darwin? evolution? WTF?
#61
Posted 25 September 2007 - 01:48 PM
Question: (following the basic principles of Darwinism) If human beings evolved from apes then how come apes are still around? Shouldn’t they have been wiped out by natural selection?
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#62
Posted 25 September 2007 - 01:53 PM
Why don't we see fossils with evolultionary steps and changes in them.
The answer to your question cobnat, only a few managed to evolve cause over a course of 100 million years they were seperated or some shit and started to change. The other ones didn't evolve cause they didn't feel it was the right move for them at the time.
It's hilarious, like if I started living in the ocean, 1 million years from now my kin would be fish.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 25 September 2007 - 01:56 PM
#63
Posted 25 September 2007 - 03:33 PM
Why don't we see fossils with evolultionary steps and changes in them.
The answer to your question cobnat, only a few managed to evolve cause over a course of 100 million years they were seperated or some shit and started to change. The other ones didn't evolve cause they didn't feel it was the right move for them at the time.
It's hilarious, like if I started living in the ocean, 1 million years from now my kin would be fish.
What about crocodiles? They haven’t changed for 100 million years despite the drastic changes in environment. Regardless, I would like to refer you to my original question: why are apes not extinct?
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#64
Posted 25 September 2007 - 03:39 PM
Fine, it's an in-your-face jab. CUTE.
Go to Hell, Then!
Get it? It's just as meaningless a statement because the Darwin-clad don't believe in hell.
(in other words: I'M NOT LISTENING because I'm so open-minded.)
#65
Posted 25 September 2007 - 03:42 PM
Of course, your question is irrelevant since no one claims that humans evolved froim the species of ape you see in the zoo. The claim is that those apes as well as humans evolved from a common anscestor, which happens now to be extinct. BUT, if it weren't extinct, that wouldn't mean evolution hadn't occured. Older models can coexist with the new ones; there's nothing in the model to suggest otherwise.
#66
Posted 25 September 2007 - 03:48 PM
Look at how successful simple organisms are. There's no reason for a simpler oganism to die out unless something adversely affects it. You can think about animals like tools sometimes. It's nice to have an iPod to listen to music, but when it breaks, you can still make noise with sticks.
And we have seen fossils with steps between in them. There are fossils of lizards developing mamillian like pelvic structures 100+ million years ago. We've seen animals withvestigial legs becoming more and more seabourne. We still have snakes with vestigial bones where legs would be. Even recently, we've gotten fossil records of velociraptors with feathers. If you look at fetal development among animals it's almost identical in the early stages.
I guess teh thing to say is that it's not ncessarilly that the environment forces a species to change, the environment encourages certain ones to flourish and certain ones to die off, depending on what chance gave them.
#67
Posted 25 September 2007 - 03:58 PM
They will be, slowly, just wait until we're finished destroying the rainforests!
#68
Posted 25 September 2007 - 10:33 PM
On crocs,well so far their form has proven pretty damn effective,why change what works just fine?
This post has been edited by El_Gostro: 25 September 2007 - 10:35 PM
#69
Posted 26 September 2007 - 11:11 AM
This post has been edited by Jordan: 26 September 2007 - 11:12 AM
#70
Posted 26 September 2007 - 11:41 AM
This post has been edited by reiner: 26 September 2007 - 11:42 AM
#71
Posted 26 September 2007 - 12:19 PM
Evolutionists don't call it a mutation. A mutation is evolution over a small period of time. If a body part of yours, like your heart, enlarged or mutated, the rest of your body would have to change with it, in harmony, else you'd die. (cancer, )
It's like a car, you can't change the size of a cylinder with out it affecting everything else in the car engine (cam shaft, piston, fuel intake etc...) All of it has to change together. Evolution claims that your body does, over a really long period.
So obviously these tiny changes have to be very slow over a very long period of time. It has to happen to numerous hosts as well. So the same change is now happening in many life forms (so they can breed). The DNA must have store information and must also have intelligence to determine which change is beneficial for the system and finally it needs to have all knowing power to create the change. ( must have an understanding of light and optics in order to create an eye ball)
#72
Posted 27 September 2007 - 06:20 AM
I still have no idea how the hell that explains the platypus.
#73
Posted 27 September 2007 - 07:12 AM
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#74
Posted 27 September 2007 - 09:46 AM
Here's the Wiki take on mutation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Mutations don't necessarily affect anything on a macro scale such as an entire organ. As an example, let's say there's a mutation in your dna that details how pigments proteins are processed. The pigment develops incorrectly and comes out blue instead of brown/black. The person then has bluish pigmented skin and has a POSSIBILITY of passing that down to offspring (depending on traits in the mates dna and chance). Of course there are teh mutations that can cause someone's heart not to develop and they die before even being born. THereby not passing down that defective trait. Slade summed it up well here.
Also if DNA had some sort of intelligence, which is does not, then we wouldn't have hereditary conditions like autism, cancer, dwarfism, diabetes, etc. These just happened to get passed down by the folks that manage to live long enough to breed (through either endurance, medical care, or luck). There's no god in the dna.
For further reading check up on how dna functions during reproduction in gametes. You literally get two halves of dna, splice them together and see how the pairs match up, and so depending on which parents have what genes in each pairing, the blueprint can change or stay the same. Problems can even occur here that cause change, hence Down's syndrome and it's triple chromosome.
Cobnat: It could be possible that they could randomly develop some sort of tolerance through breeding or mutation. Those who don't develop the tolerance either die or move away and the remaining population with the chance pairing of genes that allows that tolerance begin interbreeding causing that trait to be more likely to develop. The complete opposite could happen too. The trait may develop as a minor trait and be highly unlikely to develop forcing the population to become progressively more ill, die, or vacate.
And before anyone brings up 5 legged frogs, it's caused by a parasite that's being spread due to ecological changes.
#75
Posted 27 September 2007 - 02:34 PM
The air pollution would not cause a physiological change allowing resistance to it. Changes aren't caused directly by the environment; they are either supported or defeated by it. For instance, pre pollution, those with weaker lungs wouldn't even know they had them, but post pollution, they would likely die out before breeding. Consequently, in succeeding generations those with stronger lungs would be more prevalent. That's a nice and simple example, and doesn't cover most evolutionary change. Most changes take numerous generations and can't be traced to any one cause. Studies of generational changes generally involve species with large breeding groups and short life spans, such as bacteria and flies. Humans are harder to study.
Someone mentioned the lack of evidence for everything in the fossil record. On the one hand, fossil study is less than 200 years old. On the other hand, the conditions necessary for making fossils are very precise and rare. So fossils are not our best source of evidence. Most evolutionary research done these days is done at the level of DNA.
In general, let's clear up some common mistranslations of the theory of evolution.
Many say that it is a theory about how the "strongest, smartest, and fastest" survive. It's not. It is about whichever organism can make the best of a particular environment. Fitness can be anything that gives an organism an edge, and sometimes it really is just chance. The confusion comes from analogies to predator and prey relationships, which is not the dynamic for all organisms. Just imagine saying "only the strongest, smartest, and fastest plants survive."
Evolution is also not a ladder, with organisms climbing from Lower to Higher order, perpetually climbing toward greater complexity. This misconception is used often in support of the Intelligent Design movement, and its origin I suspect is the Middle Age notion of a Chain of Being. Since folks like simple descriptions of things, it's one that would sell really easily: there is some Goal of the Process, and organisms increase in complexity until they reach that Goal. Complexity is not the end goal of evolution; there isn't one. Bacteria and viruses, some of the strongest predators on the market, are not increasing in complexity, yet they're evolving like crazy with their short life spans and insanely huge populations.
The idea that man came from apes is a common misconception made by religious people. Humans and gorillas share a common ancestor, but one did not come from the other.
Finally, "evolution is just a theory" is something you'll hear from folks who don't know what the word "theory" means. What they might mean is that evolution is just an hypothosis, using a definition of the word that is so far from the scientific use that it may as well be called colloquial. A theory in this case is a body of knowledge and hypothoses, like the theory of gravity or atomic theory. Scientists are not in doubt about evolution like you might be if you said "I have a theory that the WATCHMEN movie is gonna suck." "Theory" doesn't imply speculation like the folks who try to use it as a refutation may think.
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 03 October 2007 - 04:48 PM