also one must remember that there have been many differently shaped oceans depending on where the continents were as they have been shifting for all of the earths' existence from before pangea to the various shapes in the mesozoic to now so that makes that question even more impossible to answer

When I read the the title thread I thought that Spider meant the growth or evolution in the band "The Red Hot Chili Peppers."

LOL!

he is more problematic that that
fitness

In trying to understand the thought process of Spider, perhaps he just has a preconceived notion of how a thread's discussion will progress and doesn't handle his disappointment well when those expectations are not met rather than truly trying to be "problematic".

I'm sorry
but what u r saying it's not a definition of problematic?
with all due respect

Actually, what I was going after was an attempt at understanding on my part and a lessening of what sounded harsh to my mind as I read. However, perhaps, Walker you do have a point and I should stay away from attempts at tactfulness and understanding and just stick with blunt.

perhaps both of us has a point.
perhaps you show more mercy than me.
somebody told me the other day that my biggest problem is that for me everything is white and black.
it might be, but i have accomplished a lot with it.

TheLonelyWalker and Differentkindofwench,

You guys seem to have a lot of complaints. Please tell me what they are specifically, instead of wild generalizations. Yes, Differentkindofwench, be blunt. Tell me what I said that you object to. Tell me why my thread, which was simply asking a question, is so objectionable to you and others. I really don't understand, so I need your help with this.

hey u dudes im gonna sart a new thread called "clashing viewpoints" so we can totally leave the chili pepper agrument

I haven't read everyone's posts, so I apologize if someone already covered the following:

The argument Spider puts forth makes a few assumptions, including:

1) if evolution exists, then evolution is always the direct result of environmental stimuli

2) that nothing else but chili peppers, and nowhere else but the northern hemisphere, has ever existed in the span of human existence that might contain capsaicin or something quite similar

3) that the enzyme serves no other purpose

To address the first assumption, evolution is not a direct response — that would merely be an adaptation. For example, kings used to purposely ingest poisons, starting out in minute quantities and gradually increasing the dosage, in an effort to foil would-be assassins. The king would become immune to the toxin in doses that would typically kill a person, so any attempt to poison him would most likely fail. That is an adaptation, not evolution. Mere exposure to something will not result in an evolutionary change in a species — which explains how many species become extinct when their environment changes to the point that they cannot survive. (I'm not being critical here — the theory that the environmental conditions in one generation forced a change in the next was common for years. The idea was that in giraffes, for example, the stretching of the neck to reach the leaves on tall trees resulted in the next generation having longer necks. Eventually, however, people determined that you could bob a dog's tail every generation and the offspring of each continue to have tails, which led people to an understanding of how genetics plays a role in evolution.)

Genuine evolution often occurs when there are anomalies within a species that make some members better suited to handle the environment. Those who have traits that don't coincide with the environment or don't improve the chances for reproduction will more likely die off, and the ones with the better-suited traits will survive (though not necessarily thrive). In the next generation, some members may be yet better suited for the environment, and so on — until an evolutionary advance has been made. It takes very many generations to make significant changes in an entire species. But the important part here is to note that no particular member of the species _develops_ a trait based on a condition of the environment — one already has it or doesn't.

Evolution can also occur naturally, for no environmental reason — as long as the trait doesn't make it more difficult for members to survive or propagate. Over many generations, changes in mating patterns or a mutation can result in new dominant traits forming in certain individuals, and after many more generations, those traits can change the entire species (or a vast percentage of a species).

Regarding the second assumption, it isn't impossible or even unlikely that capaicin or a very similar substance existed in a plant (other than the chili pepper) at some time during human development. Even if natural selection were the only evolutionary way for humans to have developed the enzymes necessary, it's not unfathomable that there was a capaicin source thousands of years ago.

And regarding the third assumption, it's important to note that one enzyme does not have only one purpose. The enzymes that helps break down capaicin surely serve other digestive functions. Even if the argument that nobody should have the enzymes because nobody had ever been exposed to capaicin were otherwise valid, it would not hold up. The very fact that we are not immune to the burning, as are birds, is an indication that the enzymes are not fully adequate and cannot handle capaicin and very likely serve other purposes.

On a final point, it is important to note that Spider's argument questions microevolution — which even the staunchest supporters of creationism do not generally try to deny, as it is a phenomenon that we can witness, track, and guide in laboratory settings and in nature. Microevolution is not in question, and the argument Spider puts forth does not actually attempt to refute microevolution (even though Spider himself presented it that way). His real question is, "how do you explain when something happens that evolution can't explain?"

The question is not whether evolution happens — we have proof of microevolution, and very strong evidence for macroevolution — but, rather, whether there is a guiding hand that makes it all possible. Creationism typically denies macroevolution, and that is possibly an argument someone can make with compelling theories (since there is a much longer time span involved and more room for speculation); denying microevolution, however, is not a winnable argument. Arguing for intelligent design has much stronger philosophical support and would be, by far, a better argument than trying to disprove evolution.

Hey Spider,

The thread was not what I was addressing. The accusation of you being problematic was what I was addressing in my most recent posts. I was trying to come up with a reason of why you attack the intelligence of a poster. Do you realize that being the original poster, you have had more time to think about a subject than those replying? That does not mean your conclusions are necessarily correct nor does it mean that others posting on the thread are incorrect or unintelligent.

Without getting into a "he said/she said" copy and paste situation, please remember your suggestion about dealing with the points being discussed, not the poster or their intelligent level.

Differentkindofwench,

I not once questioned the intelligence of a poster in this thread. You must have misread or mistaken someone elses comments for my own. I have called some of the arguements "thoughtless and uninformed", but that's the arguements, not the people who posted.

Having thought and information does directly relate to the poster and their chosen argument. Just as "silly and thoughtless" do.

resserts,

What you said is true, based on the way the theory of evolution is presented. The critical flaw is that it's all based on assumptions. Scientists find two similar species and assume that they evolved from a common ancestor. Scientists look at two fossils and assume that one species must have evolved into another. All the while, there is no proof that either fossil produced any children or that it's children were any different than it was. Evolution (five kinds of evolution) is based on assumptions and science is based on facts. Evolution can be interesting to think about, but no form of evolution can ever be proven without a time machine. Without a time machine, everything dealing with Evolution is based on assumptions (possibly true assumptions, but that will never be known) and assumptions have no place in hard science.

So we could assume the things that you posted, but it doesn't make it science. We could assume that God created mankind and chili peppers, that doesn't make it fact. I started this thread as a thought experiment to get people thinking, unlike what so many have assumed, I never once planned to say "GOTCHA! It had to be God!". I started the thread to make people think about evolution instead of always assuming that it has to be true.

Differentkindofwench,

So what you are saying is that I can never win. I can't say "That's a stupid argument", becasue you and presumably others, will assume that I am insulting the poster. That's a really harsh standard and one which you probably won't apply to anyone else.

Spider you are sooooo very right. I would never presume to correct or point out flaws in any other's style of argument other than yours ---- there do you feel better. Unfortunately, I'm lying through my teeth, as my discussion above with Walker points out, as I had a problem with him calling you problematic. But to borrow a phrase from adj4u, what do I know.

Differentkindofwench,

"However, perhaps, Walker you do have a point and I should stay away from attempts at tactfulness and understanding and just stick with blunt."

You questioned him calling me "problematic" and then decided that perhaps he had been right from the start.

Spider,

The posts are there as we have both pointed out. I dealt with that which I chose to. Walker did have a valid point that my post could be construed as a definition of "problematic". By Walker's answering post to mine, he made it clear my point to him was understood, as well as my sarcasm towards myself.

Hi Spider.

You've switched over to discussing macroevolution (which is a smart move, as I think you could make a stronger argument that way), but your original post deals with an example of microevolution. Microevolution is empirical fact, however, and meets your criteria of what constitutes science. One of the easiest way to track microevolution is with fruitflies because they have such short life-spans and we can track hundreds or thousands of generations to see how various variables influence the genetic progression of the species. We can see which flies die and which thrive, which ones pass along their traits to the next generation and which ones cannot. We have a solid grasp of how these things work, even if we have much to learn yet.

Macroevolution is much less fact than theory, but there is strong evidence to support it. The species of the Galapagos Islands, for example, are similar but distinct from nearby species — and charting continental drift we are able to approximate when they were separated and could no longer breed due to distance. The species are enough similar to the indigenous species of the nearby lands that it is extremely likely that it's more than a mere coincidence.

To be honest, I hated Biology 101 (we spent all our time dealing with plants, plants, and more plants... enough with the damn ferns already!), so I haven't done extensive study into all the genetic similarities and what the subtly different theories are about. What I do know, however, is that the theory of evolution is less a theory _that_ evolution occurs than _how_ it occurs. The reason scientists are so confident that macroevolution happens in some way is because the similarities that seem to exist between various species, when combined with other data (like regional similarities, fossil data over time, etc.), are too vast to be just coincidence. It would be like finding a trail of pennies and as you follow them, you approach someone with a big bag full of pennies. If there had been only one or two or even ten pennies before you met the person with the bag, you wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that the pennies belonged to the bag-owner — but when you find a thousand pennies leading to the bag-holder, you are compelled to believe that they belong to the person holding the bag. In a similar way, macroevolution has a lot of evidence but no absolute proof, but all the evidence we have leads us to the present when we can observe microevolution and we theorize that there is likely a connection between the two processes. Not everyone agrees, of course, and there are other models for macroevolution (though most scientists dismiss them as being less likely than the Darwinian model).

Anyway, my previous post was basically just to point out that the situation you presented wasn't necessarily contrary to evolutionary science and that you were asking one question but the situation pointed to a different question. No biggie, though — I like to work through a puzzle from time to time.

Cheers!

did u guys miss me?