• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Intelligent Design

But bananas grow in big old bunches, almost spherical ones in fact. They are but a segment of the whole shebang and seen this way make perfect sense.
 
beakboo said:
But bananas grow in big old bunches, almost spherical ones in fact. They are but a segment of the whole shebang and seen this way make perfect sense.
Click to expand...
Not really because if the all fall and roll together then how many banana trees do you want growing in one spot?
 
Bananas are another great example.

They are perfectly in sync with primates. Sure, a pig can snuffle them on the ground, but they are *for* primates.

Evolution Theory asserts that the banana tree evolved by natural selection of the trees that had better replecating qualities.

ie. there was a tree resembling the banana millions of years ago, and gradually, generation by generation, it evolved into the banana as primates discovered IT, and IT discovered primates would defecate the seeds at some great distance, ensuring the banana's survival.

We spend a lot of time considering the evolutionary history of people. For instance there is a lot of work on the 'missing link'. But how much do we know about the evolutionary history of the banana tree, and EVERY OTHER organism on the planet? An admirably decent bit, i bet. But i also bet it's very sketchy, really.

As much as evolution theory seems REALLY plausible, and as much as I for one still support it for lack of an alternative, it does leave a lot to be desired.

I'm NOT just supporting I.D. here. I think there are three possibilities that account for what we see.

1) I.D.
2) The periods of time in which we evolved are significantly longer than we currently think.
3) DNA has an ability to 'decide' to mutate to meet observed conditions.
 
True. But which came first, the primate or the banana?
Also the current understanding of evolution is that it develops slowly over thousands of years so even if the banana and the primate were born at the same time you have multiple varying time lines.
1: How long it takes the primate to discover the banana and vice versa.
2: How long it takes for the banana too realise that it's being eaten.
3: How long it takes the banana to evolve into an even tastier looking bite of primate food.
4: How long it takes the primates digestive system to cope with this new diet.

And questions.
1: Why isn't the banana seed dissolved by the primates digestive juices or irrepairably damaged by them preventing germination?
2: Why are some bananas red? Red is a bad colour for any self respecting creature.
3: If life follows intelligent design why doesn't all fruit look like an apple?

Apples being the most abundant fruit on earth. All hail the mighty apple....
 
Well, the reason everything works so well is because everything that didn't is dead.
So there.

Hmm, do bananananas realise they are being eaten? Are they in a big claw shape for a reason? Quite frightening...intelligent bananananas...
If all fruit were apples, what would people who don't like apples eat?
 
River_Styx said:
2: Why are some bananas red? Red is a bad colour for any self respecting creature.
3: If life follows intelligent design why doesn't all fruit look like an apple?
Click to expand...

Just think about these two questions for a moment....

Nonny
 
Nonny Mouse said:
Just think about these two questions for a moment....

Nonny
Click to expand...
Nope. I've had far too much to drink you're going to have too spell it out.
 
I think Nonny means that a lot of apples are red.
And anyway, do bananas have seeds? I've never encountered one. (though they may have been bred out, somehow I doubt it) Maybe they propagate by means of runners or offsets? For the third time on this board I have cause to wish Bob Flowerdew were a member. :(
 
beakboo said:
I think Nonny means that a lot of apples are red.
And anyway, do bananas have seeds? I've never encountered one. (though they may have been bred out, somehow I doubt it) Maybe they propagate by means of runners or offsets? For the third time on this board I have cause to wish Bob Flowerdew were a member. :(
Click to expand...
Apples may be red but I've never seen an apple shaped banana or a banana shaped apple.
Banana seeds are the thin brown stalky bit that grows up the centre from the bottom of the skin. At least that's my understanding of banana propogation.
 
They do have tiny black bits around the stalky bit apparently (I hate the things) Perhaps they're the seeds? Of course if it's propogated through monkey poo then they wouldn't all fall together and grow in the same place as you suggested earlier Styx, and them growing in bunches would be an advantage as the monkeys would find them more easily. There are many similar symbiotic arrangements between plants and animals. But when all's said and done IMO this stuff evolving over millions of years is a lot easier to swallow than any alternatives suggested so far. After all, we don't see the ones that didn't work and we wouldn't necessarily recognise the half evolved arrangements.
Or would we?
 
beakboo said:
They do have tiny black bits around the stalky bit apparently (I hate the things) Perhaps they're the seeds? Of course if it's propogated through monkey poo then they wouldn't all fall together and grow in the same place as you suggested earlier Styx, and them growing in bunches would be an advantage as the monkeys would find them more easily. There are many similar symbiotic arrangements between plants and animals. But when all's said and done IMO this stuff evolving over millions of years is a lot easier to swallow than any alternatives suggested so far. After all, we don't see the ones that didn't work and we wouldn't necessarily recognise the half evolved arrangements.
Or would we?
Click to expand...
But once the banana has been plucked from the tree how does the tree know whatss happened to it?
And what did the tree do before primtes came along?
 
The tree doesn't know what's happened to it, it doesn't need to know. The mechanism of natural selection has taken care of all the arrangements. Presumably before the monkeys came along the proto-banana did something else. Or perhaps the monkeys came before the bananas. That's the neat thing about evolution (and I use the word neat in it's proper, old-person sense). Everything seems to have a job to do, and it all fits together like a big jigsaw, because its had all the sharp corners rubbed off over the years.
 
beakboo said:
The tree doesn't know what's happened to it, it doesn't need to know. The mechanism of natural selection has taken care of all the arrangements. Presumably before the monkeys came along the proto-banana did something else. Or perhaps the monkeys came before the bananas. That's the neat thing about evolution (and I use the word neat in it's proper, old-person sense). Everything seems to have a job to do, and it all fits together like a big jigsaw, because its had all the sharp corners rubbed off over the years.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that evolution is not affected by the lifeform being aware of what is happening to it?
 
River_Styx said:
So you're saying that evolution is not affected by the lifeform being aware of what is happening to it?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The timescale involved would rule that out anyway. Even if 'nanas were self aware, which I sincerely hope they aren't.
 
River_Styx said:
So you're saying that evolution is not affected by the lifeform being aware of what is happening to it?
Click to expand...

Modern technology aside, can you change your genetic makeup because you think it's a really good idea? What an individual organism does or does not know is irrelevent; there's bugger all they could do about it anyway.
 
beakboo said:
But when all's said and done IMO this stuff evolving over millions of years is a lot easier to swallow than any alternatives suggested so far. After all, we don't see the ones that didn't work and we wouldn't necessarily recognise the half evolved arrangements.
Or would we?
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as 'half evolved'. That idea presupposes an end or purpose to evolution. Things just are, and they all get along more or less well wherever they find themselves - but the ones that do a little better are more likely to have a long line of descendents.

But if the environment changes, then the selective pressure changes, changing the likelihood of which species will prosper.

Perhaps from the perspective of five million years in the future, some other species will consider that humans were an unsuccesful species....
 
Inverurie Jones said:
Modern technology aside, can you change your genetic makeup because you think it's a really good idea? What an individual organism does or does not know is irrelevent; there's bugger all they could do about it anyway.
Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood.
Of course a lifeform can't change its physiology once it has been born, unles it's an amoeba, but perhaps when the next generation is conceived there is a subliminal interaction between the old genetic code and the mutating new one.
A life adapts to its enviroment and is concious of its surroundings but you're saying that that doesn't play a part in the evolution of a species.
 
rynner said:
There's no such thing as 'half evolved'. That idea presupposes an end or purpose to evolution. Things just are, and they all get along more or less well wherever they find themselves - but the ones that do a little better are more likely to have a long line of descendents.
Click to expand...
A good and valid point Rynner, but the half evolvedness (if there is such a word) I was referring to was the development of a symbiotic arrangement. Presumably somewhere in nature there are animals and plants who are gradually making their way to just such an interdependance as the monkey and banana, or a particular species of hummingbird and it's favoured flower. Somewhere there may be a hibiscus with a pollen tube that gets longer with each successful mutation, and a hummingbird nearby with a very long beak. In this small area it could be argued that there is an end purpose.
 
in reply to inverurie and riverstyx above. Organisms can change their physiology. If there are too many of one sex in some populations of Reed frogs then they can change into a different sex. This is genetically programmed change in rection to certain stimuli. This is a "conscious" change i.e. there is a choice between being male or female and conditions dictate which one the frog should be (although no thought is involved). In contrast with other physiological changes such as pupation where all members of the species pass through the same stages.
This argues for evolution as well. Seeing as the difference between males and females can lie in just one gene that controls the activation or repression of other genes (i.e. in humans the Xist and Xic of the X-chromosome cause inactivation of the second X in females). Making this male/female switch receptive to changes in the environment allows better adaptation to that environment and thus a better chance of survival and propagation. The random nature of mutation as predicted by evolutionary theory explains why this mechanism is present in frogs but not in, say, other species where it could be useful.
 
barndad said:
in reply to inverurie and riverstyx above. Organisms can change their physiology. If there are too many of one sex in some populations of Reed frogs then they can change into a different sex. This is genetically programmed change in rection to certain stimuli. This is a "conscious" change i.e. there is a choice between being male or female and conditions dictate which one the frog should be (although no thought is involved). In contrast with other physiological changes such as pupation where all members of the species pass through the same stages.
This argues for evolution as well. Seeing as the difference between males and females can lie in just one gene that controls the activation or repression of other genes (i.e. in humans the Xist and Xic of the X-chromosome cause inactivation of the second X in females). Making this male/female switch receptive to changes in the environment allows better adaptation to that environment and thus a better chance of survival and propagation. The random nature of mutation as predicted by evolutionary theory explains why this mechanism is present in frogs but not in, say, other species where it could be useful.
Click to expand...
Just finished reading about the iguanas that have been observed changing their size during times of drought thus requiring less food. This includes shortening their bones, something that surely should be impossible before growing again when food becomes more abundant.
Although does this count as evolution or is it a a form of self induced genetic modification?
 
Iguana bone shortening is far from impossible. Your solid bone matter is constantly in flux. Being deposited and solubilised at a steady rate that gives a maximum strength to you bones. i.e. the rate of depolsition is slightly greater than solubilisation so that there is solid bone where there should be. During pregnancy in humans, if the mother is not getting enough calcium from her diet then the rate of bone calcium deposition will be decreased to divert calcium to the growing foetus. This can lead to brittle bones in expectant mothers if not monitored closely. For iguanas i guess (though i havent read the article. What journal is it in?) it would be a similar matter of diversion of calcium to deliberately shorten the bones.
it's not a case of self induced genetic modification because the genes are always there. Like with the frogs the potential for change is written in the genes but is only turned on when induced by lack of one sex or lack of food. Almost all bodily systems (especially things like hormones) are in a constant state of flux where they are running in both directions simultaneously to produce a net zero effect. But when stimulated a small increase in one direction causes a large overall effect.
Evolution has shaped this system so it can be more responsive to change than a simple on/off system.
In the iguanas evolutionary pressure hjas caused them to evolve this mechanism because it gives a slight edge in times of famine for some reason. Maybe the food available during famine is low in calcium and the bone shortening helps to get them through this by freeing up some calcium
 
barndad said:
Iguana bone shortening is far from impossible. Your solid bone matter is constantly in flux. Being deposited and solubilised at a steady rate that gives a maximum strength to you bones. i.e. the rate of depolsition is slightly greater than solubilisation so that there is solid bone where there should be. During pregnancy in humans, if the mother is not getting enough calcium from her diet then the rate of bone calcium deposition will be decreased to divert calcium to the growing foetus. This can lead to brittle bones in expectant mothers if not monitored closely. For iguanas i guess (though i havent read the article. What journal is it in?) it would be a similar matter of diversion of calcium to deliberately shorten the bones.
it's not a case of self induced genetic modification because the genes are always there. Like with the frogs the potential for change is written in the genes but is only turned on when induced by lack of one sex or lack of food. Almost all bodily systems (especially things like hormones) are in a constant state of flux where they are running in both directions simultaneously to produce a net zero effect. But when stimulated a small increase in one direction causes a large overall effect.
Evolution has shaped this system so it can be more responsive to change than a simple on/off system.
In the iguanas evolutionary pressure hjas caused them to evolve this mechanism because it gives a slight edge in times of famine for some reason. Maybe the food available during famine is low in calcium and the bone shortening helps to get them through this by freeing up some calcium
Click to expand...
The last time I checked the average pregnant woman didn't shrink in size by nearly a quarter and I'm well aware of calcium deficiency during this time, although it usually leads to the falling out of teeth.
I'm fairly sure that the iguana probably needs less water as well as food if it reduces its overall mass. It would also need less of everything else including vital vitamins, minerals and proteins in order to stay alive. There is also the lower energy requirment involved in propelling itself. I think all these factors combined could be considered more than a slight edge.
 
Out of the blue, an email correspondent sent me this:

"As you go shopping this summer, I want you to keep your eye open for purple carrots. The Times had a nice article on them. -- you see orange ones now as support of William of Orange. But they were purple in the beginning."

News to me - anyone see the article, or have more info?
 
There was a brief mention of this on the radio this morning. Apparently white, black and purple up until the Dutch cross-bred them,as you say. And they will be again - coming to a supermarket near you.

A PR gimmick aimed at making genetically modified food appear to be cute and yummy, perhaps?

Click here for more.
 
Just listened to the radio on the BBC website and they say that carrots were indeed orginally purple and it was the Dutch who bred them to be orange. Apparently Egyptian wall paintings show them as purple, and in Roman times they were purple or white. They also said purple carrots are better at protecting people from cancer and heart disease, but not how. Sainsbury's say they will put them on sale in the autumn.
 
Haven't you ever noticed that if the top of a growing carrot protrudes from the ground it becomes purple? Maybe the Dutch did breed carrots to be orange, but the carrot's genes haven't really forgotten that it was once purple. Perhaps the purple pigmentation offers protection against UV damage.

Purple carrots have been available in Oz for a few years now and it's very noticable that they are much sweeter than the orange sort. So maybe we have here yet another example of plant breeders chasing visual attraction at the expense of other sensations. Just like the visually splendid new roses that lack perfume really.
 
Cursed said:
There was a brief mention of this on the radio this morning. Apparently white, black and purple up until the Dutch cross-bred them,as you say. And they will be again - coming to a supermarket near you.

A PR gimmick aimed at making genetically modified food appear to be cute and yummy, perhaps?

Click here for more.
Click to expand...

I think it's rather an anti-Dutch conspiracy

Well... I heard that all our body's cells are totally replaced in 7 years... is that a big fat lie? Or scientific fact?
 
JackSkellington said:
I heard that all our body's cells are totally replaced in 7 years
Click to expand...
I don't think it happens all in one go Jack. ;)
 
some cells dont last (e.g. red blood cells= 120 day lifespan). Others can last over twenty years (some subpopulations of T cells).
Some cells are never replaced. Eg the lens of the eye. Its made of dead cells packed full of the protein crystallin. The protein stacks together to form a lens. Like the layers in a crystal lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top