24 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYour problem is that since you have rejected God, He has turned you over to a reprobate mind and you, therefore, do not have the ability to understand the mind of God in such matters. You will need to get on your knees and sincerely pray to God for forgiveness in the name of the Lord. HalleluYah !!!
Here is my objection to the intelligent source thing: I would think a god would take the easiest route to achieve a goal, maybe in this case, making viable life forms. So in my way of thinking, such a god would figure, why would I want to do all that detail work, why not just set up the conditions and let nature take its course?
Why would a god want to ...[text shortened]... y monitoring every strand of DNA on the planet. What this ID thing implies goes past ridiculous.
25 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYour problem is you can't imagine a universe in which there is a god but not the man made one in the bible.
Your problem is that since you have rejected God, He has turned you over to a reprobate mind and you, therefore, do not have the ability to understand the mind of God in such matters. You will need to get on your knees and sincerely pray to God for forgiveness in the name of the Lord. HalleluYah !!!
You are stuck 2000 years in the past and would gladly take a time machine trip to be with Jesus.
If I could send you back there we would both be happy.
25 May 12
Originally posted by JS357One can think of the analogy of computer programmes in FORTRAN, there is the main programme and then there are subroutines. The subroutines are smaller programmes to which the flow of the programme is directed in case of small and repetitive tasks. After the small/repetitive task is done, the programme returns to the main algorithm.
It was given that empty "none of the above" usage in the 50's, but before then, was posited to mean behavior that did not rely on cognition or consciousness. It's good if everyone here views the term as you suggest.
I submit that instinctual processes are in built subroutines meant for small and repetitive tasks. No big/complex thinking or judgements are involved.
I also submit that the subroutines are transferred in a Lamarckian process from one generation to the succeeding generation.
25 May 12
I can just see it now; all the birds lined up on a long branch while God teaches nest-building 101. He starts with two illustrations: YES and NO. YES is a perfectly constructed, beautifully bowl-shaped nest with just the right amount of mud mortaring the sticks together. NO is a big ball of mud with sticks pointing out in every direction. 😀
25 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought I had given a possible explanation that was scientifically acceptable. If a bird at the beginning of a line of birds, makes a nest, it might have been a purely hit and miss affair with the bird unable even to think of it as a shelter. But since that bird did it and it worked, other birds might have engaged in a similar activity,purely out of nervous energy--let's say--and their nests too worked as shelters. So this habit might have passed through genes as a subroutine in a Lamarckian process.
You may submit it, but the scientific evidence is against you.
Do you have any evidence that says this hypothesis is wrong ?
25 May 12
Originally posted by tim88Saw the video you have marked. Is the big mound the nest ? A fantastic effort on the part of the bird and pretty workmanlike, too.
I seen a mallee fowl nest it is huge! this was the best video i could find
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9QsND4knrw&feature=related
I am a bird lover too and we, in India, have of course the Weaver birds with their nests with inner and outer chambers. We also have the Tailor bird, who stitches the nest together with grass leaves taken up in his beak and threaded into a neat purse.. And we have the crows with their clumsy attempts at nest building what with the crow trying to balance three sticks horizontally on a fork of a tree, resulting in a vary untidy and unstable nest. House sparrows preferring only man made structure for nest building.
Do you know about the behaviour of the Weaver birds in respect of the nest building ?
25 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have seen the photographs of the nests of Australian bower birds. Extraordinary structures is all I can say- what with canopies projecting out and nice shapes, as if an architect is at work.
If you want fancy nests, then try looking up bower birds. However, evolution explains such behaviour far better than a teacher God does.
Can you clarify as what makes the bower bird provide a canopy to the nest--evolutionally speaking ? Canopy , after all, has no discernible function. Or is it just a brute fact ?
25 May 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoYes, there is zero scientific evidence that genes absorb the behaviour of their host in some Lamarckian fashion. Evolution and natural selection is a far better hypothesis and backed up by mountains of evidence.
So this habit might have passed through genes as a subroutine in a Lamarckian process.
Do you have any evidence that says this hypothesis is wrong ?
25 May 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI think God pretty much hard wired the nest bulding instinct into the birds and it is not a learned process that can be taught to them. The only way to change this, I believe, is for God to come in and change the wiring.
One can think of the analogy of computer programmes in FORTRAN, there is the main programme and then there are subroutines. The subroutines are smaller programmes to which the flow of the programme is directed in case of small and repetitive tasks. After the small/repetitive task is done, the programme returns to the main algorithm.
I submit that instin ...[text shortened]... utines are transferred in a Lamarckian process from one generation to the succeeding generation.
25 May 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI don't know how much of what they build has a function as a nest for the female and eggs, but the main purpose for the whole bower, is to attract a mate. It is a way of telling the female that the male has good genes for her young.
Can you clarify as what makes the bower bird provide a canopy to the nest--evolutionally speaking ? Canopy , after all, has no discernible function. Or is it just a brute fact ?
25 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadMay be. I confess my ignorance of availability of evidence for transfer of traits of the hosts through the genes.
Yes, there is zero scientific evidence that genes absorb the behaviour of their host in some Lamarckian fashion. Evolution and natural selection is a far better hypothesis and backed up by mountains of evidence.
But, take the example of human traits transferred. Examples are ability to play a musical instrument right from the childhood, although none of his/her living ancestor has been a player-- so no copying is involved. Playing chess or being a mathematical prodigy has really no evolutional significance. Yet we see such traits passed on to the succeeding generations in a stop-start way, no copying of a parent being involved. Is Lamarck's theory totally disproved ?
By the way, what is the evolutional significance of the provision of canopy in the Australian Bower bird nest ?