Have you observed the fibonacci progression and PHI embedded geometric design that all of nature uses? The leaves on plants are distributed at fibonacci interval which allows for optimal shareability of sunlight to the leaves. Or rabbits who’s breeding patterns show a fibnonacci progression.
Fibonnaci is all about shareability and shareability is all about harmony, and harmony implies design. In other words nature is a harmonious rather than competitive system and this is underlined by the use of the fibonacci and golden mean progression (optimal shareability).
This is not meant to be going off on a tangent, I just want to show you guys how the system of nature utilizes design.
Simple, you just have to look at it backwards, i.e - By observing which genes became expressed as a result of that species branching itself out geographically within that family tree.
Now that I know you’re still listening (!) Hiryuu I’d like to know what you think of this.
Firstly, a “design” position necessarily implies a designer. If there is no designer, then “design” just becomes another name for the way nature is, ie a scientific position, and we have no debate.
Evolution is a towering, tottering complex scientific theory. You can poke or try to poke holes in it, and find bits of instability and softness here and there and good luck to you, really (not that I think the points made in the site to which you referred in the OP are that interesting).
But so what? How does that help your “design” position? As others have pointed out, you are applying (or attempting to apply) the jackhammer of reason to the foundations of the tower of evolution, but show no signs of trying the jackhammer out on the foundations of your own platform.
It’s all very well to say that wolves might be this or they could be that, but until you go out and actually find some evidence (instead of empty posturing about what evidence there might be) no one who follows scientific/rational thought is going to give two hoots for your position.
Evolution is a theory built from the bottom up on a bed of observations. Prodding and poking at it will at worst result in the tower dropping an inch or two. At the most, if you produce some unexpected flash of genius or extraordinary piece of evidence, you will send the theory to the ground where science will start once again on trying to find a rational, evidentially based theory of origins, brick by brick from the bottom.
None of this will alter the fact that a “there must be a design” position is a claim that amounts to a soaring, breathtakingly high platform kept up in the air (Douglas Adams style) by the refusal of those on the platform to take any notice of the fact that the platform rests on nothing at all. And rational people could cope with that, if it wasn’t for the catcalls and sneers of those on your shaky platform directed at the poorly understood pile of solid rock under evolution.
My theory says that the built in genetic potential will respond to external conditions through genetic expression.
For example if you set a family of domesticated pigs into the wild they would respond in a few generations by developing tusks as a response to environmental change. The tusks are for survival.
Now those tusks did not require millions of years of evolution to develop, we are only talking a few generations here. The tusks were the result of ‘built in genetic potential’ responding to the situation.
I use the terms “genetic potential” and “genetic diversity” interchangably in this context.
I thought evolution was based on chance? Isn’t Chaos the god of evolution?
I am saying that nature is harmonious rather than competitive. In this way shareability and altruism in a sense benefits everyone. Evolution also does not incorporate emotion into the equation it assumes that we are all competitive which is something to think about.
Chaos, my friend, is the driving force behind everything. There is no goddess but Goddess.
I, however, strenuously disagree here. Most species have survival methods which are mutually exclusive (ie- the death of one is required for the life of another). I don’t find that particularly harmonious, and I would even less so if I was on the receiving end of active death-for-life.
Now I’m lost. Neither theory incorporates emotion, except that with yours you may conveniently ascribe any and all traits that appear as pre-existing.
What does the arrangement of genes in the hemoglobin cluster have to do with anything?
I think H is stating that there is a common ancestor for different types of similar animals. In those animals’ genetic code is contained all the changes it can undergo as a result of the changes in the environment. Changing your geographic location, my friend, changes the environment. Ergo, it accounts for it.
However, if I understand the implication correctly, it is that the gene arrangement draws similarities between species which “met” far, far back on the “evolutionary tree”?
If you won’t give him a tip off, can you do a quick explanation for moi re: gene arrangement?
Well, geographical change usually implies environmental change. Pigs moving from domestication to the wild will undergo a change in environment and thus respond to it respectably.
Geographic change is just one aspect of environmental change.
As I have said, each specie type is derived from a common archetypal ancestor who has the greatest built in potential, like a white sheet of paper that doesn’t have any colour applied to it yet.
So in this model I do not believe there is such thing as trans-specie reproduction, any such act would render the offspring sterile or barren where applicable. I will use the simple example of the mule.
Not that I still don’t find it to be a terribly interesting idea but what I fail to see is where complex life came from in the first place if all mutations are actually pre-conceived by natural law and order. (not attributing consciousness to evolution here, just the most appropriate word I think)
Yes, It’s like this: If those pigs were to move north while in the wild they would respond by growing hair. Conversley if those pigs went south they would lose their hair. Of course this is only true north of the equator
The key to my model is that the hair on the pigs will come and go as a result of that built in genetic variety responding to environmental change.
I am pesonally not christian but their genesis model would fit my model if Noah only took archetypes on the Ark. In other words Noah would not take a pair of all dogs but rather he would just take a pair of wolves who would have the genetic potential to express all the dogs that were left behind.
Again, I am not christian but the bible has a few interesting things to say.
In my personal opinion these archetypal ancestors may be part of how the Design of nature is maintained and thus are incorporated by default to keep nature in balance.
I’m afraid my question had nothing to do with pigs and hair, and your answer has nothing to do with the arrangement of genes in the hemoglobin cluster.
Once again: why is the physical location of the hemoglobin genes (and pseudogenes) in the genome the same as their location on a family tree showing how they branched off from each other?
Please, no more talk about pigs and hair. The question is about hemoglobin. If you can’t understand the question, there’s no shame in honesty, you know.
Oh, I got that part-- honest. Its the part that fascinates me the most. But what I don’t understand is-- well, say humans and single celled organisms don’t share a common anccestor. Where did the humans “spontaneously” come from?
Say, for example, that there are really only 5 core creatures, and all species are simply permutations of pre-encoded differences due to environmental concerns. Where did these 5 come from?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your question. You mean their location in reference to what reference point? Or branched off in reference to what? You’ll have to be more specific.