Support NeoGAF

[Raist]

Haha no I do kind of mean it. I understand natural selection and all, thats not really the problem. It's just that with 'graphs' like that I am thinking: What am I looking at.. which ones died, which one lived at the same time. You see the example with the coloured bunnies is clear and understandable for me. But the ones with the killerwhale isn't.

Every line that finishes with a bold "dash" and not an arrow means that it's dead

 

[José Mourinho]

You have to think about population dynamics, and competition. The whale's ancestor probably was very successful on earth, but at some point either something changed or competition became too tough. So some mammals basically said "fuck it" and tried to find food in the sea, for instance. And they gradually adapted to that new environment, because at first they sucked at it (even if in the end it was better for them as they had less competition).

But for me I think, said animal is forced in to completely unknown habitat. It would more than likely dye out, I mean, it couldn't cope with the competition on land, where it had evolved to live. How much chance does it have elsewhere? And if it did scrape through life. Why would it pass down some gene it now seemingly posses that makes it's young better adapted? Now millions of years later it's a whale.

It sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry guys.

I believe animal and people adapt. I just don't think the changes are so radical.

You do not understand evolution at all. That's why you can't accept it.

Oh right. I didn't realise that everybody who understands something has to agree or subscribe to it.

Huh? It's not far fetched to assume that some mamals had to reenter the water to survive if there wasn't enough for them to survive above the water.
Seriously it's kinda like a company that decide to branch out of their core competencies and then are forced to reenter their core product line because the new core in which they branched out wasn't profitable enough.
Even with a flawed economical analogy it doesn't seems much of a problem.

That analogy is most definitely flawed. I see what you're trying to say, but no.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Unanimously? Hardly. And then there is another part of the scientific community that rave about the book such Kenyon Martin and Paul Chein.



Many mutations are passed on, sickle cell anemia is just one example - there are millions of people who have this genetic disease and they are still reproducing.



It only highlights the fact the genome of organisms are degenerating as scientists say. That is not "evolution" - that is through such process you can't get a single cell to an ape in billions of years when mutations accumulate in the genome. That's like saying by adding typos to a sentence you can get a Shakespeare play. That goes against logic. There is no scientific evidence which supports a claim. Otherwise show it!



I never said that. But to get a single cell to an ape there needs to be a lot more genetic information. That's obvious.


Now you are contradicting yourself. You said "Either they die, and are unable to pass on these genes, or nothing whatsoever."

Sickle Cell Malaria can't be used as an example for "upward evolution" because the people with the disease are actually impaired despite that it gives them a survival advantage in certain regions of the world.




I don't think the scientists ever expected a super race to emerge. But I assume they expected at least a viable fruit fly with a new function or at least a different function. All they got was sickly, deformed fruit flies.

Many of the experiments in the URL is not "evolution" at all when the mutant types are less viable than the wild types.



?





You're losing me.



Bring forth the hard scientific evidence. I have been in these types of debates many times and I all get is rhetoric which is useless in a scientific debate.



I wouldn't expect the quotes to be found on Talkorgins. So what? They are Evolutionists who are honest enough to say something that contradicts their worldview.





Ha, the Nylon eating bacteria example, which produces a new enzyme through evolution. I was expecting this one.

For those who don't know what this is. Supposedly at the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. But this is really not an example of evolution - that is can be used as an example to get a cell to an ape. Molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. Its degeneration is not a mechanism that accounts for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity. This is similar to the example of the Lenski study of E. Coli.



Let's clarify what I mean by Evolution. The context of Evolution I am using is the genetic change of organisms through random mutations and natural selection which accounts for all life. Evolutionists assume that all life derived from some hypothetical primordial cell through such processes. There is no scientific evidence to support such a notion. Otherwise show it.



I completely understand it. You can't get a cell to an ape in billions of years with an accumulation of genetic mistakes. There is the huge problem that 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). If you really believe that through evolution you can get a cell to an ape then provide the hard scientific evidence for your claim. I'll be waiting. And please just don't give me rhetoric. That's not science.

Now stop right there. Sickle Cell anemia is so prevalent, mostly in the continent of Africa, because it offers a selective advantage against malaria infection. Heterozygous individuals are more likely to survive than "normal" people or those homozygous for the mutation, so it persists in the population.

 

[Shanadeus]

But for me I think, said animal is forced in to completely unknown habitat. It would more than likely dye out, I mean, it couldn't cope with the competition on land, where it had evolved to live. How much chance does it have elsewhere? And if it did scrape through life. Why would it pass down some gene it now seemingly posses that makes it's young better adapted? Now millions of years later it's a whale.

It sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry guys.

I believe animal and people adapt. I just don't think the changes are so radical.

You have to think in million of tiny little steps. A land living animal sometimes go to teh water and some gene make that little water trip more succesful which lead to them spreading more kids - and that gene.

Now repeat another, on it's own small, step until you gradually have that land animal swimming around in water like a big whale.

 

[Dead Man]

Haha no I do kind of mean it. I understand natural selection and all, thats not really the problem. It's just that with 'graphs' like that I am thinking: What am I looking at.. which ones died, which one lived at the same time. You see the example with the coloured bunnies is clear and understandable for me. But the ones with the killerwhale isn't.

So, the horizontal line in front of the name is when they lived, according to the fossils we have. The scale is at the top of the picture. As you descend the list, you are also looking at each animals descendants.

If any palaeontologists are in the room, please correct me if I'm wrong there.

Oh right. I didn't realise that everybody who understands something has to agree or subscribe to it.

No, I don't think he was being a dick, I think you just don't understand how gradual the process is, how long it has taken, and how what natural selection is.

Edit: Read this, then think of several billion years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Examples_of_natural_selection

 

[Raist]

It would more than likely dye out, I mean, it couldn't cope with the competition on land, where it had evolved to live. How much chance does it have elsewhere?

Very little. Which is why the very large majority of all species that earth ever held are now extinct.

 

[Chuckie]

Every line that finishes with a bold "dash" and not an arrow means that it's dead

Lol... fair enough.

So if I see it correctly, at some time 'our' orca lived in the same time period as the Mesonychids, while his less succesfull ancestors/brethren had already gone extinct

 

[PjotrStroganov]

]But for me I think, said animal is forced in to completely unknown habitat. It would more than likely dye out, I mean, it couldn't cope with the competition on land, where it had evolved to live. How much chance does it have elsewhere?[/B] And if it did scrape through life. Why would it pass down some gene it now seemingly posses that makes it's young better adapted? Now millions of years later it's a whale.

It sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry guys.

I believe animal and people adapt. I just don't think the changes are so radical.

Oh right. I didn't realise that everybody who understands something has to agree or subscribe to it.

Bears eat deer and fish and practically everything they can get their paws on. Imagine this: it gets a competitor in the deer department. The obvious result will be that bears will get to eat less deer and get more of their food from the other recourses. It's not that all animals live in one small specific nice and can't survive outside of it.

 

[José Mourinho]

No, I don't think he was being a dick, I think you just don't understand how gradual the process is, how long it has taken, and how what natural selection is.

Edit: Read this, then think of several billion years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Examples_of_natural_selection

No mate, I get it. 13 billion years and all the rest of it. Believe me, I understand the theory.

Bears eat deer and fish and practically everything they can get their paws on. Imagine this: it gets a competitor in the deer department. The obvious result will be that bears will get to eat less deer and get more of their food from the other recourses. It's not that all animals live in one small specific nice and can't survive outside of it.

And Bear continues to be Bear for all the generations down the line. Just Bears that eat a lot of fish. That makes more sense to me than a billion years later *insert animal here".

You have to think in million of tiny little steps. A land living animal sometimes go to teh water and some gene make that little water trip more succesful which lead to them spreading more kids - and that gene.

Now repeat another, on it's own small, step until you gradually have that land animal swimming around in water like a big whale.

I do think of it in a million tiny steps. I still don't buy it.

Anyway, I hadn't really come for a debate. I was just saying my piece as to why I don't believe it. I have no problem with you folks talking about it and all the rest of it. Makes no odds to me. It's interesting though. However, no matter how much I read about it no matter how many TV shows I watch, I never get any closer to believing.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

I do think of it in a million tiny steps. I still don't buy it.

Anyway, I hadn't really come for a debate. I was just saying my piece as to why I don't believe it. I have no problem with you folks talking about it and all the rest of it. Makes no odds to me. It's interesting though. However, no matter how much I read about it no matter how many TV shows I watch, I never get any closer to believing.

Ignorance is bliss. Thank you goodbye.

 

[KHarvey16]

I do think of it in a million tiny steps. I still don't buy it.

Anyway, I hadn't really come for a debate. I was just saying my piece as to why I don't believe it. I have no problem with you folks talking about it and all the rest of it. Makes no odds to me. It's interesting though. However, no matter how much I read about it no matter how many TV shows I watch, I never get any closer to believing.

Because you don't want to.

 

[Raist]

Lol... fair enough.

So if I see it correctly, at some time 'our' orca lived in the same time period as the Mesonychids, while his less succesfull ancestors/brethren had already gone extinct

Yeah pretty much, although it looks like orcas emerged pretty much at the time mesonychids went extinct. The other "whales" couldn't compete and went extinct progressively, basically.

 

[Jasup]

In like 1 million years the writings of Darwin will have evolved him into a god and Dawkin's will be written about as his Jesus Christ. Everybody will worship their truth and pray to them. A new theory will appear and everybody will turn on evolution. If you believe in it, you'll be called a fool. If you don't, you'll also be called a fool. People will bitch to keep the new theory out of schools. And the world will keep spinning.

I jest. Damn no smilies!

It doesn't have to take million years, new religions can form very rapidly indeed, for instance Cargo Cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cults) are a recent phenomena.

The thing is that although Darwin did do the ground work and was the first to describe the mechanism of natural selection the theory of evolution in modern times is a different beast. Many of his claims have been refined, extended upon or replaced and with new discoveries new things are added into the theory, it's constantly changing. Unlike in religion, there are no absolute truths. Science is a methodology in which one of the fundamental tenets is that everything is to be contested.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

But for me I think, said animal is forced in to completely unknown habitat. It would more than likely dye out, I mean, it couldn't cope with the competition on land, where it had evolved to live. How much chance does it have elsewhere? And if it did scrape through life. Why would it pass down some gene it now seemingly posses that makes it's young better adapted? Now millions of years later it's a whale.

It sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry guys.

I believe animal and people adapt. I just don't think the changes are so radical.

Oh right. I didn't realise that everybody who understands something has to agree or subscribe to it.

That analogy is most definitely flawed. I see what you're trying to say, but no.

Sounding ridiculous and being ridiculous are two different things. Bacteria are the obvious example of organisms that adapt to harsh changes in their environment, and even flourish afterward.

I think vision's view of evolution, much like Behe's, is stuck by the simplistic view of seeing coding DNA as the only source of genetic complexity. Behe was unable to grasp the scope of the human immune system because he tried to apply the basic concepts of Mendelian genetics to it and failed.

 

[trineo_feo]

Oh right. I didn't realise that everybody who understands something has to agree or subscribe to it.

If you don't have religious bias, and you understand evolution, there is no reason why you would deny it. What other scientific theories do you deny? Gravity? Germs? Electrostatic? What else don't you buy?

 

[José Mourinho]

Because you don't want to.

Seriously, people like you annoy me.

Why would I read these threads, other sources and watch shows on it if I wasn't open to the idea of it? If I just "didn't want to" I'd just you know... not.

You all get annoyed at anybody who doesn't buy it, get on like you're more than happy to explain, but once somebody doesn't just accept your point. It must just be because they don't want to believe.

Sorry, I said "you all", that's not true. There are plenty of people in here who are more than happy to explain and take it very well if you don't agree. Sorry to those people.

 

[daviyoung]

When God closes one troll he opens another.

 

[Shanadeus]

Seriously, people like you annoy me.

Why would I read these threads, other sources and watch shows on it if I wasn't open to the idea of it? If I just "didn't want to" I'd just you know... not.

You all get annoyed at anybody who doesn't buy it, get on like you're more than happy to explain, but once somebody doesn't just accept your point. It must just be because they don't want to believe.

Sorry, I said "you all", that's not true. There are plenty of people in here who are more than happy to explain and take it very well if you don't agree. Sorry to those people.

"I don't get the existence of gravity"
"This is how it works"
"Sorry, don't buy it"
?????
Profit

 

[Dead Man]

When God closes one troll he opens another.

:lol

"I don't get the existence of gravity"
"This is how it works"
"Sorry, don't buy it"
?????
*trollface.jpg*

Pretty much.

 

[José Mourinho]

"I don't get the existence of gravity"
"This is how it works"
"Sorry, don't buy it"
?????
Profit

Person doesn't believe in evolution.
Obviously doesn't believe in science at all.
??????
wut?

Good one.

 

[KHarvey16]

Seriously, people like you annoy me.

Why would I read these threads, other sources and watch shows on it if I wasn't open to the idea of it? If I just "didn't want to" I'd just you know... not.

You all get annoyed at anybody who doesn't buy it, get on like you're more than happy to explain, but once somebody doesn't just accept your point. It must just be because they don't want to believe.

Sorry, I said "you all", that's not true. There are plenty of people in here who are more than happy to explain and take it very well if you don't agree. Sorry to those people.

You have absolutely nothing but your own incredulity. Your "issues" with evolution betray your ignorance, and when people inform you otherwise you basically say "meh, still not buying it."

 

[Raist]

Seriously, people like you annoy me.

Why would I read these threads, other sources and watch shows on it if I wasn't open to the idea of it? If I just "didn't want to" I'd just you know... not.

You all get annoyed at anybody who doesn't buy it, get on like you're more than happy to explain, but once somebody doesn't just accept your point. It must just be because they don't want to believe.

Sorry, I said "you all", that's not true. There are plenty of people in here who are more than happy to explain and take it very well if you don't agree. Sorry to those people.

I think what people mean (in a kinda straightforward and harsh way) is that you think you understand it, but from your posts it looks like you're missing a few basic concepts, be it because you don't know them or because you don't want to accept them.

It's not a matter of belief.
I'm a scientist. There's plenty of things that I believe, mostly because it would be nice, it would fit my hypotheses, and allow me to publish stuff. That is until I actually try things out. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and when it doesn't match what I believed I have no choice but accept it. Even if it's bad for me.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

You all get annoyed at anybody who doesn't buy it, get on like you're more than happy to explain, but once somebody doesn't just accept your point. It must just be because they don't want to believe.

You keep claiming you understand it, but your objections raised imply that you clearly don't. The only defense you have mounted for your own position is that "you don't buy it", as though something seeming plausible to you has any bearing on how true it is. "Why can't you just accept me disagreeing with you" is not a defense when you are making explicit claims about something not making sense (i.e. speciation).

If you weren't prepared to defend your position, you shouldn't have posted it in such a volatile topic. You are receiving the responses you are because you are acting irrationally.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Person doesn't believe in evolution.
Obviously doesn't believe in science at all.
??????
wut?

Good one.

The insults are getting a little childish guys. They aren't conducive to learning or debate.

Kyle, what are your opinions on all of the non-human primate species that have been discovered? Surely you would not argue that they don't exist? Or that they all existed simultaneously?

 

[José Mourinho]

You have absolutely nothing but your own incredulity. Your "issues" with evolution betray your ignorance, and when people inform you otherwise you basically say "meh, still not buying it."

To be informed otherwise doesn't make what the person says true. You go through life changing your opinion on something every time somebody tells you otherwise.

My problem is this, all these threads are the same. Somebody comes in who wants answers. Because prior to that point they've either never understood them or if they have, agreed with them. They lay out what knowledge they have. Some people come in, try and explain more on top of it. If you disagree, they accept it and move on or try and explain more. I appreciate these people.

Most people however after a few posts decide, "you don't want to believe", "troll" "what else don't you believe? gravity". What good does that do anybody? Like, the thread was designed to teach people, to help them understand / believe. But no, by all means bitch at everybody who doesn't yet.

The insults are getting a little childish guys. They aren't conducive to learning or debate.

Kyle, what are your opinions on all of the non-human primate species that have been discovered? Surely you would not argue that they don't exist? Or that they all existed simultaneously?

Of course they existed, no doubt. I would argue that they did exist simultaneously. I mean, we have any amount of non-human primates existing simultaneously now. Or do you mean specifically homo*whatever* linage?

 

[Nocebo]

I do think of it in a million tiny steps. I still don't buy it.

No you don't. Don't lie troll:

But for me I think, said animal is forced in to completely unknown habitat. It would more than likely dye out, I mean, it couldn't cope with the competition on land, where it had evolved to live. How much chance does it have elsewhere?

If you actually can think of millions of tiny steps, can you name some of those steps you have thought of? If you think in millions of tiny steps then why do you have an animal suddenly appearing in a completely unknown habitat out of the blue?

 

[daviyoung]

What exactly don't you understand?

Changes can be radical but they take millions, and billions, of years to become apparent even on a microscopic level. Evolution affects every part of life, and everything either evolves or becomes extinct depending on the stability of its climate.

Also, that whale diagram should not be treated like some bible for evolution as there are some obvious 'missing-links' in there as well.

 

[José Mourinho]

If you actually can think of millions of tiny steps, can you name some of those steps you have thought of? If you think in millions of tiny steps then why do you have an animal suddenly appearing in a completely unknown habitat out of the blue?

'Cause the guy I quoted talked of an animal being forced out of it's own habitat in to another due to competition. Thus starting it's re-enter in to water continuing it's evolution.

I didn't just say, Tiger goes in Whale pops out.

Inconsistency is his forte. First he can't imagine that an animal can be forced into another way of living but acknowledges that an animal can be forced into another way of living.


Oh wait, he said completely unknown habitat, killing the discussion altogether.

Really? Imagined it pretty good. I doubted a perfectly functioning land mammal is going to prosper in the water. I don't deny that you can change an animals habitat somewhat, and that it can survive. I just don't think that means over the course of billions of years that it has to or will change.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

No you don't. Don't lie troll:

If you actually can think of millions of tiny steps, can you name some of those steps you have thought of? If you think in millions of tiny steps then why do you have an animal suddenly appearing in a completely unknown habitat out of the blue?

Inconsistency is his forte. First he can't imagine that an animal can be forced into another way of living but acknowledges that an animal can be forced into another way of living.


Oh wait, he said completely unknown habitat, killing the discussion altogether.

 

[Mael]

Sounding ridiculous and being ridiculous are two different things. Bacteria are the obvious example of organisms that adapt to harsh changes in their environment, and even flourish afterward.

And in the case that you find bacteria too small to consider, there's still some others that can help.

And the most fun part in the whole debate nonsense here is that most religious people that have a problem with evolution shouldn't even be following the book that is contradicting it.
Seriouly the new testament is supposed to replace the other older one for a reason.
AND the newer revision of the book is certainly man made, it really is not something that came from angels up above and thus is subject to errors too.
Which should explain why catholics (at the very least) have no/shouldn't have any problem with having the book evolve with its time.

 

[KHarvey16]

To be informed otherwise doesn't make what the person says true. You go through life changing your opinion on something every time somebody tells you otherwise.

My problem is this, all these threads are the same. Somebody comes in who wants answers. Because prior to that point they've either never understood them or if they have, agreed with them. They lay out what knowledge they have. Some people come in, try and explain more on top of it. If you disagree, they accept it and move on or try and explain more. I appreciate these people.

Most people however after a few posts decide, "you don't want to believe", "troll" "what else don't you believe? gravity". What good does that do anybody? Like, the thread was designed to teach people, to help them understand / believe. But no, by all means bitch at everybody who doesn't yet.

What objections do you have to the explanations offered other than than personal incredulity?

 

[Jokergrin]

what the heck is going on in here

 

[Nocebo]

Of course they existed, no doubt. I would argue that they did exist simultaneously. I mean, we have any amount of non-human primates existing simultaneously now. Or do you mean specifically homo*whatever* linage?

Did you exist at the same time as your great great great great great great great grand father? Do you exist at the same time as your nephew?

 

[astroturfing]

Kylehimself, if you can't accept that every living creature has a common ancestor, where DO you think different species came from?? a whale just popped into existance out of nowhere..? or what?

there's no other possible explanation other than evolution. looking at fossils, genetic evidence, "micro"-evolution and all the other mountains of proof, nothing else would make sense. and the vast majority of experts in all fields related to evolution agree with this.

the only other option other than evolution is that there is some sort of an evil creator that made the universe appear as if things evolve. a creator that wanted to trick humanity. and this would be absolutely ridiculous of course.

 

[Nocebo]

'Cause the guy I quoted talked of an animal being forced out of it's own habitat in to another due to competition. Thus starting it's re-enter in to water continuing it's evolution.

I didn't just say, Tiger goes in Whale pops out.

What kind of time period do you think one animal was being forced out of it's own habitat due to competition then? Hint: it's not because a random new animal showed up in the area that week. lol.
Also you still haven't mentioned any of the tiny steps you can think of.

 

[Shanadeus]

'Cause the guy I quoted talked of an animal being forced out of it's own habitat in to another due to competition. Thus starting it's re-enter in to water continuing it's evolution.

I didn't just say, Tiger goes in Whale pops out.

Really? Imagined it pretty good. I doubted a perfectly functioning land mammal is going to prosper in the water. I don't deny that you can change an animals habitat somewhat, and that it can survive. I just don't think that means over the course of billions of years that it has to or will change.

While it is silly scenario:

What about a mammal adapted for digging on land and thus have shovel like feets that can be used as paddles in water?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

And yes, I meant the more human-like primates.

If you do acknowledge that these species existed, but don't accept evolution, you're also implying that humanity lived alongside dozens of other non-human species for thousands of years of recorded history, and simply didn't bother to mention it. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

 

[Jasup]

And Bear continues to be Bear for all the generations down the line. Just Bears that eat a lot of fish. That makes more sense to me than a billion years later *insert animal here".

You have to think of the traits that are beneficial for catching the fish. There is a limit of how many bears the fish stock the bears have in their disposal can support. Eventually competition on the food supply will become an issue.

Now we have to think how the bears go on fishing - let's assume it's by diving after them (as is one fishing method bears utilise). In this method some traits can give advantage to some individuals to get more fish and survive long enough to breed and pass on the genes to new generation. While diving, pig paws are an advantage, as it provides better paddling power and diving speed. The other advantage could be shorter legs, as they provide better manouverability in water.

Now let's say hypothetically that the fish stock can support 1000 bears and there are presently 1500 bears - the competition will start. The 500 bears who were worst at utilising the stock will die off (they either had too small paws or their legs were too long), so the 1000 bears with the largest paws and shortest legs breed.

Because of heredity we can assume the offspring of the previous generation will inherit some of their parents traits. Now we have 500 new bears, who have on average bigger paws and shorter legs than the previous generation (that included the 500 long legged, small pawed bears that died off) raising the total amount of bears back to 1500. And again those with the smallest paws and longest legs die off and those with shortest legs and biggest paws breed to make a new generation which has on average bigger paws and shorter legs than the previous one.

If continued long enough the bears will still be same animals, but with increasingly shorter legs and bigger paws until their legs might look like those of an otter. Their paws might resemble flippers and so on. It's all done in small increments over generations. I stated only two traits, but there can be other traits to consider like body shape, size and fur.

The new species comes from our human drive to categorize things. If we look at the bears on the beginning of the process I described and at the very end, we might call them different species and the ones in the middle of the process to be intermediate forms when in reality they are just parts of the same continuum.

 

[Nocebo]

What do you guys think about this?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/

 

[pestul]

The deniers really do not have anything stronger than 'I don't buy it', or 'it doesn't fit with my belief set' to counter evolutionary theory. Explain fish with feet for instance.. seriously. They might argue that it's just mutations to cope with the environment, but isn't that just adaptation and evolution really?

 

[daviyoung]

What do you guys think about this?

Interesting, but I'm not buying it.

 

[José Mourinho]

Did you exist at the same time as your great great great great great great great grand father? Do you exist at the same time as your nephew?

I didn't exist at the same time as my great great great great great great great grand father, no That doesn't make me a different beast. And as it goes, I do exist at the same time as my nephew yeah. He's here just now in fact!

What kind of time period do you think one animal was being forced out of it's own habitat due to competition then? Hint: it's not because a random new animal showed up in the area that week. lol.
Also you still haven't mentioned any of the tiny steps you can think of.

I get that it wasn't forced out one day cause a T-Rex showed up. But because these animals get forced out over a long period of time and have to adapt to a slightly different way of living as they go doesn't make me think they're going to change.

What do you want me to say about the tiny changes? I understand the theory, I'm not under the impression that the next generation of animal pops out with an extra leg or something.

While it is silly scenario:

What about a mammal adapted for digging on land and thus have shovel like feets that can be used as paddles in water?

It is, but you give me laugh. Fair play for that. But what's your point? Plenty of land animals that don't swim can swim. (I'm not being a dick, I genuinely am missing your point).

Kylehimself, if you can't accept that every living creature has a common ancestor, where DO you think different species came from?? a whale just popped into existance out of nowhere..? or what?

there's no other possible explanation other than evolution. looking at fossils, genetic evidence, "micro"-evolution and all the other mountains of proof, nothing else would make sense. and the vast majority of experts in all fields related to evolution agree with this.

the only other option other than evolution is that there is some sort of an evil creator that made the universe appear as if things evolve. a creator that wanted to trick humanity. and this would be absolutely ridiculous of course.

As I said in my first post. I don't know. I can't offer you any profound new theories. My lack of belief is the lack of reason I guess. A single cell splits... why?

Other areas of science something can be explained. Then replicated to prove the point. Any other amounts of ways of proving things. With evolution, your stuck with this weird thing of, it just happens. And that's the bit I can't grasp.

I'd love to go on more, but there's like 10 people asking me questions and only about 2 of them are worth replying to.

And yes, I meant the more human-like primates.

If you do acknowledge that these species existed, but don't accept evolution, you're also implying that humanity lived alongside dozens of other non-human species for thousands of years of recorded history, and simply didn't bother to mention it. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

But surely all human-like species are prehistoric? And given how far back ancient historic goes they would have been long gone before that? What records would there be?

Also, from reading around I know certain skeletons that are found don't always have the scientific community on the same page. With disagreements on whether they walked upright etc. You can never be really sure how close these things were to humans without seeing them in the flesh. Their skeleton may be similar but that doesn't paint the whole picture.

I'm saying human-like. When I say that I mean like this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

I believe this existed, I don't believe however that it walked around on 2 legs. I know there is a debate on that with that particular species. If you mean human-like as in the species just prior to homo sapien. I don't believe they are anywhere near as close as people think.

 

[Mael]

It is, but you give me laugh. Fair play for that. But what's your point? Plenty of land animals that don't swim can swim. (I'm not being a dick, I genuinely am missing your point).

Actually that's because most of them grow in a liquid environment while in the womb or something to that effect.
Kinda like how baby fresh out of the womb can swim but kids need to relearn it after a few years.

 

[Dead Man]

I think the easiest to understand example I can talk about is Giraffes. Why do they have long necks? Their ancestors didn't, right? Well, on the savannah, sometimes food is scarce, and not all the animals will get enough to eat so some will die. Those that can reach more food because they happen to have slightly longer necks by chance will have an advantage in those years. Due to the way genetics works, their offspring will have a range of neck lengths too, but some will be longer than their parents. If there is a lean food year again, those individuals will then have a better chance of finding enough food. accumulate all those changes over millions of years and you might find the necks of your descendants have become very long indeed. Long enough to reach the highest leaves you can digest. You may of course find other of your descendants were a bit smaller, so they needed less food , and eventually became something very different,

 

[José Mourinho]

Actually that's because most of them grow in a liquid environment while in the womb or something to that effect.
Kinda like how baby fresh out of the womb can swim but kids need to relearn it after a few years.

That is in fact... Interesting, thank you good sir.

 

[Shanadeus]

It is, but you give me laugh. Fair play for that. But what's your point? Plenty of land animals that don't swim can swim. (I'm not being a dick, I genuinely am missing your point).

The point is that an adaption that gives a species an advantage in one one habitat might also give that species another advantage in a completely different habitat that it didn't evolve in.

So yeah, an animal from one habitat might very well when forced into a completely unknown habitat survive and eventually flourish.

 

[ianp622]

It "just happens" because of DNA transcription errors that cause mutations. These errors are caused by radiation, chemicals, and other factors. If the radiation levels on earth were different, we'd probably see different effects of evolution.

 

[José Mourinho]

The point is that an adaption that gives a species an advantage in one one habitat might also give that species another advantage in a completely different habitat that it didn't evolve in.

So yeah, an animal from one habitat might very well when forced into a completely unknown habitat survive and eventually flourish.

Okay and you know what. I can get down with that. I've seen shows about snakes and other animals breeding like crazy in environments they aren't native too. But whilst I agree they can survive and well. I just don't accept that they will change over the course of time.

 

[Mael]

It "just happens" because of DNA transcription errors that cause mutations. These errors are caused by radiation, chemicals, and other factors. If the radiation levels on earth were different, we'd probably see different effects of evolution.

It'salso worth noting that DNA only serve as a code for ARN which then provide the blueprint for the various protein, which means that a single mistranslation will provide a change on said protein....which will function differently and have various effects.
And since we currently have no fucking idea how they all interact with each other as a whole(unless I missed a breakthrough when I lost interest in the subject)...

At this point evolution is just the macro version of stuffs that happens in our body and make sure we're all functional...
That and the whole reproduction aspect.

And that's it for me as far as reduction goes.

 

[ianp622]

Okay and you know what. I can get down with that. I've seen shows about snakes and other animals breeding like crazy in environments they aren't native too. But whilst I agree they can survive and well. I just don't accept that they will change over the course of time.

Are you unable to grasp the concept of evolution or do you believe there isn't sufficient evidence for it?

I can help with the latter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk