Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Mostly Yavimaya, the preceding has just been to demonstrate that there are some big questions the Theory of Evolution doesn't answer. Many people simply accept the Theory as gospel and fail to realise how Science is meant to work and how differently it actually works these days.

Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time." and that's a minor part of what is going on. Add to that the political control of funding whereby you do not get funding, tenure or position unless you postulate theories according to'Consensus Science' and Science has become the new religion. People 'believe' in it rather than applying sceptical questioning.

True. And there lies the puzzle - because the record shows the evolution happens and the standard thought about how it could happen is that mutations accumulate and then suddenly provide a cornucopia of possibility when TSHTF.

But that stands against how Evolution is meant to work.

The number of actual fossils of humans or anything remotely approaching an ancestor would barely fill the back of a small truck, yet on a regular basis we have 'earliest ancestor of humans' or 'is this the missing link?' headlines as archaeologists strive to create ever-more dramatic headlines to secure funding.

Carbon dating has had its basis revised two times now and it is STILL based on an assumption that the background radiation doesn't change - even though we know for a fact it does. We still do not know why there is an explosion of species after an ELE and it strikes directly at the heart of the Theory of Evolution that it could happen - but the record shows us that the explosion occurs.

I note that nobody has yet attempted to explain how the eye could come about and NOT expose any camouflaged butterfly to increased predation as its camo was compromised - and no RoO, your attempt at explaining millions of years stuff is not a useful explanation of how it might have happened.

Such an explanation does not require a high level of Scientific sophistication, just an ability to look at things rationally and a basic understanding of how nature works. We have the butterfly - how could it have gotten a duplicate of an eye that would scare off birds purely by chance?

How do random mutations, running at the impossibly small probability of surviving the repairs processes and being in the tiny number of reproductive cells out of the 50 trillion or so in the body, manage to accumulate over time to allow the ELE explosions as recorded in Punctuated Equilibrium ideas?

For that matter, how do those orchids in the original thread manage to so perfectly imitate monkey faces?

And remember as you think of it, all those genetic solutions have to be done many times in different ways - in one barrel of sea water Venter found 1.3 million new genes and 50,000 new species. They had found, at less than half way through their process of discovery and sequencing, 29 million new genes and 50,000 major gene families.

And every new sample analysed back then was adding in a linear fashion to what they already had - if they were half way that means by the end they might have nearly 60 million genes and 100,000 gene families.

This is so far from what is required for Evolution to operate as described in the consensus view that it requires a rewrite of the theory - ain't no sign of that occurring even 7 years later...

(the rewrite is needed because Evolution is based on the idea of a descendant biosphere - small changes accumulating to make new species across the ages. Clearly this cannot be the picture or we would have far fewer gene families and genes. For there to be this many found, it seems quite obvious that the species process has started many times)

I have not read any where near as much literature as you, im not as old and am not as learned.
However, my interpretation of everything i have ever heard about evolution is that "the shit hits the fan" and THEN the evolution begins, not that there are mutations that then protect the host, there is no pre-emptivness in evolution to my understanding.


As far as the butterfly goes, what i think you need to base your "how did it evolve" thinking on, is that as soon as there is a black dot there ( as in the cabbage moth) that is already enough to trick lesser brained or lesser sighted creature, so anything beyond that is simply a bonus. Abonus which multiplies compoundly when changes happen - obviously this is negating the ones that dont survive because of "bad" evolution, bad evolution is always doomed.

This would have to be the strangest thread I have ever endured. What has happened to my AP buddies? Have you all gone mad?

Perhaps by incremental changes... that resulted in an "eye" like colouration... that proved beneficial to survival...

i.e... owls thought they were.... owls... and didn't eat them....



Mutations don't survive the repair processes.... they are the result of irreparable damage.... even if not life threatening/ending...

Beneficial mutations/adaptions... although initially perhaps small in number.... by the sheer fact that they are beneficial to survival.... result in increased mating opportunities.... and passing of the beneficial trait on... in exponentially increasing numbers...

And Creationists often misquote.. or misinterpret... Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" ... to the point that...in an often quoted remark, Gould stated,




Huh???... a hugh varience in genes.. or genetic probabilities... doesn't mean that we would by evolutionary result... we would have fewer gene families and genes....

Mutations... most of which aren't viable, and/or beneficial.... within species or families.... result in only specific major beneficial viable gene traits being encompassed with a species and/or family...

Other less beneficial genes.. are either bred out of the gene pool... or remain as "repressed" genes... which can throw a trait back up... with combinations of mated "recessive" genes..

Sorry... I don't follow your line of argument....

I can certainly see how a mass extinction can "force" a rapid evolution.
I think the most basic way to think of a mass extinction event is like a pendulum.
When the event hits, ALOT of thing die in the aftermath, there is then alot of room for rapid expansion of populations of existing creatures, this is followed by a swelling that leads to a huge genepool.
This genepool is then put under pressure by the fact that creatures may breed past thier capacity.
Which then die back and "the strong survive".
This would repeat to a lesser and lesser extent until the balance is restored.
Creatures find any way to survive, this leads to creatures finding new niches.
This is the evolution.

Perhaps those pterodactyl flying lizards... who had eyes.... evolved into the owl butterfly....

I'm with you journeyman. Its actually widely documented that there are missing data on evolutionary processes I.e. some adaptations are so specific that they can't be the product of a gradual shift in genetics. There's lots of different ways that people interpret this. This was the beginning of intelligent design which I won't explain here cause I don't want to get stoned but if you haven't heard of it look it up.

When evolution of the species was written, Lamarc's theory went out the window and he looked like an idiot. Now with epigenetics its looking more like he was right in a lot of things.

These changes are not in random cells within the body, it is not a lottery with a chance to have this mutation in "one of the sperm cells" or the like.
These are mutations to dna, the sperm/egg pass the dna on, every cell has the exact same dna and reads the part it needs to to be what it is ( that last bit is kind of backwards, but is easier/shorter to explain that way).

This is easily explainable using dogs.
Breeders use inbreeding to set traits, they mate a granddaughter with grandfather usually.
I have heard but cannot vouch for, you can make a significant evolution in dogs with 6 generations of "setting".

When mass extinctions happen, populations can drop very, very low, this leads to alot of inbreeding, which would then set any traits rather quickly

Infact one of the big cats in africa (sorry cant remember right now) got down to 10,000 left not so long aog, they are ow inbred that the majority of males have sperm that is "retarded", most have bend tails and cannot swim straight. There is a huge push to save and breed any without that "gene" ( it is from a gene problem that is now set), so they are not killed off by farmers and end up extinct.

Well I'm not so sure about whether epigenetics proves LaMarc....

But DNA methylation... which often results in the triggering of disease.... could well be influenced by diet... food additives etc....

So aquaponics might actually be good for genetic stability... and evolution.....

There is actually no scientific evidence to support this theory... I just made it up...

Aquaponics is detrimental to evolution, along with medicine, sorry rupert.

I was pondering this point a few years back..
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8805&

There is a bird Eb, im sorry for my terrible memory on specifics (names), there are 2 main populations up north (i think there was another tiny population discorered too), they are a small bird (finch?)

ahh found it, look up gouldian finch, i cant remember how they got divided, i think it was flooding, they have evolved from small isolated populations from the same original stock, if i remember correctly, they cannot interbreed (or will not willingly).

The show that i saw that talked about them were talking of the NT and QLD ones, i dont know where the kimberley ones fit in exactly.

You seem to have become a little incoherent in this part. It is (I think) quite clearly explained. It isn't a large variance in genes, at least not in the sense meant by Evolutionists, it is a large number of unrelated genes.

The standard view of Evolution is that everything descends from progenitors, common ancestors which alter here, change there and have, over 650 million years since the multi-celled life forms appeared, formed all the species we now see. So theoretically we should be able to trace the genetic drift across all species, finding common genes for common traits in all species which have those traits. There might be slight changes or differences (such as being able to see better in blue for deep ocean species or in infra red for nocturnal predators) but the genes should be traceable.

What Venter has found blows that apart. With more than double the number of gene families than humans have single genes, and with more than 1200 times the number of genes found in just half his trip with a potential of double that by the end of it, it is clear there are MANY lines of descent - which is why I replaced the Tree of life with the scrublands - lots of little scrubby bushes instead of the nice strong single tree as seen by Evolution.

This is not a matter of trying to babble about how genes are or aren't expressed - that has nothing to do with what is being said. This is about how many current genes there are in the world and how that number forces a rethink on just what has caused speciation and diversity - cause it ain't, by the actual physical evidence, mutation of one species into another.

And right here we run, once more, into the politicisation of Science. Even those who have made such progress do not dare call 'Evolution, the Theory' into question, so they carefully isolate their discoveries from any question of the Theory.

But read the info - the conclusions are fairly simple to come to once you have a basic understanding of what the orthodox theory proposes.

Epigentics is on the path...

Lamarck was hard done by. There is a lot of evidence now to substantiate what he claimed, but of course, once more we have the established view unable to alter.

There is research called the Grandmother research - women from the 2nd world war were looked at very closely and it was found there were some VERY interesting results of the conditions they went through. Summarised it is that stress can alter the unborn child. A pregnant mother or a woman who become so within a short space of time after being stressed, will have a particular kind of child. They had many to study and it was consistent.

Women in stress tend to have athletes; women in peaceful safe surrounds tend to have scholars. It makes sense when you think it through - a baby being born into a stressful world is more likely to need fight or flight capability. But brains are the cause of Man's superiority so where possible, the body will program for smart rather than strong.

Where it all became fascinating was that those children ALSO tended to similar results in THEIR children, and so did the grandchildren.

Lamarckian ideas were that the environment could alter genetics and the evidence bears this out - epigenetics is the mechanism.


Here is another clue - Rupert Sheldrake reports on a blackbird in Holland prior to WW2. It developed the habit of punching a hole in the home-delivered milk bottle tops and drinking the milk. They were quite a pest.

Then came WW2 and there were no milk deliveries for more than 6 years. When things settled down, the deliveries started again and the birds were almost immediately back to their old tricks.

Sounds reasonable, right? Just one little problem - the life span of the birds meant that there were at least 3 generations between those who had learned to drink milk and those who suddenly had bottle on the doorsteps again.

So... how did they learn the trick again so fast?

Interesting... no?