Posted on 01/09/2006 12:02:22 PM PST by WatchYourself
I tend to think all molluscs to be generally the same in terms of complexity, and that they have not changed into anything significantly different since they appeared. What does evolution predict to be the next new life form to appear? Robo-man?
That's not what it says. It says 'representative sample'. The first mammals, for example, appeared well before the Tertiary, but we think of the Tertiary as being the age of Mammals. And if you look at this, you'll see that trilobites peaked in the late Cambrian/early Ordovician, which means having them as a representative of the Cambrian is actually quite reasonable.
Be that as it may, the trilobite seems to be considered as confined to the so-called Paleozoic era. Why doesn't the diagram depict as much? Because it simply treats of that time when some folks think the trilobite popped into history.
Very good. Yes, trilobites bit it during the great Permian extinction. It's a shame; I've always considered them charming little critters, ever since I used to dig them out of the Silurian shale near our house. Of course, the big, dog-sized trilobite they found in Manitoba was actually rather scary.
I'm not arguing technical details. I am addressing the general definition of evolution which states that it usually denotes a progression from the simple to the more complex. My assumption is that the picture denotes what is written in many books. Would you please point out where this picture inaccurately denotes matters pertaining to the ToE, or gives a false representation of what written in many books?
It says "millions of years before present," and thus attempts to denote when these creatures "appeared." What does "representative life" mean? Was the entire biosphere predominently occupied by trilobites in the Cambrian period? Were horses were present in the Cambrian period but too small and thus lacking in clout to deserve a standing as "representative?" Is it a popularity contest? A size contest? A biggest genome contest?
Nothing of the kind. It is a subjective, arbitrary representation of biological history based upon inferential exptrapolations from unonbserved, undocumented phenomena.
Tell that to the people who write chapters in high school biology textbooks treating of the evolution of multicellular life. What do you mean, "counter-intuitive?"
During [the Precambrian time], simple anaerobic forms of life appeared and were followed by photosynthetic forms, which added oxygen to the atmosphere. Aerobic forms of life evolved, and eukaryotes appeared. Some of those organisms gave rise to multicellular forms that continued to increase in complexity.
The authors of this textbook could use a lesson in the "counter-intuitive" nature of using words like "simple" and "complex." That way they don't have to get tangled up in notions that entail any aspects of design, or, God forbid, intelligence.
It says 'representative sample'. I've already pointed this out.
No. On the right side it says "REPRESENTATIVE LIFE." On the left it says "MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE PRESENT." What does "representative life" mean?
Regardless, that diagram does a poor job of depicting your notion of what is the "scientific" definition of evolution. Here I am trying to point out how reasonable the idea of a progression from simple to complex life appears, and even this you attempt to deem inaccurate. With so many aspects of life and evolution being unreasonable, disorganized, unintelligent, and nondesigned, you would think such thing as a virgin birth and walking on water to be just another mundane example of the same.
It means a representative example of the life around at the time. Is English your first language? You seem to have difficulty with simple, obvious phrases.
Here I am trying to point out how reasonable the idea of a progression from simple to complex life appears, and even this you attempt to deem inaccurate.
You claimed the diagram showed a progression from simple to complex. It does not. It should not. By the Cambrian, there were complex multicelllular organisms, including chordates and arthropods, in the biosphere. I know of no quantitative measure of complexity by which we are more complex than these organisms.
With so many aspects of life and evolution being unreasonable, disorganized, unintelligent, and nondesigned, you would think such thing as a virgin birth and walking on water to be just another mundane example of the same.
Now you're just making unsupported assertions. One might as well say that because the geology of Utah is chaotic, there should be no problem with a virgin birth.
All you're doing is stating a tautology. I want to know why they choose a particular creature as "representative" of a given age. Why didn't they choose a turtle instead of a horse, or a horse instead of a fish? Do you suppose it might have something to do with the notion that evolution entails a gradual increase in complexity?
By the Cambrian, there were complex multi-cellular organisms . . .
Did they just pop up in all their "complexity?" Not according to standard high school biology textbooks. Most diagrams in these textbooks imply increases in complexity from age to age. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, they operate with a different understanding of evolution than you do. For most people an increase in the number of functions performed by a given organism has some bearing on its complexity or lack thereof. How unforuntate for science that such words as "simple" and "complex" exist in the English language, especially since they imply intelligence and design.
Now you're just making unsupported assertions.
No. I'm taking your unsupported assertion that evolution has nothing to say about increases in complexity to its logical conclusion, namely that if there is no measure of complexity, then there is no measure of a "miracle."
Why would you take a particular piece of music as a representative of a particular age of music? If I said that Telemann's Darmstadt overures were representative of music of the Baroque period or of the early 18th century, would you have a problem with that? And I did, would that choice imply music has become more complex with time? (Insert cynical laugh here)
Most diagrams in these textbooks imply increases in complexity from age to age.
Attempted proof by repeated assertion. The two examples you've shown show nothing of the kind. I've said why not. Repeat yourself as often as you want; it doesn't make your point any stronger.
Nothing, if fact, you've said as much as impacts the point I made originally, if you look at the ancestry of humans, there's an increase in complexity, albeit most of it was in the pre-Cambrian and therefore before any of the examples you've shown. But if you look at the ancestry of an E. coli, it's hard to argue an increase in complexity from any identifiable ancestor. At some stage there was, presumably, an increase in complexity, but likely not in the last billion years.
So evolution does not necessarily entail an increase in complexity.
The common definiton of evolution says the same thing. I was not saying it "necessarily" entails increases in order or complexity, only that the common definition of evolution says it "usually" entails these things. And it is a common practice for textbooks explaining evolution to argue, or explain, from the simple to the more complex. If you have a problem with how textbooks typically explain evolution then maybe you should assist them in editing the same. As it stands your efforts to make the exception into the rule have been obtusely evasive.
A 'common' definition you have been unable to substantiate. So you just repeat the same unsubstantiated assertion over and over again.
No. The diagrams substantiate the common definition well. If you want to play semantic games with yourself be my guest.
There's only one person playing with himself here, guy, and that's you. You'll pardon me if I leave. I'm not into that kind of thing.
You might want to consider changing law schools. The Dover decision is binding only on the parties to the particular case. It is not binding on any other party, even within the same judicial district. No other US district court judge, anywhere, is required to consider the opinion of Jones.
Any judge can easily ignore Jones' opinion; it woudn't be hard at all. That his decision comes before any other judge's opinion means absolutely nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.