What a chance ?

1. 67

   Eng.Mposted 14 years ago

   
   
   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

   replyreport
   1. 66

      nicompposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin 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

         replyreport
         1. 66

            nicompposted 14 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
      2. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin 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 ?

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin 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 ??

               replyreport
            2. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  nice story
                  thanx
                  
                  I will have to take it more scientifically now
                  
                  good days

                  replyreport
               2. 66

                  nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Circular logic. Please cite a peer-reviewed source.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL
                     
                     Please offer any evidence whatsoever of your magical super being.
                     
                     With peer reviews. Like it says in the bible.
                     
                     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?

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        nicompposted 14 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin 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

                           replyreport
                  2. 75

                     Inspirepubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     The Encyclopaedia Brittannica.

                     replyreport
         2. 66

            aka-djposted 14 years agoin 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).         Science?
            Perhaps a peahen psychologist got it from the birds themselves.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin 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..

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  aka-djposted 14 years agoin 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).
                  I dreamt up god, you dreamt up peacock-peahen sexual desires. Quite simple, really.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin 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/

                     replyreport
               2. 66

                  aka-djposted 14 years agoin 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,. .

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Descartes.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Many masters including the Buddha.

                           replyreport
                     2. 75

                        Inspirepubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Actually, it was Renee Descartes.
                        
                        Jenny

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           Inspirepubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              You cannot imagine an enlightened sate so how will you imagine the Buddha correctly.It is not a mistake to identify yourself with your thoughts and the Buddha was no ordinary man. Every master will say the same thing. Your thoughts create or manifest.

                              replyreport
                              1. 75

                                 Inspirepubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 Mohit, if you genuinely had the enlightenment you claim to have, you would understand why identifying yourself with you thoughts is maya.
                                 
                                 In order to continue to treat you as enlightened, I will have to assume that there is a translation issue with the word "identify".
                                 
                                 To identify with one's thoughts is to believe that one IS one's thoughts. The Buddha clearly did not believe this. Descartes did.
                                 
                                 Jenny

                                 replyreport
      3. 75

         Inspirepubposted 14 years agoin 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

         replyreport
2. 88

   Paragliderposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I know it helps for attracting a female
      
      but
      
      may be it's for both and may be for more

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin 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?
         
         
         
         Or did the bad god make them?

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            may be to see the difference

            replyreport
         2. 0

            sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            That dog is so ugly it is cute.   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!

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               LOL
               
               I prefer the dog to the peacock actually.

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Maybe God created this dog to attract militant atheists.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I would certainly adopt him.

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        aka-djposted 14 years agoin 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.
                        I enjoyed my own private joke, at your expense.
                        Sorry Mark. I still have little respect.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
                           1. 66

                              aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              That dog proves (yet again) that He's got a sense of humor. I recon He has had a great laugh too!

                              replyreport
                              1. 58

                                 Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 Why would that offend me? Although - isn't it funny how your invisible super being has exactly the same sense of humor as you do. How odd

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 88

                                    Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    There's a serious point here of course. Aka-dj (he'll forgive me for mentioning) is a nice cheerful guy, so his god, in his own image, is a nice cheerful god. The problem comes when violent and aggressive believers similarly observe that their god precisely shares their own preferred flavour of violence and aggression.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 66

                                       aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       I forgive you.

                                       report
            2. 0

               fierycjposted 14 years agoin 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!

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
            3. 67

               Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               amm
               
               good idea

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  moposanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  replyreport
               2. 58

                  moposanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  replyreport
         3. 64

            RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
   2. 67

      Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin 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

      replyreport
3. 60

   packerpackposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Eng.Mposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
4. 57

   Mrvoodooposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
5. 58

   moposanposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
6. 66

   aka-djposted 14 years ago

   That dog is 10 times funnier than the Tom Cruise/SP video.
   I was in stitches.
   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.
   Thanks Mark.

   replyreport
7. 67

   Eng.Mposted 14 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

   replyreport