parker679 wrote: But then that begs the question, if it was designed why is there such a glaring fault with it?
Excellent question, but still I had to chuckle; This same question is also at the heart of the Gospel message, in relation to humans, and the universe in general.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the universe in its present state is anywhere near perfect, or running at its most conceivably efficient state. Certainly I would have built in more armor in the genitalia region, if I had my druthers.
parker679 wrote: Namely the optic nerve which for most all vertebrates passed through the retina rather than connecting the the back of the retina. By passing through the retina it leaves a blind spot in each eye that is overcome by the brain, but why, if designed, would you have it be like this?
Interesting point. I cannot even venture a guess. Maybe someday we will discover the purpose. Maybe there is none. But certainly nature is wrought with inefficiencies, and yet it is complex beyond comprehension. I'd venture to say that "obsolete" organs like the appendix also serve a purpose; they are not just remnants of evolution past; we just haven't figured it out yet.
parker679 wrote:By comparison the eyes of cephalopods are nearly perfect, their optic nerves connect to the back of the retina.
Yeah, I hear they produce offspring without much pain, too. Smug bastards. I guess every creature has its own gifts. I bet you they can't drive a stick shift as well as us, though, despite all of those grippers.
I think it's also worth mentioning that so often "debates" on evolution end up in arguments
parker679 wrote:I've learned long ago that while these debates are fun, you're foolish to think anyone is changing their mind.
Yeah, Parker, I'm pretty sure that I've made these points over and over in this thread. I'm not nearly as itchy about this as The Evolutionary Psychologist (that's not name calling!) I've done my share of debating these things, and although I have made people think, and they have made me think as well, it's really not a war I'm as Gung ho about it as a learned college grad might be. Couple that with the fact that most people on any secular website would certainly side with evolution, so I would have my hands full on any debate on this thread.
I like farting around on here, checking in from time to time, but I'm not going to spend hours trying to rebut various "facts" that are tossed my way. For the time being, I'm just trying to have fun with it.
parker679 wrote: I disagree with a lot of what sbrooks says in this thread, but I can tell that his opinions are clearly the result of his own pursuit of knowledge and not just rehashed rhetoric, just as my opinions are the result of my own pursuit.
I really appreciate that.
parker679 wrote:I say it's blue and he says it's green. Who's correct?
My wife would laugh at that. We argue about what color something is all of the time. If it's somewhere between turquoise and aquamarine, I guess that the argument will go on until someone grows a magic carnivorous plant big enough to feed the other to.
danielfivetoes wrote:It is simply that an investigation, not a moral treaty or something written to oppose religion or any other doctrine. That said. the importance of this form is to share insight and information about VFT and other CP. Leave it at that, and like Darwin just enjoy in fascination of the world around us.
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the book Insectivorous Plants. At some point the thread began centering more around Origin of Species.
danielfivetoes wrote: like Darwin just enjoy in fascination of the world around us.
That's a fantastic philosophy, Daniel. May the Rehder Garden be prosperous (and secure) in the future!
I would like to reiterate this. People reading this debate may be mislead into thinking that the book is about Darwin attempting to prove the evolutionary relationships of CPs. A great deal of the book is just his experiments and observations in his investigation of the capturing mechanisms of carnivorous plants. Obviously, some discussion of his findings is applied to evolutionary relationships, but that is by no means the main focus.
Sorry that your thread got hijacked, Mr. Tuna. I don't think anyone here is really debating Insectivorous Plants. It's just someone entered this thread that essentially majored in Charles Darwin, and they seem bugged by anyone who dares doubt anything that was ever uttered by the man. No doubt, lots of people can't stand it when people don't think just like them; once I started gaining so many interests other than what other people thought, (not to mention a family, and about 500 fly traps) my desire to change their mind wavered considerably.
Oh yeah, I guess I should throw in: CASE CLOSED!