Your responses to my post demonstrate your ignorance of the concept (hence my use of the word "fatuous" ). "Dynamically evolving system" does not mean the same thing necessarily as macroevolution. Macroevolution is just an example of such a system. In fact, I encourage you to educate yourself by pulling out a dictionary or browsing one online. Just look up the word "evolve" and I'm sure you will find something along the lines of "gradually changing." The fact that the world is "changing" should not be indispute.
Now specific to the theory of evolution, in your question you were asking how the theory might account for flower pollenation if bees were not the carriers. One does not need to prove that evolution is true in order to answer your question. Since Evolution decribes one type of dynamic system, I merely had to point out that your question was silly because it displayed an ignorance of the theory. It's like asking how a xtian can explain Jesus traveling through Galilee without a motorcycle.
Would you be so kind as to point out any single shread of evidence which would suggest that an evolving system is possible.
Sure, pinhead. Here's just a few of many examples: weather systems, financial markets, macroeconomies, the growth and spread of viruses, traffic patterns, geological formations, political processes.
Dynamically evolving system? You speak as if it is a fact. Would you be so kind as to point out any single shread of evidence which would suggest that an evolving system is possible
Are you sure you still want to take this position, or do you want to deny that the above examples do not exist?
To just blindly assume that the entire process is endogenous is more fatuous. Do you have any evidence to suggest the process ever occured, never mind if it is endogenous.
Again this is beside the point. You brought up your objection within the context of macroevolution. I responded within the same context.
But for the sake of pro bono tutoring, I will respond. We have evidence that the process continues today. Consider for example, the effects of human behavior on the atmosphere. Gas-emissions and rainforest destruction reduce ozone. This leads in turn harms other plant and animal life.
Do us all a favor, before you write another asinine retort, and go learn a few things tonight about dynamic systems and endogeneity vs. exogeneity.
Originally posted by telerionThese are systems that change - but change does not mean evolve. It doesn't just mean grow either. Evolution is not morpholution.
Sure, pinhead. Here's just a few of many examples: weather systems, financial markets, macroeconomies, the growth and spread of viruses, traffic patterns, geological formations, political processes.
But I would be interested in what you think evolution means.
Originally posted by ColettiEvolution means slow, gradual change. Dictionary.com says that usually this results in a better or more complex change.
These are systems that change - but change does not mean evolve. It doesn't just mean grow either. Evolution is not morpholution.
But I would be interested in what you think evolution means.
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf such exist (that is, they cannot use alternate systems for pollination) then they probably evolved from a plant that did not need bees for pollination, but could use bees for this purpose. When this occurred, bees already existed.
I am talking about the flowers that need bees for pollination.
Originally posted by Colettimorpholution
These are systems that change - but change does not mean evolve. It doesn't just mean grow either. Evolution is not morpholution.
But I would be interested in what you think evolution means.
Oh, so you are a word engineer. Care to define this? It's not in any dictionaries that I can find. Googling it, I found only 4 results: a company name, a poem title, a reference in a spiritual book review, and a video clip.
Granted the video clip came from a page belonging to Bio 381. Still I imagine that if this were a common term in biology, I would find it's definition elsewhere.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut that does not explain what Darwin was asserting. We all agree things change. But we do not all agree that things "evolve".
Evolution means slow, gradual change. Dictionary.com says that usually this results in a better or more complex change.
telerion's list of examples is a case in point. Most were systems with over a long time have a zero-sum-gain. Weather systems evolve only on a tiny scale (clear to rainy day), otherwise they cycle, (ice age to ice age). Economies grow and spread, but this would be analogous to intelligent design. Traffic pattens are patterns because they cycle and repeat.
All his examples are either random or cyclical or repeating, or guided by intelligence. That's not good enough. These things are not examples of evolution. If they are, then Darwin and all the other evolutionist are deceiving themselves.
So what does evolution mean?? If all it means is change, it's a horrible theory.
Originally posted by ColettiSo what does evolution mean?? If all it means is change, it's a horrible theory.
But that does not explain what Darwin was asserting. We all agree things change. But we do not all agree that things "evolve".
telerion's list of examples is a case in point. Most were systems with over a long time have a zero-sum-gain. Weather systems evolve only on a tiny scale (clear to rainy day), otherwise they cycle, (ice age to ice age). Ec ...[text shortened]... elves.
So what does evolution mean?? If all it means is change, it's a horrible theory.
This sentence is awkwardly written. Evolution is a word. It means gradual change.
You wrote "it's a horrible theory". I assume you are referring to the Theory of Evolution. This theory has quite a bit more to it than just the definition of the word evolution.
Coletti macroeconomies are not "guided" by intelligence, unless you think your SkyGhostDaddy is manipulating the whole thing. Now if you mean economies are guided by "intelligence" because humans are an important ingredient and they possess intelligence, then any process which includes mammals is one "guided" by intelligence. Coletti, stick to what you know. Whatever that is.
I think you are mistaken when you say that long-run global weather systems has a zero-sum gain. This suggests that weather fluctuates around some static mean. If it rains here today, it must sunny somewhere else now or later to balance. This seems unbelievable in the long run however when we consider that there has been and continues to be a trend in the atmosphere. I've just been googling around looking at the history of our atmosphere, and it doesn't appear that it just cycles from ice age to ice age. Here's the link for those who will go read it themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
For the fundies, I post the relevant portion.
"The evolution of the Earth's atmosphere
The modern atmosphere is sometimes referred to as Earth's "third atmosphere", in order to distinguish the current chemical composition from two notably different previous compositions. The original atmosphere was primarily helium and hydrogen; heat (from the still molten crust, and the sun) dissipated this atmosphere.
About 3.5 billion years ago, the surface had cooled enough to form a crust, still heavily populated with volcanoes which released steam, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. This led to the "second atmosphere"; which was, primarily, carbon dioxide and water vapor, with some nitrogen but virtually no oxygen. (Though very recent simulations run at the University of Waterloo and University of Colorado in 2005 suggested that it may have had up to 40% hydrogen.[3] (http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348)) This second atmosphere had ~100 times as much gas as the current atmosphere. It is generally believed that the greenhouse effect, caused by high levels of carbon dioxide, kept the Earth from freezing.
During the next few billion years, water vapor condensed to form rain and oceans, which began to dissolve carbon dioxide. Approximately 50% of the carbon dioxide would be absorbed into the oceans. One of the earliest types of bacteria are the cyanobacteria. Fossil evidence indicates that these bacteria existed approximately 3.3 billion years ago and were the first oxygen producing evolving phototropic organisms. They are responsible for the initial conversion of the earth’s atmosphere from an anoxic (state without oxygen) to an oxic (with oxygen) state. Being the first to carry out oxygenic photosynthesis, they were able to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen playing a major role in oxygenating the atmosphere.
Photosynthesizing plants would evolve and convert more carbon dioxide into oxygen. Over time, excess carbon became locked in fossil fuels, sedimentary rocks (notably limestone), and animal shells. As oxygen was released, it reacted with ammonia to create nitrogen; in addition, bacteria would also convert ammonia into nitrogen.
As more plants appeared, the levels of oxygen increased significantly (while carbon dioxide levels dropped). At first it combined with various elements (such as iron), but eventually oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere — resulting in mass extinctions and further evolution. With the appearance of an ozone layer (ozone is an allotrope of oxygen) lifeforms were better protected from ultraviolet radiation. This oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere is the "third atmosphere".
Traffic pattens are patterns because they cycle and repeat.
Cycling does not mean that you have zero-sum gain. Take a simple AR(1) process with trend: y(t)= mu + y(t-1) + e(t) where e(t) is white noise. This will cycle, but the trend term will cause the whole system to move to infinity.
Traffic patterns have a great deal of cyclicality, much of it is imposed by human behavior. Nevertheless, other factors such as population growth, techonological advancement (compare traffic in Rome in 200 AD to traffic in Rome today), and cultural influences (the working hours have changed) have caused a change in trend which moves the aggregate process.
These things are not examples of evolution. If they are, then Darwin and all the other evolutionist are deceiving themselves.
Or you are wrong. Given the level of misinformation displayed in your post, I think this is quite likely the case.
So what does evolution mean?? If all it means is change, it's a horrible theory.
Really? I thought you were a big fan of scientific theories being observable. Oh I forgot, the very word "evolve" offends your superstitions.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou are correct, I could have been clearer. But even the word evolve means much more than change. A good example of evolution would be the evolution of mechanical human transportation: from the gas powered buggy to the space shuttle. That is what is at the heart of Darwin's theories. And telerion has still not provided a legitimate example of that kind of evolving system.
[b]So what does evolution mean?? If all it means is change, it's a horrible theory.
This sentence is awkwardly written. Evolution is a word. It means gradual change.
You wrote "it's a horrible theory". I assume you are referring to the Theory of Evolution. This theory has quite a bit more to it than just the definition of the word evolution.[/b]