hardly think the fact we can't figure out how its physical make-up could be that of an intelligent being necasarrily render's it impossible. We are familiar with animals and plants and in what sense they are alive because we can study many of them and see how they work and so on but less is known about planets. What is known is explained in such a way that if you described humans using the same methods they would seem like innanimate collections of molecules also.

Why would mother nature give us the instincts to create a complex society just to kill it off?
Thats the ineteresting part.
You see every aspect of society is whats required for us to complete our task. Seems like alot of trouble but an intelligent creature like humans need a fairly elaborate distraction. This society is just a contradiction of nature, an inbalance, there was nothing like us for hundreds of millions of years, then all of a sudden we appeared, we aren't a species with a long term task that we need to keep doing for the planet to run smoothly, we are a quick short slicing action.

Whether you believe earth did it or not the result of humans is undeniable. A culling of nature in general is what we have already done. This will eventually strengthen it.

We will never survive for millions of years like most species, unless disease takes out the majority of us, and then the few remaining change and evolve and turn into a new environmentally safe version of the human species.
That might be more likely than us being wiped out completely but still, I believe we evolved for a reason and we have nearly finished our task. Our task might change when we change, and it could be something as simple as appreciating the planet.

Your question was "why would mother nature give us the instincts to create such a complex society only to destroy it" and its hard to explain but it makes sense in my head.

I don't think destruction and wasted efforts bother earth like they do us. Society's purpose was to make us hold unnatural things as important, the average human's biggest concern is that it doesn't rain on golf day or something of the equivalence. Society is fun for us and like I said it is a distraction, thats its purpose for now, distract us while we unknowingly destroy our home with progression.
If we lived off nature while possessing these brains of ours we would respect it too much and we never would have altered it and earth wanted us to. Religion is what separated us from nature and made us start trying to make life better for our devine selves. The future wasn't in our sights, our own personal future in the "lords kingdom of heaven" is all we cared about.
Thats why I said the bible was "inspired by god" , meaning it was ingrained into its authors instincts by nature. Nature tricked us into doing a job she wanted us to do.
Keep in mind I wouldn't bet my lifesavings on this theory I'm just pointing out how it seems this way.

If you are interested in theology then Chapter 18 of God Gametes is on Eastern Mythology and Chapter 19 on Christianity.
I am not interested in theology other than the strange affects religion had on the human species behavioural pattern. I don't need to learn any more about religion, all I need is the basics and to observe what it produced.

Idle mind

>>> You haven't explained why it is an obvious liability. I don't see it as such. It could also be that this is a selective breeding done by humans. Peacocks have been kept in gardens of the wealthy for quite some time, where they are not subject to predation. <<<

Peacocks that have been bread in the wild still have large tail feathers so it is obvious that these elaborate displays are not a result of the selective breeding of humans. Such a large tail would be a liability because it would make the peacock more easily noticed by predators and less mobile if it needed to flee.

>>> I don't know if those were intended as separate statements or not, but trees reproduce sexually. <<<

You are correct. This is a mistake. Early in my book I explained to the readers that I was going to make a distinction between “sex” and “gender”. Most text books are referring to male or female when using the word sex. In God Gametes sex is “social sex’ and male and female is “gender”. A had to make this distinction because God Gametes holds that sex has a role distinct from reproduction. I sometimes have a lapse in concentration and refer to sex when I mean gender. What I meant was that trees do not have sex and they can also reproduce without crossing the male and female gametes.

I should also point out that this is not relevant to the point I was making. The main thrust of the argument in that quote was that tall trees evolve more complexity than the optimum and this can not be explained by the concept of “sexual selection” suggested by Richard Dawkins and others.

>>> There is light that gets through, but you must realize, which I'm certain you do, that the energy requirements are very little at the early stages in comparison. Also, there is a different ratio between the amount of foliage and the woody tissue in younger trees than there is in mature ones. The increased foliage allows for a higher intake in energy. <<<

The point I was making here was that tall trees can not shade out all shorter competitors (as can animals competing for the same environmental niche) for they would kill off smaller members of their own species. A tree can not capture a few light photons and then pass them onto their siblings as a lioness would share her kill with her cubs. Again this is moving away from my main point and that is; “why do tall trees grow taller than their optimum height?”

Dr Lou Natic

I am not interested in theology other than the strange affects religion had on the human species behavioural pattern. I don't need to learn any more about religion, all I need is the basics and to observe what it produced.

God Gametes does not suggest what might be a good way for people to save their souls. And this seems to be the primary purpose of most religions. But many theologians have also presented a number of models that have attempted to explain our creation. God Gametes holds that our consciousness is the reproductive cell of a higher species and as such we may instinctively recognise models that have an element of truth.

Dr Lou Natic

I do not know if you read the synopsis to God Gametes that I posted in an earlier thread. It outlines the model I am presenting in a few hundred words and the rest of the book (about 168,000 words) is merely supporting evidence. I think there are some parallels with your concept. What do you think?

Synopsis of “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” which can be downloaded free from www.e-publishingaustralia.com

The model presented in “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” assumes our universe is part of a multiverse. In his book “Before the Beginning” Sir Martin Rees (British Astronomer Royal) postulates the existence of other universes but God Gametes would simply say that there does not appear to be one of anything else; so why one universe? There is also the history. We started out thinking there was one earth and one sun only to find out that our earth was one of many planets and the sun merely a star. People then assumed that there was only one galaxy to find that our galaxy is one of billions. We now of course assume that there is only one universe?

From this point the God Gametes argues:

1. If there is always more than one of everything there is more than one universe.
2. If there are other universes then they would have life as does ours.
3. If they have life then it is cyclical as is all life.
4. If it is cyclical then it reproduces as does all life.

The model in God Gametes then assumes that the multiverse is hierarchical with the older and more complex universes on top and the younger and less complex below. Again this conforms to what we know to be true of reproductive systems. For example we can say that animals have two levels of the hierarchy (adults and their reproductive gametes) with the adult form living longer and being more complex than its reproductive cells.

We argue that each level of the multiverse is the reproductive system of the level above. Universes are assumed to have gender; female universes made of matter and male universes anti-matter. The Planet of the Butterfly Queen (earth) is made of matter and is the reproductive system of a single female of our parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse. Our human consciousness is the male reproductive cell she hosts from our companion antimatter planet.

This concept might be better understood if we look at it another way. We could say that planet earth has been colonised by the parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse for the purpose of reproduction. God Gametes takes a fictional look at our parent species on that higher level to find they are far more complex creatures than us but their universe is older and will soon run out of fuel, to then die. Parent species know that to preserve their life and the billions of years of heritage they created, they must reproduce on a lower multiverse level.

Our model takes a provocative look at Darwinism challenging the belief that our universe, the forces that hold it together and the intelligent life that we know exists on at least one planet, could be the result of a random process. It is argued that natural selection could never have created life and even if it had, could not have driven the evolution of greater complexity. We believe the formula for complex body parts and the motivation to evolve them is sourced from our parent species on that higher multiverse level.

God Gametes points to creation having a purpose, claiming that life and matter did not arise by accident and that our rapid evolution from ape to homo sapiens was driven by the need to host the male reproductive cells of our parent species. Human consciousness is attempting to fertilize a female egg and our goal in life is to become a new member of the parent species and be elevated to that higher multiverse level.

Well that certainly is interesting. I could not comment on your "multiverse theory" as my knowledge in that area is very limited. I specialise in earth when it comes to the universe:)
Right now I don't understand how you came to some of your conclusions, again I know very little about "space stuff", I will read your book when I get the time.
I like the genre of it already.

Explaining exclusively the physical aspects of the universe is the best science can do right now, that doesn't mean there isn't more to it IMO.
Your guess is as good as anyones.
I wouldn't mind writing a book myself one day:)
I would like to learn a fair bit more about actual science though first. Right now I am technically very uneducated and sort of in the process of educating myself.
I might call my book 'god gametes and the '.... just kidding;)
Good luck with 'god gametes'.

I'm not buying it.
Call me a crackpot if you want to, but I simply don't buy that completely random Natural Selection would result in such accurate mimicries found in nature.

This caterpillar is the ultimate example, but there are countless examples (such as the stick and leaf bugs that I believe have been mentioned already) in nature that, in my humble opinion, defy Natural Selection.

I am not saying that Natural Selection is false, but I think it is quite obvious that it is at least incomplete.

I am no creationsist, or even a theist.
I don't envision God up there with a magic wand screwing around with things down here while he giggles his ass of saying, "Let's see what they make of THIS one!!"
In fact, I am agnostic, and believe that if there IS a God he has nothing to do with this.

I am a firm believer of evolution, but I think that Darwin either had it wrong, or only part of the picture.

Evolution may not have an intelligent cognizant force behind it, but I think it is pretty obvious that it has a "force" at work.

It seems to me that much of the evidence of evolution point to organic life taking an opportunistic approach to survival.

If there is an abundance of oxygen, life forms that consume oxygen will become more abundant.
Life forms will evolve to consume oxygen.
New life forms that use oxygen for fuel will develop.

One trend that I see all teh time in science that irritates me to no end is tossing out an entire theory because it is falsified, rather than adjusting the theory under new light and focus.
Or the opposite: Grasping onto a theory religiously if some of it has evidence or it makes logical sense to you, thereby blocking out any and all alternative theories that can replace or augment the theory you believe in.
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I read this (thanks to the church of Lunitarisim ;) ) and found it incredibly interesting (though somewhat over the edge).
Gaia Theory (http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html)
I think reality lies somewhere between Darwin and Gaia.

Yeah, sign me up for the crackpot club:cool:
Oh yeah.. I guess I sort of signed myself up a while ago:(.... oh well:)

This thread, my sars thread and my inbreeding and evolution thread were all attempts at pointing out the remarkable indications that there is more to nature than darwin's theory suggests.
I'm not saying they "defy science", they can all be scientifically explained, but the coincidences and seemingly intelligent forces behind science are hard(for me) to ignore.

Think about inbreeding, smaller gene pools make a species' mutations more apparent and it just so happens that these mutations will aid the species in adapting and changing it from an unsuccessful species(we know its unsuccessful because it has a small gene pool, hence few members) into a successful one. Once successful there is no need to change, everythings working perfectly and by this time the mutations will slow down because there is a large gene pool.
What an absolutely genius system. Could a human have come up with that? Without inspiration from nature? If no then why do we assume we understand nature 100%? If you ask me it is clearly smarter than us and works on such a higher level that perhaps it would be litterally impossible for us to fathom its type of being.

Think about diseases,
as a matter of fact in my local newspaper yesterday there was a story on sars and it mentions what I was trying to talk about.
Here is an excerpt;
Contagion requires proximity and, until people contegrated in substantial numbers, in villages, towns and cities, they were too scattered for the organisms to take hold and maintain themselves in human populations.
When man civilised himself himself, therefore, his health deteriorated drastically and his life expectancy at birth nearly halved.
Not until the end of the 19th century did man start living as long, on average, as his hunter-gatherer forebears had done.
<snip>
Our historical memory is terribly short and we have forgotten almost completely the recent conditions from which we emerged.
How brilliant. That nature has a defense for overly dominant species, there is the science but what a coincidence and isn't it lucky?(for the environment on the whole, obviously not the people that have died of diseases in the past)

Just like everything, the organisms that make up a disease have a job also, and just like everything they would be ignorant to what that job is or even the fact that they have a job. They would just like feeding and living in people.
See the pattern?
I do, and honestly, I'm pretty confident that(as One_raven said) there is more to it all than darwins theory suggests.
I think darwins got it mostly right but there is just other undetectable things involved.

SO many indications...
I wish I was in front of my computer everytime I notice them.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
Idle mind

[B]

Peacocks that have been bread in the wild still have large tail feathers so it is obvious that these elaborate displays are not a result of the selective breeding of humans. Such a large tail would be a liability because it would make the peacock more easily noticed by predators and less mobile if it needed to flee.

you keep repeating yourself and hence i will do the same with the faint hope you might get it at one point:


the obvious advantage that outweighs predation risk is that females will mate with peacocks with impressive tails.

It does not matter that they are more obvious to predators. They get to mate and that is what matters.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
you keep repeating yourself and hence i will do the same with the faint hope you might get it at one point:


the obvious advantage that outweighs predation risk is that females will mate with peacocks with impressive tails.

It does not matter that they are more obvious to predators. They get to mate and that is what matters.

I forgot to respond to this earlier...

A colorful tail could very well be seen by females as a positive attribute.
In two possible ways I can think of right off the bat...

1.) It could be a sign of physical prowess and intelligence.
I they have something that makes them so visible to predators and remain alive it proves that they have the health and cunning to escape and thise genes will produce strong offspring.

2.) When male peacocks are threatened they "scream" (it really is a wild sound if you haven't heard it) and they puff out and shake their large and colorful tail feathers. I would imagine this behavior would ward off many would-be predators. Sound (such as a dog barking), size (such as a puffer fish and those funny little desert lizards that run on their hind feet), erratic movement (such as wildly gesticulating monkeys and Italian men) and vivid color (someone help me out with this one, please) can all shock and strike fear into the predators. If so, the larger and more colorful the tail is, the more effective this tactic would be.

thanks one_raven for the interesting comments

there is quite a lot of interesting papers on this subject, but i would just like to pick out one, because we seem to be talking about feathers a lot:

Evolution of the structure of tail feathers: Implications for the theory of sexual selection
Aparicio JM, Bonal R, Cordero PJ
EVOLUTION
57 (2): 397-405 FEB 2003

Abstract:
Bird tails are extraordinarily variable in length and functionality. In some species, males have evolved exaggeratedly long tails as a result of sexual selection. Changes in tail length should be associated with changes in feather structure. The study of the evolution of feather structure in bird tails could give insight to understand the causes and means of evolution in relation to processes of sexual selection. In theory, three possible means of tail length evolution in relation to structural components might be expected: (1) a positive relationship between the increase in length and size of structural components maintaining the mechanical properties of the feather; (2) no relationship; that is, enlarging feather length without changes in the structural components; and (3) a negative relationship; that is, enlarging feather length by reducing structural components. These hypotheses were tested using phylogenetic analyses to examine changes in both degree of exaggeration in tail length and structural characteristics of tail feathers (rachis width and density of barbs) in 36 species, including those dimorphic and nondimorphic in tail length. The degree of sexual dimorphism in tail length was negatively correlated with both rachis width and density of barbs in males but not in females. Reinforcing this result, we found that dimorphism in tail length was negatively associated with dimorphism in tail feather structure (rachis width and density of barbs). These results support the third hypothesis, in which the evolution of long feathers occurs at the expense of making them simpler and therefore less costly to produce. However, we do not know the effects of enfeeblement on the costs of bearing. If the total costs increased, the enfeeblement of feathers could be explained as a reinforcement of the honesty of the signal. Alternatively, if total costs were reduced, the strategy could be explained by cheating processes. The study of female preferences for fragile tail feathers is essential to test these two hypotheses. Preferences for fragile tails would support the evolution of reinforcement of honesty, whereas female indifference would indicate the existence of cheating in certain stages of the evolutionary process.


Interestingly birds do try to reduce the costs of making long tail feathers by reducing the features. Although this doesn't reduce their obvious nature it does reduce the actual costs of making those feathers. And all that Raven pointed out above is still valid of course.

I am sorry if I keep repeating myself (and it seems I do) but it is in response to people presenting arguments that I have already addressed in earlier posts.

It seems that someone can always come up with an argument that the peacock tail may have provided a selective advantage for this or that reason? But lets look at it from a different perspective. If natural selection were driving evolution then why did any complex species evolve? The single cell bacteria that first colonised earth 3.8 billion years ago were by far the best adapted to all environments. 99.9% of all species that have evolved past this point have gone extinct. Evolving complexity has always made it more difficult to adapt to a changing environment; (i.e. if the peacock was suddenly confronted with changed environmental conditions then it is far less likely to survive than bird species with a more simple design.) Evolving complexity has always been a disastrous survival strategy.

From Chapter 9 of God Gametes.

Keeping it Simple:

Bacteria from earth survived 31 months on the surface of the moon. In November 1969 Pete Conrad and Alan L. Bean on the Apollo 12 mission recovered a camera left on the moon two and a half years earlier by the unmanned lunar-lander Surveyor 3. NASA scientists back on earth were surprised to find that the camera contained specimens of Streptococcus mitis still alive. These bacteria must have arrived there in the camera and survived moon’s environment, for precautions taken by the astronauts returning to earth prevented microorganisms entering the camera at that stage. Pete Conrad is quoted as saying:

“I always thought the most significant thing we found on the whole goddamn Moon was that little bacteria (that we brought) back and lived and nobody ever said shit about it.” 17

In 1995 two biologists Raul Cano and Monica Borucki were able to revive bacterial spores that had been preserved in amber 25 million years.18 Bacterial life was able to colonise earth 3.8 billion years ago when there was no free oxygen and no ozone to block out the ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Earth’s atmosphere was full of noxious gasses from volcanic eruptions and nuclear radiation was 50 times more abundant than at present.19
Even today we find single-cell organisms in environments with high concentrations of acidity and alkalinity and saturated salt brines are found to support thriving communities of bacterial life.20 Bacteria can tolerate intense hydrostatic pressures of deep ocean trenches, boiling water of hot springs and can survive being frozen for lengthy periods. They can metabolise many inorganic materials including iron, nitrogen and sulphur and have been found to thrive in oil reservoirs a mile below earth’s surface.21
Stephen Jay Gould points out that there are more bacterial organisms than all others combined. They survive in a greater diversity of environments and metabolise in more different ways than all other life forms and they alone constituted the first half of life on earth. He argues that they can probably survive at depths six miles underground, are thought to have a total biomass greater than all other life combined and can build novel ecosystems based on heat from the earth’s interior rather than the sun. Gould also suggests it likely that bacteria serves as a model for cosmic life in other places throughout the universe.22
It appears that the only thing essential for bacterial life is water. It is difficult to imagine any environmental niche that could not be fully exploited by single-cell organisms. There is little doubt that bacteria would be competing with each other for resources but this has not been the driving force of evolution. If survival pressure were to drive anything it would be ‘devolution’ and not evolution. Study of microorganisms tells us that the evolution of greater complexity results in species becoming less competitive and more vulnerable to change. No species has ever improved its prospects for survival by evolving from prokaryote to eukaryote or by developing greater complexity that seems to be associated with gender-based reproductive systems.

One Raven

I read this (thanks to the church of Lunitarisim ) and found it incredibly interesting (though somewhat over the edge).

Gaia Theory

I think reality lies somewhere between Darwin and Gaia.

Both God Gametes and Cosmic Ancestry are supportive of the Gaian concept. Cosmic Ancestry holds that life on earth was seeded from space and there is a wealth of supporting information that can be viewed by visiting www.panspermia.org

There is overwhelming evidence to support the Gaian concept that earth’s environment is a self regulating living system. And the Cosmic Ancestry argument that life on earth was seeded from space is also well supported. But neither of these concepts have a model that can suggest a reason for “why” it happened.

Section 2 of God Gametes is on Cosmic Ancestry and Chapter 8 deals with Gaia.

The following quote is the conclusion of Chapter 8 from God Gametes. The whole ebook can be downloaded free from www.e-publishingaustralia.com

Lovelock described processes by which earth’s environment is stabilized but does not explain what is driving this system of self-regulation. Cosmic Ancestry recognises the importance of the stabilizing Gaian processes and makes the point that neo-Darwinism cannot accommodate these systems of self-regulation. It is inconceivable that properties that regulate earth’s atmosphere could have evolved by chance. Cosmic Ancestry claims that the Gaian processes were not discovered by way of natural selection but argues instead that formulae for a self-regulating environment have come to earth from space and that the genes for the numerous species of plants and animals that regulate our environment were already here when needed.
God Gametes agrees that there are self-regulating processes in place that stabilize earth’s environment. We also agree with the Cosmic Ancestry claim that genes for the animal and plant species were not found by natural selection but were already available when needed. Yet there are no genetic programmes for stabilizing the temperature of earth or for the gradual turning of earth’s crust by plate tectonics. It is not possible that genes for regulating these processes could have been accidentally delivered to earth from space. On the other hand God Gametes does not see earth as an independent entity but part of the parent species’ reproductive system. Surface temperature of earth, oxygen content of our atmosphere, recycling of earth’s crust and salinity of oceans must all be regulated by a universal living system of which our planet is part.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson


It seems that someone can always come up with an argument that the peacock tail may have provided a selective advantage for this or that reason? But lets look at it from a different perspective. If natural selection were driving evolution then why did any complex species evolve? The single cell bacteria that first colonised earth 3.8 billion years ago were by far the best adapted to all environments.

don't mind me reiterating some points then:

it is a fallacy that any species is best adapted to every environment. In practice we can have this many species because they all occupy a different niche.
evolution in short:
If you can't beat them, move to another neighbourhood.

if you can't compete with an bacterium, adopt a different lifestyle and become king of your own domain.

for instance...on the african plains you have a whole set of different grazers that eat leaves at different hights of trees and bushes. They all can exist together because they live in different neighbourhoods (they eat at different heights), although they might be physically standing next to each other.

The same is true for bacteria. No species is optimally adapted to all environments. There is no überspecies of bacteria that lives anywhere, anyplace and can outcompete anything else. The first ever single celled organism was also adapted quite well to a particular environment. That didn't mean the entire earth was a homogenous environment, or that there was no room for 'improvement', or that life couldn't actually change the environment.

Therefore I think we should keep in mind that there is no such thing as a single environment. The earth is and has been a multitude of environments, and hence the earth is filled with thousands and thousands of little kingdoms, each with little king, occasionaly de-throned or decapitated. The king is dead, long live the king. Is the new king a better king? Not really, he is just different.

well said.

originally posted by spurious monkey

it is a fallacy that any species is best adapted to every environment. In practice we can have this many species because they all occupy a different niche.

It seems you are suggesting that I have argued that there is one species of bacteria that is best adapted to all environments. This is an incorrect reading of my post. There are of course billions of species of bacteria that adapt to billions of different environments. Collectively they can adapt to more environments than more complex species and being a more simple design can more rapidly adapt to change. My argument being of course that if they can adapt better (and change quicker) then their survival prospects can only be diminished by evolving greater complexity.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson

It seems you are suggesting that I have argued that there is one species of bacteria that is best adapted to all environments. This is an incorrect reading of my post. There are of course billions of species of bacteria that adapt to billions of different environments. Collectively they can adapt to more environments than more complex species and being a more simple design can more rapidly adapt to change. My argument being of course that if they can adapt better (and change quicker) then their survival prospects can only be diminished by evolving greater complexity.

Why is it so difficult to believe then if bacteria can occupy different niches that metazoans can occupy niches that can't be occupied by bacteria?

Even within the world of single celled organisms there is a wide range in complexity. It is certainly not the case that they all are as minimalistic as possible. Apparently complexity has advantages as well as disadvantages.

The main advantage of complexity and multicellular organisms is specialization. With the onset of metazoan animals we first see the real application of specialized cells for instance. One can argue that a cell that is specifically adopted to do one task particularly well has an advantage over a cell that has to be capable to do everything when it comes to a specific task. A digestive cell only has to concentrate on digestion. Hence it is very good at it.

Cooperation between cells definitely has its advantages as has the lonely lifestyle of the single cell organism. None is better than the other and complexity adds to the creation of new solutions and opening up new niches.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
Cooperation between cells definitely has its advantages as has the lonely lifestyle of the single cell organism. None is better than the other and complexity adds to the creation of new solutions and opening up new niches.

I was watching a documentary (I LOVE the Science channel) that was talking about cellular cooperation being PART of evolution of muti-cellular organisms.

Basically, a parasite and host (or other symbiotic relationship) "evolving" into a single species.

Any thoughts on that?

Quote from spuriousmonkey

Why is it so difficult to believe then if bacteria can occupy different niches that metazoans can occupy niches that can't be occupied by bacteria?

It is difficult for me to believe. Can you give me an example of a place where metazoans can survive and where bacteria can not?

yes, giraffes are better at eating whole leaves than bacteria (unless the leaves are dead)

edit: i'm not answering the surviving part because it is not about surviving.

one_raven,

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are very good examples of evolution beyond symbiosis. Without these two little buggers becoming symbiotic and even apart of us, we would all still be protozoa!

Robert Jameson,

I can think of many advantages that multi-celled organisms have over single-celled. For one multi-celled organisms can eat the smaller single-celled by simple mechanical and chemical digestion. Godzilla can eat people, people can eat Godzilla.

spuriousmonkey

good job!

Quote from Spurious monkey

Yes, giraffes are better at eating whole leaves than bacteria (unless the leaves are dead).

Bacteria would eat millions more leaves than giraffes.

i'm not answering the surviving part because it is not about surviving

Surviving long enough to reproduce is precisely what the Darwinian paradigm is about.

Quote from WellCookedFetus

I can think of many advantages that multi-celled organisms have over single-celled. For one multi-celled organisms can eat the smaller single-celled by simple mechanical and chemical digestion. Godzilla can eat people, people can eat Godzilla.

If multi cell organisms eat single cell organisms and single cell organisms eat multi cell organisms (which they do) then I do not see how this answers my question. Does this demonstrate some ability that metazoans have that bacteria do not have? You made the following statement/question-:

Why is it so difficult to believe then if bacteria can occupy different niches that metazoans can occupy niches that can't be occupied by bacteria?

I want you to tell me where it is that multi cell organisms can survive that bacteria can not.

Single-celled organism can only eat the multi-celled in tiny pieces the multi-celled organism can devour whole species of single-celled organisms in a single sip. Your still not considering the dominance in size.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson


Surviving long enough to reproduce is precisely what the Darwinian paradigm is about.




peacocks with impressive tails seem to survive long enough to reproduce.

edit:in a recent new scientists there was an interesting story that species with conspicuous male birds do run a higher risk of local extinction by predation. But usually an area is repopulated from a neighbouring area.

Why would evolving to a multi-cellular organism not fit under survival of the fittest when you take inter-organsim competition into account?

Picture a big rock near the ocean with two different species on it green and blue.

Eventually that rock runs out of room and/or resources to support both.

In order to ensure survival and procreation either:

Blue and Green would have to develop a symbiotic relationship.
Blue will have to assimilate Green (or vice versa).
Blue would have to conquer Green (or vice versa).
or
One of them will have to move off that rock.

In any of those above reactions it could concieveably either be a benefit for a single celled organism to evolve to a multi-cellular organsim or a direct result of it.

One_raven

In any of those above reactions it could conceivably either be a benefit for a single celled organism to evolve to a multi-cellular organism or a direct result of it.

I agree that the alternatives are as you stated them. But we have to look at the factors that will determine whether blue accommodates green, green accommodates blue (which suggest the organisms are evolving greater complexity) or one moves off the rock. These factors should be things like the organisms capability to tolerate the widest possible range of environmental conditions, how quickly it can reproduce (the reproductive cycle of E.coli is 30 minutes and in 40 generations it can multiply by a factor of one trillion) and how well it can adapt to change. All the evidence would suggest that the simple single cell organisms will win every round every time. If survival of the fittest were the driving force of evolution then there would be no place on the rock for either the green or blue species that evolved from prokaryote to eukaryote.

Wellcookedfetus

Single-celled organism can only eat the multi-celled in tiny pieces the multi-celled organism can devour whole species of single-celled organisms in a single sip. Your still not considering the dominance in size.

You mean size really does matter? This is a whole new concept that to this point had escaped my attention. Maybe being big is the hidden (well not so hidden) driving force of evolution that we have all been looking for. Perhaps you can present a new model for the evolution of complex species based on the premise that the big boys will always win. I think it has some merit – look what happened in Iraq?

Robert:
the reproductive cycle of E.coli is 30 minutes and in 40 generations it can multiply by a factor of one trillion
True, given that there is sufficient nutrients.

Eukaryotes are more efficient at producing energy from metabolized nutrients than prokaryotes. It's as simple as that. More energy means a better chance at survival.
If survival of the fittest were the driving force of evolution then there would be no place on the rock for either the green or blue species that evolved from prokaryote to eukaryote.
Why not?

Look at it this way. When there is a large area of land that is are soil, which grows first? The simpler plants with fast generations, and hardy seeds that can withstand extended periods of harsh conditions. Then the slightly more complex shrubs begin to seed in the area, and begin to push the weeds and grasses out, which are less efficient at gathering nutrients, and use most of their energy for growth. Then the larger bushes and shrubs push out the smaller ones. This continues until you have a forest, with the largest, most complex species dominating.

Why would this not be the case when looking at different ecosystms? Based on your argument, the shrubs would never be able to push the grasses and weeds out of dominance.

advantages of multi-cellular structure:
1)overall better chance of individual cell survival.
For the same reason that multi-cellular animals often form herds or schools, being part of a group can reduce the chance of you as an individual member being picked off by predators, or dying due to starvation.
2)specialization
Once a multi-cellular colony exists, the colony can begin to assign specialized roles to it’s individual member, increasing the return on energy output.
3)faster adaptation of the individual to minor changes in the environment
When each memebr of the body doesn't have to constantly deal with minor environmental chnges, they can focus on convering food to energy. By regulating chemical creation by specialized cells, energy levels entering the organism as well as pollutants exiting the organism can be controlled (via specialization), which allows for the creation of #4
4)better regulation of cellular environment
through specialization, separation from the harsh external world can be created. This can allow for a homeostatic, warm and moist environment from the cells which make up the creature. This is a huge advantage, and really only comes into play after specialization occurs, which is dependant of multi-cellular organisms being created.

When dealing with your individual survival, your best chance is to find a safe, unchanging location where food and water are readily available. What better way than to create your own?
When dealing with your genetic survival, you need members of your own species (be definition of the word ‘species’). What batter way than to have then around you all the time (as long as you are willing to share resources)? When dealing with the survival of your gene pool, your species needs to survive (even if it evolves into another species. Your genes need to be passed on). What better way than to use some of your energy to help protect those around you, as they help protect you?

Multi-cellular existence provides a large number of advantages to the individual cells making the body – at the cost of food resources and the chance that your specific genes will be the ones which create the next generation. But your species is more likely to survive. And in many cases, because of the huge effect of specialization, you, as an individual member of a group, end up with more energy from food, because those who are specialled at digesting are so damn good at it. you produce an outer shell, they produce energy for you to do so. You are both feed, warm, protected, and happy.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e42/42f.htm

also, size plays a huge factor in survival. If you are too big for a predator to eat, then you have no predator. Remember that the ability to eat part of an object (ie the evolution of jaws, and tearing teeth) is a fairly recent modification to animals, for the first millions of years, to eat something, it had to be smaller than your mouth, whatever it was.
Even these days, size is an important factor in mating and evolution. The male monkeys in the S American tropics need to be big in order to fight of rival suitors, but if they are too big, then they can’t move fast enough to hide from predators. So there is a built in maximum size- small enough to hide, big enough to beat up other members of the group, as well as fight off other medium sized preditors.

There have been a number of responses to my earlier posts and several points raised. I will not respond to them individually but the main issues appear to be -:

1. Bacteria are less efficient at gathering nutrients

2. Overall better chance of individual cell survival

3. Specialization

4. Faster adaptation of the individual to minor changes in the environment

5. Better regulation of cellular environment

6. Multicellular organisms can better form their own ecosystems

7. Better able to change into another species in an attempt to adapt to a changing environment.

As an amateur scientist I do not really know if the above assertions are true but they appear to suggest something different from my reading on this subject.

Stephen Jay Gould “Life’s Grandeur” (originally published as Full House)

page 186

As discussed above, bacteria produced our atmospheric oxygen, fix nitrogen in our soil, facilitate the rumination of grazing animals, and build the food web of the only nonsolar ecosystem on our planet.

The ingesting animals are just a little blip upon this basic cycle; the biosphere could do very well without them.

page 194

Not only does the earth contain more bacterial organisms than all others combined (scarcely surprising, given their minimal size and mass); not only do bacteria live in more places and work in a greater variety of metabolic ways; not only did bacteria alone constitute the first half of life's history, with no slackening in diversity thereafter; but also, and most surprisingly, total bacterial biomass (even at such minimal weight per cell) may exceed all the rest of life combined, even forest trees, once we include the subterranean populations as well.

page 198

(Bacteria can) … live on basalt and water six miles under the earth's surface, form the core of novel ecosystems based on the earth's interior heat rather than solar energy, or serve as a possible model for cosmic life in most solar systems.

Brian J. Ford “Genes the Fight for Life”

page 5

The single cell is a temple of pluripotentiality. Cells can build wings with which to fly, scavenge for sticks to make homes, construct stone walls for protection, manufacture delicate glass globes of infinite intricacy, and yet do not hesitate to sacrifice themselves wholesale for the good of the race. Unlike humans, they can regulate their rate of reproduction to the available food supply, and many can create a hermetically sealed, personalized 'space capsule' for long-term survival if their environment is disrupted. Of course cells are sentient. Some microbes can detect magnets or see where they are going. We are seduced by the view that an amoeba is a simple creature, little more than a blob of plasm. In truth, its intricate life systems, undertaken by something so compact, connote hidden complexity. An amoeba has a head and a tail - confine it in a cul-de-sac and it turns round to find its way out. With two sticks of firewood and an elastic band, anyone can show how a human walks. It is harder to model the ability of a water-soluble amoeboid cell to feed and reproduce, find (and approve) a sexual partner, sometimes even to unite in vast numbers to form a macroscopic body that heads off looking for a place to breed.

quote by River wind

also, size plays a huge factor in survival. If you are too big for a predator to eat, then you have no predator.

The size of the prey is not a problem for bacteria (or viruses for that matter).

The first multi-celled organism were impenetratable to viri and bacteria because they had not evolved a means of hurting them. Even today the unicellular organisms can rarely kill their titanic cosines. If it was true that single cell is the ultimate state of being then we would have all been eaten alive by them by now.

Robert:

You are taking the works of intelligent people and presenting them as a general argument that is flawed. Yes, there are bacteria that fill nearly every niche in the ecosystem. However, if you remove those bacteria from their niche, they will die. They need those conditions to live, and although they are able to live where other creatures cannot, they are unable to live where others can. How does that make them superior in any way?

For example: the bacteria that live in the deep sea vents require extreme pressure, extreme heat, and sulphur for metabolism. When they are not in these conditions, they either cannot grow, or cannot metabolize to meet their own energy needs.

You misinterpretated my point (point number 1 in your response). I said that they are less efficient at converting nutrients into energy. Complex systems for energy production are more efficient, which is what is desirable. More efficiency means less waste.

I don't agree with all the points laid out there, so I will fix some of them and make them clearer:

1) I dealt with the misread above. If you missed it on the first pass, go back and read again.

2) This was poorly worded. In colonies, or multicellular organisms, there is a cooperation towards the main goal of survival, so each cell provides the other with aid for the benefit of the community or colony.

3) IIRC, they were referring to specialization into organs. This would mean that the epithelial cells of the intestine are adapted for nutrients absorbtion, kidney cells for filtering, etc. Bacteria are certainly more specialized in the sense that there is a species that can live almost anywhere.

4) Don't agree at all. Smaller organisms adapt more quickly. Single cells are no exception (although viruses adapt the quickest).

5) There needs to be multiple species of bacteria in order to balance out the environment. If a single species is left too long, they will eventually poison themselves with their own waste products. A second species that uses the wastes of the first as metabolites is required.

6) Have you seen a bacteria (or any other single-celled organism for that matter) build a house in order to change it's ecosystem? Or dig a hole in the ground? Or build a nest?

7) Same as number 5.

In response to the Brian Ford paragraph you posted:

Unlike humans, they can regulate their rate of reproduction to the available food supply
That is poor wording. Humans cannot regulate their rate of reporduction? Maybe the gestation period is set, but sexual intercourse needs to take place for reproduction to occur. No sex = no reproduction.
or see where they are going
Multicellular organisms can see too. Amazing!

I don't see how this paragraph helps your argument.

Quote from Idle_mind

You are taking the works of intelligent people and presenting them as a general argument that is flawed. Yes, there are bacteria that fill nearly every niche in the ecosystem. However, if you remove those bacteria from their niche, they will die. They need those conditions to live, and although they are able to live where other creatures cannot, they are unable to live where others can. How does that make them superior in any way?

I am sorry Idle_mind I am not going to individually answer the points you have made. I expect you are correct in what you say but I think it does not address the main thrust of the argument I have been making. I have not been trying to argue that bacterial life is superior to the more complex forms of life. That would be contradictory to the concept I am trying to promote and is similar to an argument often trotted out by Darwinists that I strongly reject. Conscious beings (such as our species) are of course superior to single cell organisms.

My argument is this. If bacteria can survive 30 months on the moon, 6 miles underground, flash heating of 700 Celsius, being frozen, and can multiply themselves by a factor of one billion in less than a day; then I do not accept that they are going to evolve greater complexity to improve their survival prospects. And if survival of the fittest is not driving the evolution of greater complexity then what is?

Darwinism presents a model for designing greater complexity based on the need to survive. It is argued that evolution is driven by the mutation of genes followed by the random assortment of DNA that will code for new and more complex body parts. But if Darwinism is incorrect (and I believe it is) then what is driving it? I present a model in God Gametes that may, or may not be correct, but it certainly provides many logical answers to questions that stretch to the limit the credibility of the Darwinian paradigm.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
Quote from Idle_mind

[B]

My argument is this. If bacteria can survive 30 months on the moon, 6 miles underground, flash heating of 700 Celsius, being frozen, and can multiply themselves by a factor of one billion in less than a day; then I do not accept that they are going to evolve greater complexity to improve their survival prospects. And if survival of the fittest is not driving the evolution of greater complexity then what is?


the flaw in your argument is that in your sentence

'bacteria'

should be replaced with something like this

'There is an incredible amount of bacterial species on our planet, showing an enormous degree of variety and many are adapted to radical enviroments, for instance..'

'bacteria' is a general word for countless different species with completely different properties.

Please ignore this if you don't want to go back to moths and camouflage.

I suspect we have a desperately simplistic idea of evolution of species (that's not to say it's an entirely wrong one!). It may be that moths that look like vipers are more attractive to females, since they are clearly tough hombres in moth terms. Sort of like a human dressing up as a biker to score with women. In other words predation by birds may not be the main selection factor at all, just the fact that female moths respond in particular ways to things that look like vipers.

Perhaps looking like a viper scares females into not moving, thus making them easier to catch. Perhaps looking like a viper scares other moth-males away. Perhaps this camouflage evolved in moths for precisely the same reason as it developed in vipers, and the viper camouflage certainly didn't evolve in order for it to look more like a viper. (In other words common cause rather than mimickry). Perhaps ...etc etc ad infinitum.

Almost every evolved change in moth body shape to become more viper-like would have an aerodynamic downside, thus rendering it a mixed evolutionary blessing and slowing down the spread of the trait, which some here find already suspiciously fast without this kind of factor. (Just as the giraffes longer neck makes it less well able to run from predators).

PS Robert - comments like "Conscious beings (such as our species) are of course superior to single cell organisms" need justifying in some objective way. According to science you are wrong - we are just more physically complex.

Canute, you would be correct, or on the right tracks except for one minor detail. The viper-looking part of this particular species is the caterpillar. Not necessarily the moth.