jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (56 posts)

What a chance ?

  1. Eng.M profile image74
    Eng.Mposted 7 years ago

    http://www.harunyahya.com/other/tamil/images/wallpaper/images/peacock_jpg.jpg

    what a chance would produce this beauty ?

    you may say that beauyt is a relative thing

    and I will say everything is relative also

    best regards

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Good point. The evolutionists would have us believe that the plumage evolved *in parallel* with the inclination of the other peacocks to be attracted to such. They assert that at the same time the plumage evolved, the DNA mutated in neighboring birds of the opposite sex such that one found itself attracted to the the other.

      So their explanation is two temporally and spatially adjacent independent systems self-assembling in lockstep.

      1. Eng.M profile image74
        Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think it is all about there must be someway creatures have evolved by
        they don't know yet but there should be someway

        anyway but religions ?

        they think it is more reasonable for creatures to evolve in billions of years than being created by an unseen being

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The evolutionists premise assumes that life self-assembled over millions of years, not billions. That fact aside, the peacock hasn't been around that long anyhow.

          Regardless of when peacocks first appeared, we are asked to believe that the plumage evolved in parallel with the systems that find the plumage attractive. That's my point.

          1. Eng.M profile image74
            Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I see ,
            so do you think this parallel existence is impossible or we can't know without studying biology further ?

            1. nicomp profile image60
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I know that information does not spontaneously generate in the way that would be necessary to support the evolutionists premise.

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This is a gross distortion of what evolutionists "believe." lol

        No wonder you are pushing the whole, "there must have been a creator." Clearly you do not understand evolution one little bit.

        There was no separate and "parallel," development, nor was there "two temporally and spatially adjacent independent systems self-assembling in lockstep,"

        Put as simply as I can - Peahens developed a preference for peacocks with bright plumage. Probably, but not 100% because these were the dominant males and their plumage appeared more aggressive to potential predators, therefore they were more likely to survive to breeding age and their offspring were more successful. Nothing separate about the preference of peahens for peacocks with bright plumage and the development of brighter plumage on the males.

        Hope that explains it a little better.

        1. Eng.M profile image74
          Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          so you mean the plumage brightness has developed the preference in Peahens and not the other way around

          it is like there were many males but only the most beautifule ones won , that's logical

          but logic doesn't always happen , does it ?

          1. Eng.M profile image74
            Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            and niccomp concern was as I understood that how come the preference and the brightness coexist

            chance ??

            peobabilty and errors ?? for how many years ??

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No. The brightness developed as a way to defeat predators. The ones with the bright plumage survived long enough to breed, and became more successful. The females therefore began to prefer the ones with the brighter plumage. Because they were more successful at breeding and their offspring were therefore more successful.

            1. Eng.M profile image74
              Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              nice story
              thanx

              I will have to take it more scientifically now

              good days

            2. nicomp profile image60
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Circular logic. Please cite a peer-reviewed source.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                LOL

                Please offer any evidence whatsoever of your magical super being. lol

                With peer reviews. lol Like it says in the bible. lol

                And if you want to talk about circular logic, I have a great book.

                Sure is entertaining - some one like you asking for peer reviews. Will you accept it if I offer some? lol

                1. nicomp profile image60
                  nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You simply cannot conduct a grown-up thread, can you? I tried to deal with you on an adult level, but I don't have the patience anymore. 

                  Have a nice time trolling. If you get your jollies this way, I guess you could do worse.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry - not seeing how you are conducting yourself as an adult here. Merely asking for peer reviews on scientifically accepted information does not count. Please feel free to offer any contradictory evidence if you have any, but assuming that there must be a creator because you do not accept scientific evidence - well - I don't know what to call that. Irrational? Childish? Troll-like? Any of these would do.

                    ciao

              2. Inspirepub profile image86
                Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The Encyclopaedia Brittannica.

        2. aka-dj profile image80
          aka-djposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Just HOW did you come to this conclusion? Who told you that this was the exact process that led to the current end result? Pure imagination (all of it). lol        Science? lol
          Perhaps a peahen psychologist got it from the birds themselves. lol

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            dj - I know this will be a foreign notion to you, but bear with me. This is called, "thinking for yourself." Difficult concept to grasp I know, but you should try it sometime.. wink

            1. aka-dj profile image80
              aka-djposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I know. Thinking, dreaming, imagining, brainstorming and even learning. But don't disguise it as "science"!
              Call a spade a spade. It (the process you described) is pure conjecture, (imagination). cool
              I dreamt up god, you dreamt up peacock-peahen sexual desires. Quite simple, really. lol

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                dj - evolutionary development is well documented and we are able to observe the process actually happening. A similar development has been observed in Lion fish.

                http://www.springerlink.com/content/e4284017v66738u7/

            2. aka-dj profile image80
              aka-djposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Who was it that said, "I think, therefore I am"?
              Does it work in reverse? "I am, therefore I think"?
              Oh, that's right, I am a brainwashed zombie religionist,. . lol

              1. mohitmisra profile image61
                mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Who was it that said, "I think, therefore I am"?- The masters. smile

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Descartes.

                  1. mohitmisra profile image61
                    mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Many masters including the Buddha. smile

                2. Inspirepub profile image86
                  Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, it was Renee Descartes.

                  Jenny

                  1. Inspirepub profile image86
                    Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this
      3. Inspirepub profile image86
        Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Errrr ... noooooo ... that's not the theory.

        If you are going to try to explain evolution, the necessary first step is that you understand the theory.

        You clearly don't.

        Sexual selection is a different process from natural selection. Read up on both of them, then come back and try again.

        Jenny

  2. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 7 years ago

    Do you think that peacocks' display is for the enjoyment of humans or the attraction of peahens?

    1. Eng.M profile image74
      Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I know it helps for attracting a female

      but

      may be it's for both and may be for more

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So what you are saying is - even though the peacock's display evolved over millions of years to attract a mate, some god actually put it there so we could decide it is beautiful. As opposed to the ugly animals that are there to annoy us?

        http://www.ilovemyjournal.com/media/1/SamUgliestDogLulu_sm.jpg

        Or did the bad god make them?

        1. Eng.M profile image74
          Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          may be to see the difference

        2. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That dog is so ugly it is cute. smile  Maybe God did it so you could learn to love what doesn't look as beautiful as a peacock?

          Someone loves that dog and good on them. I would love to have that dog!

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            LOL

            I prefer the dog to the peacock actually.

            1. Make  Money profile image74
              Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe God created this dog to attract militant atheists. lol

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I would certainly adopt him. wink

                1. aka-dj profile image80
                  aka-djposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You don't want to know what I was tempted to write in response to this line!
                  I couldn't think of a way to say it, without causing (possible)offence, so I sapre you. hmm
                  I enjoyed my own private joke, at your expense. lol
                  Sorry Mark. I still have little respect. big_smile

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL

                    I am not so easily offended, but I am glad you had a laugh at my expense.

          2. fierycj profile image84
            fierycjposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            According to Norse Myth, the goddess Hera, Zeu's wife used the giant Argus' 100 eyes and decorated the tail feathers of a peacock. Those are the eyes on the peacock's tail, as you can see. Ha!

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              This is a holy dog! Bare and natural... someone please give this dog a coat. LOL smile

          3. Eng.M profile image74
            Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            amm

            good idea

            1. moposan profile image61
              moposanposted 7 years ago in reply to this
            2. moposan profile image61
              moposanposted 7 years ago in reply to this
        3. RKHenry profile image80
          RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          This is your funniest post to date! God damn that's funny.

    2. Eng.M profile image74
      Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ansolute scientific thinking is very important

      although , some issues need more than much or less of that thinking

      these issues may need emotional thinking as an example but not too much of it

  3. packerpack profile image60
    packerpackposted 7 years ago

    First of all is it real or is it computer generated?

    1. Eng.M profile image74
      Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      http://michelegorden.com/wp-content/gallery/peacock/IMG_8820.jpg

  4. Mrvoodoo profile image60
    Mrvoodooposted 7 years ago

    I'm going to have nightmares for ever after seeing that dog!

  5. moposan profile image61
    moposanposted 7 years ago

    It so naive and egocentric to think that everything was created especially for you

  6. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 7 years ago

    That dog is 10 times funnier than the Tom Cruise/SP video.
    I was in stitches. lol
    For a minute there I thought it was an "alien"."OMG, they really DO exist" ? ! Then I read the "truth", just a dawg. I almost became a believer in ET. lol
    Thanks Mark.

  7. Eng.M profile image74
    Eng.Mposted 7 years ago

    natural selection for peacocks means certain species have been exposed to different environmets untill some indvidual(s) have/has gained this relative beauty to meet females and survive

    are there any examples of expected situations these kinds have gone through ? did evolutionists put basic ways for their expectations which are scientifically experimentally examed and explained ?

    the only thing they agree at is the main idea of having a variety of species due to natural selection
    how did natural selection mechanism come in the first place ?

    unless it was the infinite , main and first rule of life

 
working