Population Bottleneck

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest said:
Pope Benedict said it can’t be proven. Please don’t bring in the math analogy.
Click to expand...
I wrote before about the difference between the mathematical meaning of “proof” and the “proof” needed to accept a scientific theory. They are different. To expect mathematical “proof” of any theory is neither possible nor how science works. It’s not an analogy–it’s a difference in the definition of the word. By your definition, there is no proof of ANY scientific theory at all. And thus no science.

Plus I’ll add once again that Ratzinger was giving a speech. He has no scientific training. His opinion on this matter, in this setting, is the same as any person who doesn’t have specialized education in the subject. In other words, your opinion or my opinion.
edwest said:
I have been reading threads like this for years. Conclusion: the sole purpose of these threads is to promote atheist evolution.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to “promote” anything. Those who wish to live in ignorance are perfectly free to continue doing so. There are a lot of people who believe in aliens, that the earth is flat, and that Scientology is 100% correct. I’m just not one of them.
 
Last edited:
You are, knowingly or unknowingly, promoting something.

Look up the the term “engineering consent.”
 
rossum said:
The marbled crayfish is a well defined species. It has gained the ability to propagate itself parthenogenically, which its predecessors did not have. That is a gain in function.
Click to expand...
The new marbled crayfish gained in function? I am not so sure of that yet. But before I put my 2 cents, please consider this scenario:

Assume that we have a population of organisms that have one eye, which later evolved into a population of organisms with two eyes. Was there a gain in function? One person might say yes, because it now has a wider vision since it now has two eyes. However, I can say no, because the new eye that developed has the same function as the single eye, which is the function of vision. The new two-eyed organism gained an advantage , but it did not gain a new function.

Now, suppose a population of one-eyed organisms evolved out of a population of two-eyed organisms. Did it lose a function? According to my understanding, the answer is also no, because it still has the ability to see. It merely lost the advantage of being able to see more, but it didn’t lose the function of seeing.

I think that it is the same situation that I find with the evolution of the marbled crayfish. The new marbled crayfish did not gain a new function (which is the ability to reproduce), but it lost the advantages that go with sexual reproduction.

So, I guess it depends on how you define "gain in function.”
 
Last edited:
Would not stereoscopic vision be a gain in function? Depth perception?
 
The problem with one eye is seeing things within 15 feet or so becomes problematic. Having two eyes set at a precise distance apart increases field of view and depth perception, which is the way humans experience it. However, birds have a single eye on both sides of the head but the eyes sometimes can see for greater distances compared to humans, and hawks can navigate tight spaces at high speeds, requiring precision eye, wing and body coordination.
 
rom said:
Assume that we have a population of organisms that have one eye, which later evolved into a population of organisms with two eyes. Was there a gain in function? One person might say yes, because it now has a wider vision since it now has two eyes.
Click to expand...
Two eyes gives depth perception, which one eye does not.

ETA: Reminder to self, read StephieNorthCo’s post first before posting. 😦

rossum
 
Last edited:
StephieNorthCo said:
Would not stereoscopic vision be a gain in function? Depth perception?
Click to expand...
Depth perception is not a function of the eye per se. Because the eye itself does not “see” depth. Depth perception is more an interpretation made by the brain based on visual cues provided by the eye, or by two eyes, if the organism has two eyes. In fact, even organisms that have only one eye can distinguish near and distant objects from visual cues provided by one eye. For example, distant objects appear smaller, while closer objects appear bigger. In either case depth or distance perception seems to be more a function of the brain than of the eye itself.

Having two eyes is definitely an advantage, but not a new function. Having two eyes does not add a new function to the brain either. Two eyes only add more visual cues and data to the brain, but it is still the brain that makes the interpretation of distance or depth.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
Since birth. Practicing all my life. Jesuit college. Has your original question been answered to your satisfaction? If not, why not?

And to go back to your comment before that, there is no reason not to believe that there were 10,000 or so anatomically identical humans (physically like us today) wandering around, let’s say for the sake of argument, 60,000 years ago. One of these humans had a mutation (as happens every day with all of us) that triggered a major change (mainly in creativity), which may have taken thousands of years to play out completely and spread to the rest of the population. But if, from a religious point of view, you want to call this person “Adam,” and believe that at that point God gave this person a soul, there’s no scientific reason stopping you.
Click to expand...
Is there a Catholic reason stopping you?
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
I’m not trying to “promote” anything. Those who wish to live in ignorance are perfectly free to continue doing so. There are a lot of people who believe in aliens, that the earth is flat, and that Scientology is 100% correct. I’m just not one of them.
Click to expand...
For the record, does anyone here believe that the earth is flat?
 
No, the earth is not flat, I do not believe in aliens and have studied Scientology and have found nothing worthwhile there. References like this are meant to add meaningless noise to the discussion and a “guilt by association” effect. The poster knows better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top