Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
Clairwil
God of Wonders and One Race
January 18, 2013 at 2:48 AM

The original thread seems to have been deleted, so here's a replacement.

As always, please try to avoid personal insults.

Replies

  • Clairwil
    January 18, 2013 at 8:46 AM
    Quoting romalove:
    Quoting Clairwil:

    Can we discuss the video, rather than the poster?

    Quoting Clairwil:

    the DVD claiming that there was no way, according to evolution, that the Clown Fish could have evolved resistence to the poison from anemones.

    For example, does anybody agree or disagree with the above claim from the DVD?  And, if so, why?

    What is the reasoning put forth in the DVD for why Clown Fish couldn't have evolved resistance to the poison from anemones?

    Irreducible complexity.

  • romalove
    January 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM


    Quoting Clairwil:

    Quoting romalove:
    Quoting Clairwil:

    Can we discuss the video, rather than the poster?

    Quoting Clairwil:

    the DVD claiming that there was no way, according to evolution, that the Clown Fish could have evolved resistence to the poison from anemones.

    For example, does anybody agree or disagree with the above claim from the DVD?  And, if so, why?

    What is the reasoning put forth in the DVD for why Clown Fish couldn't have evolved resistance to the poison from anemones?

    Irreducible complexity.

    I'll preface this with I am not a scientist lol.

    I did some reading after you posted this.  From my understanding, anemones do not need clown fish to survive but they do help, and the clown fish use the anemones for protection.  The blurb I posted earlier in this thread indicates that the clown fish have developed a way to make the anemones recognize them as part of them, therefore not stinging them.  

    The idea of irreducible complexity comes down to this.  "I cannot fathom that this could happen unless there was a creator because it is so complicated."  That to me is lazy thinking and also unscientific thinking.  If my understanding of evolutionary process is right, clown fish that didn't have mucus coats would have been subject to anemone poison stings, but those that had them and rubbed on anemones (likely by chance initially) found they survived as the anemones didn't recognize them as foreign and didn't try to sting them.  Clown fish who were so "innoculated" found that they lived longer near the anemones as other competing fish were stung and/or avoided the stinging anemones.  The anemones were benefitting by the clown fish bringing food to them.  

    If I'm wrong please correct me.

    I don't know how any of this makes an argument "for" irreducible complexity or creationism.

  • futureshock
    January 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM


    Quoting romalove:


    Quoting Clairwil:

    Quoting romalove:
    Quoting Clairwil:

    Can we discuss the video, rather than the poster?

    Quoting Clairwil:

    the DVD claiming that there was no way, according to evolution, that the Clown Fish could have evolved resistence to the poison from anemones.

    For example, does anybody agree or disagree with the above claim from the DVD?  And, if so, why?

    What is the reasoning put forth in the DVD for why Clown Fish couldn't have evolved resistance to the poison from anemones?

    Irreducible complexity.

    I'll preface this with I am not a scientist lol.

    I did some reading after you posted this.  From my understanding, anemones do not need clown fish to survive but they do help, and the clown fish use the anemones for protection.  The blurb I posted earlier in this thread indicates that the clown fish have developed a way to make the anemones recognize them as part of them, therefore not stinging them.  

    The idea of irreducible complexity comes down to this.  "I cannot fathom that this could happen unless there was a creator because it is so complicated."  That to me is lazy thinking and also unscientific thinking.  If my understanding of evolutionary process is right, clown fish that didn't have mucus coats would have been subject to anemone poison stings, but those that had them and rubbed on anemones (likely by chance initially) found they survived as the anemones didn't recognize them as foreign and didn't try to sting them.  Clown fish who were so "innoculated" found that they lived longer near the anemones as other competing fish were stung and/or avoided the stinging anemones.  The anemones were benefitting by the clown fish bringing food to them.  

    If I'm wrong please correct me.

    I don't know how any of this makes an argument "for" irreducible complexity or creationism.

    lol

    agreed

    The idea of irreducible complexity comes down to this.  "I cannot fathom that this could happen unless there was a creator because it is so complicated."  That to me is lazy thinking and also unscientific thinking. 

    I would add "God of the gaps."

  • futureshock
    January 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM

    Some may find this interesting:

    The Fallacy of Irreducible Complexity

    http://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2010/03/fallacy-of-irreducible-complexity.html

  • romalove
    January 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM


    Quoting futureshock:

    Some may find this interesting:

    The Fallacy of Irreducible Complexity

    http://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2010/03/fallacy-of-irreducible-complexity.html

    Interesting article, thank you for sharing.  I didn't read it (obviously) before posting what I did up there, but I don't think it changes anything I said.

    I will wait for Clair to find my flaws LOL.

  • romalove
    January 18, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    Bumping in hopes that Clair will continue the conversation.

  • Clairwil
    January 18, 2013 at 3:54 PM
    Quoting romalove:

    Bumping in hopes that Clair will continue the conversation.

    Sorry, dead tired this evening.  We finally found a babysitter and were about to go out yesterday to see a film (The Hobbit, as it happens) together for the first time in 4 years, when the babysitter cancelled.  :-(

    I'm not sure I have anything to add, you seem to have nailed why the DVD is scientifically absurd in this instance.  I think the ball is now in the court of the DVD supporters, to try to point out a claim from the DVD that they think is correct.


  • romalove
    January 18, 2013 at 3:56 PM

    I am sorry!  I did not mean to disturb you.  I hope you get some rest and the chance to see your movie soon.

    Quoting Clairwil:

    Quoting romalove:

    Bumping in hopes that Clair will continue the conversation.

    Sorry, dead tired this evening.  We finally found a babysitter and were about to go out yesterday to see a film (The Hobbit, as it happens) together for the first time in 4 years, when the babysitter cancelled.  :-(

    I'm not sure I have anything to add, you seem to have nailed why the DVD is scientifically absurd in this instance.  I think the ball is now in the court of the DVD supporters, to try to point out a claim from the DVD that they think is correct.


Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN