How smart are fish ?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:02:37 GMT, Wayne Sallee
wrote:

atomweaver wrote on 7/26/2006 9:19 AM:
The scientific community's support for evolution is universal (we
wouldn't have the fields of modern medicine and genetics without it...
Are you getting a flu vaccine this year, Wayne? If so, thanks for your
support of ToE... your dollars and actions speak far more than your
anecdotes do). I'll only leave a pair of links for that angle. I think
the hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed evolution-related articles in
various scientific journals could also be considered support for ToE;


The fact that we are similar to animals has helped modern
medicine, not the theory of evolution.


And why are we similar to animals?

(hint: learn something about evolution)

LOL!

Most translations go back to the original documents.
If what you say was true, then the many different
translations would vary greatly, and they would vary
greatly over the years. But that is not the case.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



RicSeyler wrote on 7/27/2006 12:11 PM:
Ever played the telephone game in school Wayne? Going through person
after person it never comes out the same
at the end of game.

Wayne Sallee wrote:

Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/26/2006 1:06 AM:

You see, there is a whole world outthere that sees the bible for what
it is worst. A bunch of papers translated from language to language
that are most likely so transformed that it says the opposite of what
they were intended.


Don't believe everything your professors told you. Most translations
go back to the original documents.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

RicSeyler wrote on 7/27/2006 12:11 PM:
Ever played the telephone game in school Wayne? Going through person
after person it never comes out the same
at the end of game.

Yea, by the time it got to me, it would be senseless, so I
always created a new statement, and passed it on then
everybody would be cracking up wondering how it go to that
:-) hehehe


And fish are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Wayne Sallee wrote in
:

The similarities are something to look at, and are a good
starting point, but they don't prove anything, no more
than the similarities in machines and computers prove that
they evolved from each other.

But unlike machines, the fact that living things have heritable traits
is common knowledge (you like like your parent's right? So does most
everyone, and every thing, else), and here is why your machine analogy
fails so miserably and obviously. DNA is the vehicle by which heritable
traits are pssed from one living organism to its offspring (a feature
which machines obviusly lack).
Taxonomy by physical similarities was a common practice of early
scientists (they had little else to go on), and still has value today,
inasmuch as living things with similar physical characteristics are
likely (not guaranteed, see convergent evolution) to be somehow related.
But you are right, proof does not come from a single example of physical
similarity. Fortunately, commonality of genetic material serves to
_heavily_ reinforce with additional evidence that which was previously
posited upon appearance alone.

Look at things in the reef,
many things at a casual observance from a novice would
think that they were the same, when a closer look shows
them to be very different, and some things that look very
different are actually more similar than those that look
similar.

This shows that a novice simply doesn't know what he's looking for.
Hell, even experienced professionals will adjust taxonomies frequently,
on the basis of additional gathered evidence. That's a large part of
the value of scientific theory over dogmatic scripture. This month's
TFH has an article on exactly how such evidence was used to assign the
chanchito (sp?) a different species name, IIRC. One small improvement
to the theory... All of this merely means that the task of properly
tracking heritable traits is a complex one, not that the task is
impossible (in fact, genetics makes the taks much easier and more
accurate)

More ToE at work;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600849.html

Can you link me to any recent research that Creationists have done, to
find support for their various assertions in the physical world
(evidence in _support_ of their claims, not just attempts to discredit
evolution)?

If you were a Martian doing a study on how machines
evolved from one another, some of the order of how you
would say they evolved would be in the same order that
they were created, but some of the things would be in no
way the order that they were created.


If I were a Martian doing such a study, I would be doing it with the
pre-supposition that machines had the ability to pass on heritable
traits to one another, and thus would be a very stupid Martian.

If I were an Earthling doing the same study on _living_ things, which I
had _observed_ to pass on heritable traits, I would be going about
things in a much more intelligent way. I'd probably also be searching
for the mechanism by which those traits are passed along. Saaay...
those Earthlings are pretty smart critters (well, some of them,
anyways).

Regards,
DaveZ

atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 1:08 PM:
But unlike machines, the fact that living things have heritable traits
is common knowledge (you like like your parent's right? So does most
everyone, and every thing, else), and here is why your machine analogy
fails so miserably and obviously. DNA is the vehicle by which heritable
traits are pssed from one living organism to its offspring (a feature
which machines obviusly lack).

Good point, DNA tells everything about the creature, it is
the instructions for the cells, on how to grow, and
everything else. It's like with computer programing, I
prefer assembly language/machine language, because machine
language is the only language that the computer chip
understands. To me, programing in machine language, is
like changing the DNA of a fish, while programing in other
languages is like breeding the fish to get the
characteristics you want. DNA has done wonders in the
criminal justis system, and in science, it still does not
prove that one creature evolved from another any more than
if I write a computer program, and then write another
computer program using much of the same code.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Wayne Sallee wrote in
:

DNA has done wonders in the
criminal justis system, and in science, it still does not
prove that one creature evolved from another any more than
if I write a computer program, and then write another
computer program using much of the same code.

Patently false. Myriad examples of contemporary speciation exist;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

speciation examples in section 5.0

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Most all can be verified by documented alterations in genetic material...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

You can take guppies or other fish, and breed them to get
them the way you want them in color and fin pattern, but
you can only go so far, and you start running into
problems with defects such as sterility.

There is some cross breeding that people can do, but again
there are limits, and often sterility.

It's like there's a wall that keeps you from going too far.

Everything has it's limits.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 1:50 PM:
Wayne Sallee wrote in
:

DNA has done wonders in the
criminal justis system, and in science, it still does not
prove that one creature evolved from another any more than
if I write a computer program, and then write another
computer program using much of the same code.

Patently false. Myriad examples of contemporary speciation exist;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

speciation examples in section 5.0

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Most all can be verified by documented alterations in genetic material...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message ...
Nothing new about that. People have been doing that for
many years on the farm.

So now compare this to your fish recognising the fridge opening.

This one: ...

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message ...
What question?

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Pszemol wrote on 7/25/2006 9:37 PM:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
...
What question?

The one you cut off the bottom of my previous message.

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message ...
Most translations go back to the original documents.

It is not true. I bet many european languages like
German, English, French were translated from the
Latin version, not from the original Hebrew/Aramaic...
And even so - each translating person/team will
have different "flavor" added to the translation...
It is impossible to translate word-to-word from
one language to another, especially so different
languages as English and Hebrew...

Do an experiment:
Try to do modern text translation from English to German,
hire two different translators, then get two Germant versions
of the same English text and compare them word-by-word.
I bet they will be different. Then hire another two translators
and ask them to translate these two German copies back
to English - you will be amazed what will you do in return.

If what you say was true, then the many different
translations would vary greatly, and they would vary
greatly over the years. But that is not the case.

They DO vary greatly.