Talk:Parasite

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parasites and creationism:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1025symposium.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/viruses.asp

Conservative 14:47, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

What?

Why exactly would the cleaner have had to go from nothing to everything in one step? --Brendanw 18:40, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

What are you referring to? And if it didn't go in one step, you have the additional problem of explaining how half-formed structures would survive. Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
‘All this had to be developed simultaneously [like the cleaner entering the big fish’s mouth at the same time the big fish suspends his 'normal' (post-Fall) habit of eating small fish], which as a mutation has the probability of zero. I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate drive in matter to perfect itself.' This is false, Scavenger shrimp and fish could have evolved the trait of picking debris off of herbivorous fish, then sick highly parasititised individuals of carnivorous fish coudl have been docile enough to attract cleaner shrimp. Of those sick carnivores those who let the cleaner finish would have been more likely to survive than those who ate the cleaners as soon as they could muster the strength, Then those who were just feeling itchy could have used the same behavior, the braver shrimp would have been getting more food and producing more offspring and the more docile fish would have lower parasite loads and be healthier. These behaviors would have reinforced each other and soon the shrimp would be getting closer and closer to the mouthes of the fish, then inside. These behaviors would develop simultaneously but over a long time.--Brendanw 16:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
One problem is that your argument presumes that learnt behaviours are passed on genetically, which is false. Philip J. Rayment 22:15, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry but I don't see where I mentioned learned behaviour at all, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that I didn't, if you can show me how learned behavior is implied I will change my position to avoid that obvious falsitude, but I'm pretty sure it isn't --Brendanw 10:48, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
When I said "learnt behaviour", I wasn't referring to behaviour taught to them by others, if that's what you are thinking. But you frequently use the word "behavior", saying that this would be "reinforced" and "developed". That is what I was referring to. Philip J. Rayment 19:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
I was referring to inherited behaviors, not learned, you will admit that behaviors are heritable I would imagine, seeing as how the behavior displayed seems to be instinctual. --Brendanw 19:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
Now you are losing me. Behaviour that is "developed" and "reinforced" is developed and reinforced, not inherited. You are talking about new behaviours (cleaner fish cleaning carnivorous fish instead of just herbivorous fish and carnivorous fish accepting cleaner fish), then presuming that these new behaviours would be passed on genetically. Philip J. Rayment 07:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
If you assume that there is a vengeful God who destroys all positive mutations then new behaviors cannot be evolved and reinforced. One or two genes can mutate in a small way and produce an organism that feels a stronger compulsion to be calm and get cleaned than an organism that does not have those mutations, an organism who had evolved the new behavior known as "getting cleaned occasionally" could give rise to a lineage that eventually wanted to get cleaned more and did it better (developed a more complex and effective behavior, through mutation and selection)this would be happening at the same time as the cleaners became better cleaners (The behavior would co evolve and an advance in one woud open up the field for an advance in the other, increasing the selective pressure) --Brendanw 12:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't assume that there is a vengeful God who destroys all positive mutations. I believe, on the basis of scientific observation, that there are no such things as information-gaining mutations, but that there are a few information-losing mutations that are beneficial in the right circumstances.[1] But we are not talking about the latter here.
The statement you considered false was rejecting the idea of simultaneous mutations, apparently by arguing that they are learnt behaviours. Now to return to claiming mutations that are essentially simultaneous, as both the cleaner fish and their symbiotic species both need to acquire these mutations at the same time.
Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Yeah I thought that was what you were veering towards,I was saying that the two evolutionary processes were simultaneous yes, but not that the mutations were, evolution is a long process, mutations happen in an instant. I a currently in the process of writing up a post on that argument you made about information gaining mutations so I will not touch on that topic just yet, but that is were the rub lies, I never implied that learning came in to the equation, you just inferred it based on the premise that no mutations can "result in new information" and if that is correct than I would be wrong with out a doubt, however as will become apparent I feel that I have firm ground on saying that that is not correct. So, will you concede to the notion that new "information" arriving in the genomes of individuals of the organisms involved combined with the selective pressures I outlined before could gradually over time result in the behavior in question? --Brendanw 04:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh an I think we should start from the edge again.

Personal tools