[Dark Helmet]

"If you look closely, the flounder fish has a rather remarkable head. There's something amiss with the placement of its right eye and the way its mouth opens. Its as if it was a normal fish like, say the discus fish, that lived a normal life and one day some crazy demented person came along and said, "So you are a normal fish, eh? Let's see. I'll drop you on the sea floor and make you move about on your sides flat on the floor"

http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/200...lligent_de.php

It is funny and true.

[Railroader]

EDIT: See my post below

[Dark Helmet]

Ladies and gentleman.. I give you the runner up.

[Railroader]

EDIT: Never mind, I am wasting my time.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Methinks you doth protesteth too much.

Methinks your point would be a lot more credible and less ironic if you'd just left his thread alone, no?

(btw, it's "you doth protest" or "you protesteth", but not "you doth protesteth")

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by analogika

Methinks your point would be a lot more credible and less ironic if you'd just left his thread alone, no?

(btw, it's "you doth protest" or "you protesteth", but not "you doth protesteth")

EDIT: nm

[analogika]

[Railroader]

Glass houses Spheric.

[analogika]

I said "take notice" in that link...

I also see that you've edited out your sheepish post above...

[badidea]

What's going on here???
This thread is about a flounder (a fish) - why is it in the P/L???






edit: wait, I just read the blog....Oh NOOOO, this is not because it might offend.......

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by analogika

I also see that you've edited out your sheepish post above...

I can't get anything past you can I. Mind like a steel trap on that one.

I am trying to be the bigger man.

[voodoo]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No matter on what side of the head the eyes are.

This fish is nothing compared to some of the strangest living creatures inhabiting this planet. To stupid humans this looks funny.

I don't even see the point that blog is making.. though I am trying. I am no proponent of intelligient design and think that it is a very stupid hypothesis.

V

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No matter on what side of the head the eyes are.

This fish is nothing compared to some of the strangest living creatures inhabiting this planet. To stupid humans this looks funny.

I don't even see the point that blog is making.. though I am trying. I am no proponent of intelligient design and think that it is a very stupid hypothesis.

V

The point is nobody cares what the fish LOOKS like in terms of beauty because yes... they is way uglier out there (some members here qualify .

The point is this fish clearly shows that it has "evolved" over time from a side swimming normal fish to one that morphed to this half assed bottom dweller.

Normal bottom dwelling fish don't have shrunk fins at the bottom half, nor eyes that moved over time to the upper half.

Other creatures such as snakes still have traces of when they had legs.

Any rational person can see that this is not something that was designed by a higher intelligence but adapted over time to its current form.

Kinda like how humans have an appendix.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I don't even see the point that blog is making.. though I am trying. I am no proponent of intelligient design and think that it is a very stupid hypothesis.

V

Coming from the other side of the debate I agree with you. There are good arguments against ID. This is NOT one of them.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

The point is nobody cares what the fish LOOKS like in terms of beauty because yes... they is way uglier out there (some members here qualify .

The point is this fish clearly shows that it has "evolved" over time from a side swimming normal fish to one that morphed to this half assed bottom dweller.

Normal bottom dwelling fish don't have shrunk fins at the bottom half, nor eyes that moved over time to the upper half.

Yeah, but it's still a fish. Creationists do not dispute that microevolution occurs. Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Yeah, but it's still a fish. Creationists do not dispute that microevolution occurs. Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?

Why not? They seem to do a pretty good job at surviving. If something doesn't evolve in order to survive then it dies. It doesn't change if there is no need to.

A bit like how the economy works.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?

You have no clue what evolution is, don't you?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Why not?

The evolution didn't create anything "new". It still has it's old parts. Actually, isn't it born as a non-bottom dweller looking perfectly normal and then migrates to the bottom and mutuates through adolesence?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Yeah, but it's still a fish. Creationists do not dispute that microevolution occurs. Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?

How does it not speak well for evolution? The flounder is a successful species, is it not?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by badidea

You have no clue what evolution is, don't you?

You mean mutation don't you?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You mean mutation don't you?

Me? Ask BigMac!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by badidea

Me? Ask BigMac!

ahem...

oops?

[yakkiebah]

Without mutation there wouldn't be any evolution. Duh!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by badidea

You have no clue what evolution is, don't you?

Precisely what in my post do you take issue with? Why not say something specific, instead of offering only vague ad-hominems?

[Saetre]

Your statement doesn't make sense. Answer nonhuman's question and one of us will be able to explain this all to you.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Yeah, but it's still a fish. Creationists do not dispute that microevolution occurs. Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?

What in the world does that mean?

What proof do you have of Creationism other than a book and some 2000 year old stories? Just looking at the creature on its own does not show any trace of creationism and strong towards evolution.

If "God" did create this creature why did he include all of this evidence to disprove him? To test your faith with a bottom feeder?

[Big Mac]

Damn you are dense. I just told you that most creationists do not deny microevolution. It's macroevolution that we reject. I'm sorry you cannot grasp the point I'm making. But as far as this fish is concerned, if you want to ascribe its existence to evolution, I'm fine with that. If you want to believe evolution creates crappy organisms, that's great. It's still a fish, though, and its offspring will continue to be fish no matter how many generations pass.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

crappy organisms

You are so objective and scientific.

[Big Mac]

That's essentially what it's being called.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Damn you are dense. I just told you that most creationists do not deny microevolution. It's macroevolution that we reject. I'm sorry you cannot grasp the point I'm making. B

Ya I am not on the same higher intelligence level that you are on... I guess you are more "evolved" no wait... "gifted by God" than anyone else here as nobody knows what the hell you are trying to say as it sounds like total bullshit and evading the obvious.

Be happy with the fact that you know the truth though. Your evidence is overwhelming

[Millennium]

Fascinating, but I'm kind of surprised that the article didn't leave out some of the stranger aspects of the flounder, such as the fact that it's actually born with one eye on each side, just like other fish. One of the eyes actually migrates from one side to the other as the fish matures.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That's essentially what it's being called.

I can't find anyone saying that the fish is "crappy", although some consider it ugly. We do, afterall, share the same basic design as the flounder. ;-)

[G Barnett]

Thing is, Big Mac, the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are a false distinction and are not separate ideas. There is only evolution -- the gradual change of living things in response to their environment over time. You either accept that, or reject it all -- none of this splitting hairs and trying to define terms and conditions in such a way that you can pick and choose the outcome you want.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by G Barnett

Thing is, Big Mac, the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are a false distinction and are not separate ideas. There is only evolution -- the gradual change of living things in response to their environment over time. You either accept that, or reject it all -- none of this splitting hairs and trying to define terms and conditions in such a way that you can pick and choose the outcome you want.

Well the goal of making someone believe religious facts is all about splitting hairs, playing around with terms, evidence, definition etc. When you flat out present evidence to support something other than what they believe in they throw back some vague bible passage or "we as people can't understand the lords great methods" jive.

There is no convincing a highly religious person otherwise so there is no real point in trying. If they want to believe god made that fish out of clay 5000 years ago at the same time as he made the earth... so be it. But they can't blame us for not wanting our kids to learn that as if it was fact in schools as no religious stories should be taken as a "Fact".

[Chuckit]

The whole "microevolution"/"macroevolution" thing just bugs me. It's such a cop-out. If you accept that creatures' forms and genes can change in arbitrary ways, then what's the point of saying "Well, it's not a new species"? At what point does a fish stop being a fish (and if it does stop being a fish, will you just say, "Well, it's still a vertebrate"?), and why — if we accept that creatures can change arbitrarily — would a fish not be able to do that?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by G Barnett

Thing is, Big Mac, the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are a false distinction and are not separate ideas. There is only evolution -- the gradual change of living things in response to their environment over time. You either accept that, or reject it all -- none of this splitting hairs and trying to define terms and conditions in such a way that you can pick and choose the outcome you want.

That's not really true though. This is science, not religion. There's always room to learn more and to understand better. The theories will change over time as our experience changes and we're able to observe new things. That's what distinguishes science from religion: flexibility and change.

[analogika]

The problem with satire is that it requires considerable mental effort - both to decode, and, judging from the rather lame original article, to create.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by analogika

The problem with satire is that it requires considerable mental effort - both to decode, and, judging from the rather lame original article, to create.

I dunno, I think one of the best things about satire is laughing at the people who don't get it.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by analogika

The problem with satire is that it requires considerable mental effort - both to decode, and, judging from the rather lame original article, to create.

V

[Landos Mustache]

Funny thing is all these people who "know better" still haven't offered a better explanation as to why it isn't evolution.

It is better to try to make personal attacks or cause distractions as it avoids having to think.

Typical.

[idjeff]

I just wish that evolution hadn't taken my tail away...I'd have some sweet balance....and the chicks would be like "OMG!"

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Funny thing is all these people who "know better" still haven't offered a better explanation as to why it isn't evolution.

It is better to try to make personal attacks or cause distractions as it avoids having to think.

Typical.

You amaze me.

[Big Mac]

To SWG and G Barnett, I use the terms micro and macroevolution as they were used in the physical anthropology and biology courses I took in college. I doubt either of you have a better grasp on the subject than my professors did - and I earned As in those classes, FWIW. So until you find me an authoritative source backing your assertions to the contrary, I'll continue to dismiss your condescending rhetoric.

[Dark Helmet]

Funny, still not sold even with your higher intellect and understanding of things.

[Big Mac]

Fine argument, SWG. I'm not expecting you to believe in a higher power, let alone my God. So just give it a rest.

[ebuddy]

My favorite part of that linked thread;

Some other examples are how humans grow tails as embryos and then re-absorb them, vestige appendages on all sort of animals such as the appendix in humans, and nipples on males.

Must be those darned Creationists teaching biology again!

looks like this particular fish feeds along the bottom with eyes eventually pointed downwards and a mouth that opens horizontally for bottom-feeding. i.e. looks like it does exactly what it looks like it does.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Fine argument, SWG. I'm not expecting you to believe in a higher power, let alone my God. So just give it a rest.

Who said I don't believe in a higher power? I am not Atheist, I am Agnostic 100%. I don't believe any religions on the earth as I think they are all a form of control and a "with us or against us" mentality.

I don't think religions should be taught in public schools. Religions should never influence our governments as it currently does.

Most importantly I don't care what anybody does IN church or at home. You can condemn each other to hell or dance around in purple underwear if you like. The only time there is a problem is when you walk out of your church/home and start pointing the finger at me telling me I am a bad person or don't deserve the same rights as anyone else because I don't follow YOUR beliefs. Is that so unreasonable?

In terms of evolution, if you want to believe that God made that stupid looking fish and it "micro-evoled" that's fine. Just don't get all huffy if other people look at it from a scientific angle and laugh at the "evidence" that God designed it. I would never want my kids tough "creationism" in school as if it was fact but I wouldn't care less if they learnt that it is just a view that certain religions have. Again, is that so unreasonable?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

My favorite part of that linked thread;

Some other examples are how humans grow tails as embryos and then re-absorb them, vestige appendages on all sort of animals such as the appendix in humans, and nipples on males.

Must be those darned Creationists teaching biology again!

Um, I must admit that I have no clue as to what your point could possibly be.

All human embryos DO grow a tail at one point during development, which is then re-absorbed. (Sometimes, when ontogeny goes slightly awry, it isn't re-absorbed, and the baby is actually born with a tail.) I won't go into the "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" bit here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

looks like this particular fish feeds along the bottom with eyes eventually pointed downwards and a mouth that opens horizontally for bottom-feeding. i.e. looks like it does exactly what it looks like it does.

Except that this fish's eyes DON'T point downward, and its mouth DOESN'T open horizontally.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika

Um, I must admit that I have no clue as to what your point could possibly be.

... and then go on to address it.

All human embryos DO grow a tail at one point during development, which is then re-absorbed. (Sometimes, when ontogeny goes slightly awry, it isn't re-absorbed, and the baby is actually born with a tail.) I won't go into the "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" bit here.

re-absorbed? So, it was absorbed once already, then re-absorbed or just absorbed once? Sometimes when ontology goes slightly awry, the baby is actually born with the tail??? You mean, like how sometimes twins are born with their heads fused together? We must have all had siamese twins for common ancestors. Sometimes babies are born with almost no face at all. Watched a documentary on it. This must mean that we descended from a line of faceless people. You're going to tell me how this bone (although sometimes just fatty and skin, confused by many as the coccyx) is vestigal. Then you'll go on to tell me about gill slits and yolk sacs.

Don't bother with the whole "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny bit" here. Dr. Seuss has more merit.

Except that this fish's eyes DON'T point downward, and its mouth DOESN'T open horizontally.

which direction are they pointing and which way does its mouth open?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You mean, like how sometimes twins are born with their heads fused together? We must have all had siamese twins for common ancestors. Sometimes babies are born with almost no face at all. Watched a documentary on it. This must mean that we descended from a line of faceless people. You're going to tell me how this bone (although sometimes just fatty and skin, confused by many as the coccyx) is vestigal. Then you'll go on to tell me about gill slits and yolk sacs.

You just presented a bunch of irrelevant information and creationist talking points.

Him: "The body specifically produces a tail at one point during development, showing that humans have retained coding for tails."

You: "Some people have an abnormal condition where they don't develop a face. So there."