FlytrapCare Carnivorous Plant Forums

(At sbrooks)I don't think this person is going to give up until he wins, and is refusing to answer any of your questions directly.

I have a feeling that this will go on for a long time and go nowhere.

bigbowlowrong wrote:You give me the painful impression you haven't read Origins. Which explains a lot.

Not in about 20 years. It's a bit dated........

bigbowlowrong wrote:He later dedicates several chapters of Origins to these very objections - some of which, bizarrely, are still brought up today as if they werent debunked by the man himself! Talk about redundant!

Their "debunking" is a matter of opinion. There is where your point of view and mine part ways. What proofs did he show? No doubt, he attempted to explain away many of the problems with the theory that he himself admitted to. You have to have a lot of faith, and a tremendous imagination, to assume that these complex systems built up on their own, with the ridiculous level of harmonies required to sustain such a system in its most basic form, let alone the complex form that they exist in presently. To paraphrase another classic book, the study of nature should bring men to faith in a creator that is great beyond comprehension. Instead, much of mankind has attributed that greatness to nature itself.

So many things that science "proved" 100 years ago is now known to be false. The same held true throughout the history of science. The same will hold true in the future. So many theories were mixed with assumptions to produce "facts". Every generation thinks that they are the smart ones that finally got it all figured out. Though many scientists admit that the more we discover, the more we realize how little that we know. Consider the subject of anti-matter, for instance. Or anything in the quantum physics realm. By the way, scientists still don't fully understand how gravity works! Scientific method can be nearly flawless, and I have great faith in it when done properly. Unfortunately, it is run by humans, that often make grave miscalculations, while ignoring other data that doesn't support what they're hoping to find. Mix in what governments want their people to think, and you come up with the text books that you will be quoting from tomorrow.

plantman1001 wrote:(At sbrooks)I don't think this person is going to give up until he wins, and is refusing to answer any of your questions directly.

I have a feeling that this will go on for a long time and go nowhere.

Agreed, plantman. I've been down this road enough that nothing will be solved in anyone's mind that wasn't already solved in their mind to begin with. Methinks a gigantic can of worms has been opened....

My apologies to any who come across this thread and begin to feel proselytized; it wasn't my intention; but it's very hard to hold such a discussion without bleeding into matters of faith; I would argue that Evolution is a matter of faith as much as Christianity; both claim to be based off of Many Infallible Proofs. I'm pretty certain that no one on this board has made these fantastic scientific discoveries themselves, so they, like me, are basing their faith in their belief system upon the "findings" of others that are assumed to be highly smart and virtually infallible in their techniques. Whose "findings" they agree with are often based off of what they want to believe in the first place, or on what the majority of braintrust in that particular field says to be true.

If this is something that Matt would prefer that I just backed away from, I understand. As I've stated before, it's really not the website for it; however, if anyone wants to jump in on either side, more power to you.

sbrooks wrote:If this is something that Matt would prefer that I just backed away from, I understand.

As long as the discussion stays civil (no personal attacks, name calling, etc.), I'm fine with a good debate. It is a sensitive subject, so I'm sure it is going to evoke strong emotional responses from both sides of the field. Thus, anyone who chooses to participate needs to be sure that any post they wish to make is done so with the primary intention of expressing their point of view/beliefs (or respectfully citing reasons why they disagree with another's point of view) and NOT an attack or judgement of someone else's point of view. And I'll definitely be moderating, editing posts if necessary, to try to keep it from getting ugly.

Let me start by saying I certainly have my biases in this "debate" but I wanted to just toss out some food for though. Specifically regarding the argument that complex systems are more likely to have been designed rather than be the result of evolution.

Since it was the one that caught my attention, the eye. It's one that is commonly sited(pun intended) as being too complex to have not been designed. But then that begs the question, if it was designed why is there such a glaring fault with it? Namely the optic nerve which for most all vertebrates passed through the retina rather than connecting the the back of the retina. By passing through the retina it leaves a blind spot in each eye that is overcome by the brain, but why, if designed, would you have it be like this? By comparison the eyes of cephalopods are nearly perfect, their optic nerves connect to the back of the retina.

I think it's also worth mentioning that so often "debates" on evolution end up in arguments because people tend to assume/choose one of the many methods of evolution and use that as the de facto definition. When in reality there are several evolutionary methods; natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc. To over simplify, does whether or not you use bean change whether or not it's chili? Some people will say yes, but really, no. So does whether or not a specific proposed method of evolution make sense to you mean that evolution as a whole is fallacious?

And I'll end with this....I'm a young guy, but I've learned long ago that while these debates are fun, you're foolish to think anyone is changing their mind. I disagree with a lot of what sbrooks says in this thread, but I can tell that his opinions are clearly the result of his own pursuit of knowledge and not just rehashed rhetoric, just as my opinions are the result of my own pursuit.

sbrooks and I are alone on an island(sorry to strand you with me, I promise it's a magic island where you can grow and carn plant you want), and we're both looking at a rock, I say it's blue and he says it's green. Who's correct?

I happen to have a first edition copy of the book and it is a great insight to his investigations on Venus Flytraps. How wonderful it must have been to spend ones life of study and follow ones curiosity. It is simply that an investigation, not a moral treaty or something written to oppose religion or any other doctrine. That said. the importance of this form is to share insight and information about VFT and other CP. Leave it at that, and like Darwin just enjoy in fascination of the world around us.

danielfivetoes wrote:I happen to have a first edition copy of the book and it is a great insight to his investigations on Venus Flytraps. How wonderful it must have been to spend ones life of study and follow ones curiosity. It is simply that an investigation, not a moral treaty or something written to oppose religion or any other doctrine. That said. the importance of this form is to share insight and information about VFT and other CP. Leave it at that, and like Darwin just enjoy in fascination of the world around us.

I would like to reiterate this. People reading this debate may be mislead into thinking that the book is about Darwin attempting to prove the evolutionary relationships of CPs. A great deal of the book is just his experiments and observations in his investigation of the capturing mechanisms of carnivorous plants. Obviously, some discussion of his findings is applied to evolutionary relationships, but that is by no means the main focus.

parker679 wrote: But then that begs the question, if it was designed why is there such a glaring fault with it?

Excellent question, but still I had to chuckle; This same question is also at the heart of the Gospel message, in relation to humans, and the universe in general.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the universe in its present state is anywhere near perfect, or running at its most conceivably efficient state. Certainly I would have built in more armor in the genitalia region, if I had my druthers.

parker679 wrote: Namely the optic nerve which for most all vertebrates passed through the retina rather than connecting the the back of the retina. By passing through the retina it leaves a blind spot in each eye that is overcome by the brain, but why, if designed, would you have it be like this?

Interesting point. I cannot even venture a guess. Maybe someday we will discover the purpose. Maybe there is none. But certainly nature is wrought with inefficiencies, and yet it is complex beyond comprehension. I'd venture to say that "obsolete" organs like the appendix also serve a purpose; they are not just remnants of evolution past; we just haven't figured it out yet.

parker679 wrote:By comparison the eyes of cephalopods are nearly perfect, their optic nerves connect to the back of the retina.

Yeah, I hear they produce offspring without much pain, too. Smug bastards. I guess every creature has its own gifts. I bet you they can't drive a stick shift as well as us, though, despite all of those grippers.

parker679 wrote: I think it's also worth mentioning that so often "debates" on evolution end up in arguments

parker679 wrote:I've learned long ago that while these debates are fun, you're foolish to think anyone is changing their mind.

Yeah, Parker, I'm pretty sure that I've made these points over and over in this thread. I'm not nearly as itchy about this as The Evolutionary Psychologist (that's not name calling!) I've done my share of debating these things, and although I have made people think, and they have made me think as well, it's really not a war I'm as Gung ho about it as a learned college grad might be. Couple that with the fact that most people on any secular website would certainly side with evolution, so I would have my hands full on any debate on this thread.
I like farting around on here, checking in from time to time, but I'm not going to spend hours trying to rebut various "facts" that are tossed my way. For the time being, I'm just trying to have fun with it.

parker679 wrote: I disagree with a lot of what sbrooks says in this thread, but I can tell that his opinions are clearly the result of his own pursuit of knowledge and not just rehashed rhetoric, just as my opinions are the result of my own pursuit.

I really appreciate that.

parker679 wrote:I say it's blue and he says it's green. Who's correct?

My wife would laugh at that. We argue about what color something is all of the time. If it's somewhere between turquoise and aquamarine, I guess that the argument will go on until someone grows a magic carnivorous plant big enough to feed the other to.

danielfivetoes wrote:It is simply that an investigation, not a moral treaty or something written to oppose religion or any other doctrine. That said. the importance of this form is to share insight and information about VFT and other CP. Leave it at that, and like Darwin just enjoy in fascination of the world around us.

If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the book Insectivorous Plants. At some point the thread began centering more around Origin of Species.

danielfivetoes wrote: like Darwin just enjoy in fascination of the world around us.

That's a fantastic philosophy, Daniel. May the Rehder Garden be prosperous (and secure) in the future!

fattytuna wrote: I would like to reiterate this. People reading this debate may be mislead into thinking that the book is about Darwin attempting to prove the evolutionary relationships of CPs. A great deal of the book is just his experiments and observations in his investigation of the capturing mechanisms of carnivorous plants. Obviously, some discussion of his findings is applied to evolutionary relationships, but that is by no means the main focus.

Sorry that your thread got hijacked, Mr. Tuna. I don't think anyone here is really debating Insectivorous Plants. It's just someone entered this thread that essentially majored in Charles Darwin, and they seem bugged by anyone who dares doubt anything that was ever uttered by the man. No doubt, lots of people can't stand it when people don't think just like them; once I started gaining so many interests other than what other people thought, (not to mention a family, and about 500 fly traps) my desire to change their mind wavered considerably.

Oh yeah, I guess I should throw in: CASE CLOSED!

I just downloaded Insectivorous Plants from Project Gutenberg. It is a pretty good book so far, and I like it better than On the Origin of Species...

parker679 wrote:I say it's blue and he says it's green. Who's correct?

Well that's pretty simple, just measure the light's wavelength. Blue light would have a slightly shorter wavelength than green light.

As for evidence of evolution, here is a very fascinating article from National Geographic regarding the speciation (the creation of an entirely new species) of dolphins thru natural hybridization...

DNA Discovery Reveals Surprising Dolphin Origins

"A well-known dolphin species, the clymene dolphin, arose from mating between two separate and distinct dolphin species, report genetics researchers."

tom_e_boi wrote:

parker679 wrote:I say it's blue and he says it's green. Who's correct?

Well that's pretty simple, just measure the light's wavelength. Blue light would have a slightly shorter wavelength than green light.

But that just tells you the wavelength, not how a person's eyes "interpret" that wavelength. Which is my point. The events of history are definite, but how each of us interprets those events can differ.

You ever had an argument with someone over whether an item was bluish green or greenish blue, the specific wavelength isn't at question, it's the interpretation that is at question.

That's also why I stuck us on an island. So that we're just comparing opinions based on observation and not measurable data. Once we measure it and see it's the same we can agree that we just have differing interpretation of the same data. But without measurement there is no way to say definitively who is correct.

Interesting article indeed.

Kind of like what Parker said, the interpretation of the data, what it means in the grand scheme of things, or in regards to origins, is still highly debatable.

It is still a dolphin. Some species have more of an ability to evolve, with some limitation. Very few would debate that. Viruses have the ability to mutate into what would appear to be a completely different beast altogether. There are at least two types of evolution that I'm aware of: Micro- and Macro-. There's probably more that the geeksters have defined and categorized; maybe this dolphin thing fits a third category that I'm unaware of. But it's still a dolphin. All of the data was analyzed and supplied by humans. Whether those humans be scientists, doctors, or religious leaders, how they analyze, interpret, define, and present their data can, and has (judging from past "discoveries and how they were viewed and through what lenses) sometimes been found to be false, misguided, and at times a downright lie or hoax.

Maybe dolphins do have the ability to go beyond Micro-evolution. When it grows legs, then they will be on to something. Right now, we still just have a dolphin, and some scientists' interpretation of the "bluish-green" creature.

And I would bet that this "new" species of dolphin does not have any new complex characteristic that would take a vastly complex, intelligent blueprint such as species that we are aware of possess. I'm willing to accept that evolution can occur on a minimal level. But evolving from simple to an almost unfathomable complexity that we see in creation today, with all of the symbiosis between various species, yada, yada, etc., etc., takes intelligent design. No way around it, IMO. And many who believe in evolution also believe in an intelligent Creator. Personally, my contention would come more with those who accept evolution as an excuse for kicking The Guy Upstairs out of the equation altogether. (But no, I'm not trying to start an "Is there a God?" debate!)

sbrooks wrote:Maybe dolphins do have the ability to go beyond Micro-evolution. When it grows legs, then they will be on to something. Right now, we still just have a dolphin, and some scientists' interpretation of the "bluish-green" creature.

Ironically, dolphins are mammals. Which means they evolved from land animals that had legs. There isn't just one variety of dolphin. They are a group made up of many different species. Much like there isn't just one variety of monkeys, or whales, penguins, bees, ants, hummingbirds, etc. These groups are all made up of different species, many of which can't breed with another species no matter how similar they are to each other. Which was so surprising to find out that not only were two different species of dolphins successfully interbreeding with each other and creating viable offspring, but these hybrids were fertile and able to breed on their own and have their own offspring. This is extremely rare among mammals. For example, donkeys and horses can interbreed and give birth to mules. But mules themselves are sterile and can't breed with other mules.

The scientists don't have to interpret the data. The evidence speaks for itself. The new species of dolphin has DNA from both of the other two species. The DNA matches up perfectly.

tom_e_boi wrote:Ironically, dolphins are mammals. Which means they evolved from land animals that had legs.

Sorry, it just means that they are mammals.

tom_e_boi wrote:The scientists don't have to interpret the data.

But that's what you just did. And that's what can sometimes happen, even in the scientific community. And then everyone jumps on board, because the scientists are too smart to question.

sbrooks wrote:But that's what you just did. And that's what can sometimes happen, even in the scientific community. And then everyone jumps on board, because the scientists are too smart to question

HaHa, okay... if you say so. I'm not out to convince anybody that I'm right or that they're wrong.