Author Topic: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth  (Read 10355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23384
  • Real Kahanist
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #50 on: June 07, 2009, 01:45:09 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climacoceras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeotragus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honanotherium
The Bible tells us that this is a fallen world due to the curse of sin and that is a proposition that can be tested by fact. Most animals went extinct soon after the Noahic flood due to drastic habitat modification or irrecoverable population depletion. In addition, G-d gives us the free will to hunt his creation into oblivion.

As for the identity of the extinct animals you mention--most of the time, without viable DNA, we have little more than the speculation of a few paleontologists to taxonomically assign something. How do we know for sure that the creatures you mention were truly of the giraffe family? And assuming that they were, what is your proof that they were members of a progressive biological succession? In this world today we have small Asian and large African elephants. Are Asian elephants automatically the ancestor of Africans because they are smaller?

Offline 4International

  • JTFer in Exile
  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2009, 04:13:45 AM »
By its very nature the fossil record is incomplete. Not every creature to ever live, not even every species, was preserved. We do have enough transitionals between major groups to draw conclusions from.

There are different species of giraffe family animals in the fossil record though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climacoceras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeotragus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honanotherium

"Honanotherium schlosseri was a giraffid ancestral to the modern giraffe (genus Giraffa) from the late Miocene of Hunan Province, China. It would have resembled a modern giraffe, but, somewhat shorter"


More ancient giraffe species could be found eventually, but again we're not going to find every species that ever lived.

Shalom sister RubyStars,


Yes different species of giraffe may have existed in the past just as different species of horse exist today [eg draught horse, thoroughbred, quarter horse, etc] but that is not the same thing as a horse or a giraffe being descended from a fish.

There is a world of difference between adaptation to an environment for a particular type of creature [eg a giraffe progressively adapting and growing a longer neck over many successive generations in order to reach food in tall trees] to that same giraffe being evolved from a fish. Is it not a fact that evolutionists claim that one species of animal "evolved" into another completely different species?


For evey single species of animal to have ever lived on the earth - literally numbering in the Billions - that according to the evolution hyothesis supposedly "evolved" from one animal species into another [eg a fish to an amphibian to reptile then to a bird, etc.] there would have to be at least ONE fossil somewhere in the world preserved showing the supposed transitional evolutionary change from one species of animal into another totally different species of animal. That translates to Billions upon Billions of evolutionary transitional phases over Hundreds of Millions of years for every single type of creature that ever existed - including insects.


I understand that not every species of animal to have ever lived is going to be preserved as a fossil, but it is highly illogical to use that argument as a foundation to explain away the complete lack of fossil evidence for the Billions upon Billions of transitional creatures that would have to have existed between one species evolving into another totally different species.

It is stretching logic and credibility to breaking point to suggest that not one of these transitional creatures has been preserved as a fossil or that we just haven't been looking hard enough in order to be able to find it.

 



Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2009, 09:03:05 AM »
Quote from: Serb Avenger link=topic=31203.msg354786#msg354786
date=1244353509
The Bible tells us that this is a fallen world due to the curse of sin and that is a proposition that can be tested by fact. Most animals went extinct soon after the Noahic flood due to drastic habitat modification or irrecoverable population depletion. In addition, G-d gives us the free will to hunt his creation into oblivion.

It is true that most of the creatures that were ever alive are now extinct.I don't think most of them had to do with humans making them go extinct though. I think many of them just naturally ran their course or left descendants that were significantly different from them over the long run. For example birds are very similar in the skeleton to theropod dinosaurs but you don't see actual theropods running around anymore.

Quote
As for the identity of the extinct animals you mention--most of the time, without viable DNA, we have little more than the speculation of a few paleontologists to taxonomically assign something.

Most of the ancient species we know about, we'll never be able to get DNA from because that kind of thing degrades over time fairly quickly. It's only recent species that we can hope to ever get DNA from. I think some wooly mammoth DNA and Neanderthal DNA was recovered but those creatures haven't been extinct for too terribly long although it's still very difficult to get DNA from things that have been dead for that long.The conditions have to be just right.

Quote
How do we know for sure that the creatures you mention were truly of the giraffe family?

Honatherium was basically a shorter version of the modern giraffe, just like what people were saying didn't exist a few posts back. We know that creatures are in the giraffe family if their skeletons have a lot of characters in common with Okapi or Giraffes. I'm not a paleontologist so I can't give you every detail but I understand in general. Okapi have a lot of characters in common with giraffes and are basically considered short-necked members of the giraffe group.

Biologists who study skeletons can easily tell the difference between a deer and antelope skeleton, for example, based on certain characters present or absent.

Quote
And assuming that they were, what is your proof that they were members of a progressive biological succession?

Modern giraffes are only found in certain time periods and these other species are found only in their time periods. The way evolution works is that they might not be direct ancestors but they might be closely related to the direct ancestors. Or they could be the direct ancestors.

It's always possible to find a fossil from that same time period that has more in common with modern giraffes than that one does.

Quote
In this world today we have small Asian and large African elephants. Are Asian elephants automatically the ancestor of Africans because they are smaller?

No the two share a common ancestor though. There have been a lot of ancient elephant type fossils found too by the way.

Quote
Assuming-facts-in-dispute is circular logic.

What facts-in-dispute am I assuming?

Quote
Experiential evidence/testimony is never to be taken as valid by itself. Thousands of brainwashed Westerners have converted to Islam based on "the evidence" that the Koran is an inspired book.

The evidence that I'm using to show that evolution is true is not anecdotal or experiential. It's physical evidence.

Quote
Again, this is circular reasoning. Evolution is the only face of methodological naturalism because you say it is.

Evolution isn't the face of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is used in all of science. It's the way things are done.

Even scientists who believe in G-d have to test things to find a natural cause of natural phenomena.

Quote
a: This is a classic strawman. By characterizing the opposing side of being of the ilk that does not believe in pathogens, which we can observe empirically, you can dismiss them as ignorant without actually refuting their POV.

That's not what I meant at all. I was trying to give an example that if "Evil spirits" had been a sufficient answer, then pathogens never would have been discovered. Imagine this scenario:

Person1: This cold is awful, I wonder what causes colds?
Person2: You've done something to anger G-d, that's why you have a cold
Person1: What if it's caused by something physical? I don't think I've done anything wrong
Person2: Blasphemy!

Science says that "G-d did it" or "spirits did it" is not a sufficient answer to this kind of question. Methodological naturalism says there must be a natural explanation for such phenomena and seeks to find it.

Quote
b: Yes, I believe that some disease is caused by evil spirits, in certain circumstances, and/or even by G-d himself, at times.

This isn't how things work most of the time though. Miracles or divine intervention like this really don't apply to the scientific method. I'm not in disagreement with you on this point. It's just that if people thought that all disease was caused by this, we wouldn't have all the medicines and therapies and vaccines we have today. People who are bitten by a rabid animal for example used to be condemned to a painful death. Now they can be saved with a vaccine regimen if caught early enough.

Quote
More of this mischaracterizing of evolution opponents. Show me one creation biologist who has an animistic worldview.

I never said that. I just said that you can't allow supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in a scientific context.

Quote
Evolution, the way that you believe that it took place, would truly have to be the ultimate "miracle".

Not really. It works by making small modifications to what's already there, that add up over time to big differences.

Quote
"Testable predictions"? You mean because organisms with an astronomical reproductive rate like bacteria and insects show gene culling (natural selection) within an observable timeframe when unnaturally tested by chemical poisons?

Bacteria are great for this because they have very short generation turnover so you can see evolution happen more quickly. However there are other predictions. For example "A dog will not give birth to a lizard" is an example of a prediction. Evolution says that a dog will only give birth to a dog. Only slight modifications would happen in one generation, like for example slightly longer ears.


Quote
What "testable predictions" in Darwinian evolutionism have been borne out in macrobiotic organisms?

There are three predictions discussed here:
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/19/evolution-makes-testable-predictions/

The first is about predicting that a method of imperfect reproduction would be found, which has been found.

The second says that changes in species would be observable. This has been observed such as the development of different dog breeds, the loss of eyes in cave fish, and fish that mature younger as more fishing is done.

The third says that fossils of extinct species would be found. You see in Darwin's time we didn't have the extensive fossil record that we have now. He could only predict that such things would be found. And they were! And many of them were such excellent examples of transitionals that I think even he would have been surprised.

If you have time to browse through it, Serb Avenger, I highly recommend this article to you. It's called 29 evidences of macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 09:28:30 AM by Rubystars »

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2009, 09:51:48 AM »
Yes different species of giraffe may have existed in the past just as different species of horse exist today [eg draught horse, thoroughbred, quarter horse, etc] but that is not the same thing as a horse or a giraffe being descended from a fish.

There is a lot more time involved between the Devonian and now than when horse breeding began and now.

Quote
There is a world of difference between adaptation to an environment for a particular type of creature [eg a giraffe progressively adapting and growing a longer neck over many successive generations in order to reach food in tall trees] to that same giraffe being evolved from a fish. Is it not a fact that evolutionists claim that one species of animal "evolved" into another completely different species?

It wasn't exactly fish to giraffe. There were a lot of steps in between there. It would really be against evolution if a fish produced a mammal like you're making it sound.

Quote
For evey single species of animal to have ever lived on the earth - literally numbering in the Billions - that according to the evolution hyothesis supposedly "evolved" from one animal species into another [eg a fish to an amphibian to reptile then to a bird, etc.] there would have to be at least ONE fossil somewhere in the world preserved showing the supposed transitional evolutionary change from one species of animal into another totally different species of animal. That translates to Billions upon Billions of evolutionary transitional phases over Hundreds of Millions of years for every single type of creature that ever existed - including insects.

I understand that not every species of animal to have ever lived is going to be preserved as a fossil, but it is highly illogical to use that argument as a foundation to explain away the complete lack of fossil evidence for the Billions upon Billions of transitional creatures that would have to have existed between one species evolving into another totally different species.

Somehow people have the understanding that there are no transitional fossils. I don't know why they have this idea because there have been a LOT of transitional fossils found. Maybe people believe this because of creationist leaders coming out and saying things like "there are no transitional fossils". Of course, no matter how many transitional fossils are discovered, it would just blow their worldview apart to recognize that evidence, so they continue to deny it.

Quote
It is stretching logic and credibility to breaking point to suggest that not one of these transitional creatures has been preserved as a fossil or that we just haven't been looking hard enough in order to be able to find it.

They have been found.

I'm going to make a list of some transitionals with links to pages about more, but I'll have to do it in another post.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #54 on: June 07, 2009, 10:22:21 AM »
My favorite transitional is Acanthostega. It's like the stereotypical "Darwin fish" on people's cars. It used its little feet to move around in the water, but they probably weren't strong enough to support it on dry land. Icthyostega is similar, and probably used its limbs to move from puddle to puddle. These are both fish-amphibian transitionals because they are not exactly lobe-finned fish but don't have all the amphibian characters either. They are a blend of the two.

Reptile-mammal transitionals include the following:
a.Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.
b.Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.
c.Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.
d.Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.
e.Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).
f.Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.
g.Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).
h.Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

Dinosaur to bird transitionals:
•Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).


•Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).


•Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).


•Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.


•Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).


•Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.


•Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).


•Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.


•Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.


•Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

Offline syyuge

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 7684
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #55 on: June 07, 2009, 10:23:13 AM »
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html

So crocodiles and birds are genetically related with difference of the feathers.

And whales, cow, human and chimp are genetically related with common presence of a placenta.

So the level of genetics, civilization, culture, thoughts and technology may differentiate between human and chimp.
There are thunders and sparks in the skies, because Faraday invented the electricity.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #56 on: June 07, 2009, 10:25:29 AM »
These pages have more transitionals than you could ever ask to find:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #57 on: June 07, 2009, 10:32:45 AM »
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html

So crocodiles and birds are genetically related with difference of the feathers.

And whales, cow, human and chimp are genetically related with common presence of a placenta.

So the level of genetics, civilization, culture, thoughts and technology may differentiate between human and chimp.

Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of birds today but that doesn't mean they're actually closely related. Crocodiles are a type of reptile called an archosaur. They were related to dinosaurs but on a different branch of the tree so to speak. So really crocodiles and birds aren't very closely related at all, but among creatures that live today, they're closer to birds than other reptiles are. I hope that makes sense.

Whales, cows, humans, and chimps are all placental mammals. That reminds me of something fun.

Look at these two creatures:
Squirrel:
http://talentedapps.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/best-squirrel-shot.jpg
and Numbat
http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci338m/Image_Archives/Marsupialia/numbat.jpg

They look really similar, right? You would think they might be related, but a squirrel is a placental mammal, and a numbat is a marsupial. That means that squirrels are actually more closely related to all other placental mammals than they are to that numbat. Actually this is a closer relative to the squirrel than the numbat is:
http://th241.photobucket.com/albums/ff313/mikepatton_forza/Humpback_Whale_underwater.jpg

Science is fun!

Offline syyuge

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 7684
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #58 on: June 07, 2009, 10:39:42 AM »
It is also likely that the Seals, Seal Lions and Walrus may be undergoing a faster transition, if not towards extinction.

http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/Science/animals/Seals.htm
There are thunders and sparks in the skies, because Faraday invented the electricity.

Offline syyuge

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 7684
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #59 on: June 07, 2009, 10:57:47 AM »
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

[Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.]
There are thunders and sparks in the skies, because Faraday invented the electricity.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #60 on: June 07, 2009, 11:26:32 AM »
Syggue yeah the birds developing teeth was really neat. :) Also big birds like ostriches have an arm with a finger on it and a claw. You can see this on their wing when you look under it.

Offline syyuge

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 7684
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2009, 11:34:39 AM »
Syggue yeah the birds developing teeth was really neat. :) Also big birds like ostriches have an arm with a finger on it and a claw. You can see this on their wing when you look under it.

Yes, and the lion cubs after birth have spots like panther on their skins, which later gets changed. This may be because of an ancient hidden genetic imprint.
There are thunders and sparks in the skies, because Faraday invented the electricity.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2009, 11:37:15 AM »
Syggue yeah the birds developing teeth was really neat. :) Also big birds like ostriches have an arm with a finger on it and a claw. You can see this on their wing when you look under it.

Yes, and the lion cubs after birth have spots like panther on their skins, which later gets changed. This may be because of an ancient hidden genetic imprint.

The spots help them blend in because their mothers hide them in the grass when they go to hunt.

Offline syyuge

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 7684
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2009, 01:27:29 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marozi

Marozi Lion can be an interesting deviation during the modern times to show the deviation of genetics. Although it is not certain whether it was a sterile crossbreed or a regular breed.
There are thunders and sparks in the skies, because Faraday invented the electricity.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2009, 09:58:18 PM »
I'd never heard of that lion before. That must have been a beautiful animal! I wonder if lion breeders could recreate that pattern? Of course that may not be responsible considering how many lions need to be in sanctuaries now because people took them on who didn't know how to care for a big cat properly. There are a lot of big cats around the Houston area that people keep and I don't think most of the owners know what they're doing. I support people's right to own exotic pets but only if they educate themselves as much as they can first and then make a best effort to give that animal a healthy life.

Offline Dr. Dan

  • Forum Administrator
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12588
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #65 on: June 08, 2009, 10:52:21 AM »
I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?



Because it serves no beneficial purpose for there be flying pigs or flying cows.  and two headed pigs cannot survive with the designs which you describe...rather pigs that can multiply faster and be more vicious will pass those genes on...

Wild pigs in north america used to be more of a pinkish color and now are much more brown in color and hairier...why?  because those specific genes indicate a higher survivability.  Pigs with wings wouldn't make sense because they would be too heavy to fly and therefore compete with other birds for food. 

Each animal that has become what they are in this time today are meant to be what they are today unless the earth environment changed so drastically that different genetic characteristics are needed for their surivival.  This can take millions of years for some species.

If someone says something bad about you, say something nice about them. That way, both of you would be lying.

In your heart you know WE are right and in your guts you know THEY are nuts!

"Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind."  - Albert Einstein

Offline Dr. Dan

  • Forum Administrator
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12588
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #66 on: June 08, 2009, 10:59:00 AM »
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.

Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals  survive better without such a costly organ.

And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?




giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.
If someone says something bad about you, say something nice about them. That way, both of you would be lying.

In your heart you know WE are right and in your guts you know THEY are nuts!

"Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind."  - Albert Einstein

Offline freedomannie

  • Full JTFer
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #67 on: June 11, 2009, 02:03:00 PM »
I love Dr. Dan's take on all of this! thanks this is a very good point! ;D
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.

Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals  survive better without such a costly organ.

And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?




giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.
I am in love with Light as it has brought the curtains back from the darkness...i will always be free with the truth i now know and my heart is forever changed...I thank G-d for the light! <3 Always

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #68 on: June 11, 2009, 02:19:44 PM »
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.

Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals  survive better without such a costly organ.

And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?




giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.

But how did the ancestors survive if they didn't have the long necks in the first place? They should have become extinct very quickly, or never have even lived. One cannot just evolve to survive. This is the paradox which is posed by your scenario. How can something evolve to be 'more fit' than what survived before it? Obviously the trees didn't get taller and giraffes with long necks seem more vulnerable to carnivores so it seems less survivable. Evolution doesn't really explain a lot of questions in this area.

It is a nice theory which can be used for good or for evil.
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18296
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #69 on: June 11, 2009, 02:43:41 PM »
But how did the ancestors survive if they didn't have the long necks in the first place?

The Okapi is a modern-day short-necked giraffid. It has survived all this time. Each stage would have been fully functional, or at least more advantageous to be selected for. Honanotherium was a shorter version of today's giraffe but the fact that fossil remains were found of this species proves that it was successful enough to have lived.

Quote
They should have become extinct very quickly, or never have even lived. One cannot just evolve to survive. This is the paradox which is posed by your scenario. How can something evolve to be 'more fit' than what survived before it?

That's a good question. Sometimes opportunties arise that weren't there before, or there is less competition for a particular resource and so it's advantageous to take advantage of that resource. A lot of the grazers on the African plains eat different parts of the plants, so that they are not necessarily in direct competition with each other, even though they are all grazers.

Quote
Obviously the trees didn't get taller and giraffes with long necks seem more vulnerable to carnivores so it seems less survivable. Evolution doesn't really explain a lot of questions in this area.
Answering questions is what science is all about. If there isn't an answer yet, then use science to find it. :) Of course I am pretty sure there probably is an explanation for this, but I'm not 100% sure what the answer is either right now. However there must have been an advantage in targeting that particular food source to the giraffid species.

Quote
It is a nice theory which can be used for good or for evil.


A very useful theory, and it can be used for good or evil just like almost everything else in science.

Offline Dr. Dan

  • Forum Administrator
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12588
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2009, 04:25:03 PM »
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.

Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals  survive better without such a costly organ.

And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?




giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.

But how did the ancestors survive if they didn't have the long necks in the first place? They should have become extinct very quickly, or never have even lived. One cannot just evolve to survive. This is the paradox which is posed by your scenario. How can something evolve to be 'more fit' than what survived before it? Obviously the trees didn't get taller and giraffes with long necks seem more vulnerable to carnivores so it seems less survivable. Evolution doesn't really explain a lot of questions in this area.

It is a nice theory which can be used for good or for evil.


I cannot give a definate answer. However, i can give you a speculation of what MIGHT have taken place.

One thing to understand is that animals might evolve by themselves..OR they might evolve with the habitat that surrounds them.

in the instance of the short necked giraffe eventually giving way to long necked giraffes...Here is one possibility:  The short necked giraffes had bushes and shorter trees to eat from.  The taller trees surrounding them survived while the shorter ones began growing less.  As shorter tree food became more scarce, the giraffe like animal with the longer necks were able to survive because they could eat from the shorter trees and taller trees while the shorter necked giraffe like animal only had one type of shrub to eat from...because of the competition and survivability, the taller necked giraffes were able to spread their genes for longer necks more easily than the shorter necked ones which had less of an advantage.

It MIGHT be an answer...
If someone says something bad about you, say something nice about them. That way, both of you would be lying.

In your heart you know WE are right and in your guts you know THEY are nuts!

"Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind."  - Albert Einstein

Offline Daleksfearme

  • Pro JTFer
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • What is, What was, What could be. thats what I see
Re: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
« Reply #71 on: June 11, 2009, 06:42:38 PM »
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.

Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals  survive better without such a costly organ.

And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?




giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.

But how did the ancestors survive if they didn't have the long necks in the first place? They should have become extinct very quickly, or never have even lived. One cannot just evolve to survive. This is the paradox which is posed by your scenario. How can something evolve to be 'more fit' than what survived before it? Obviously the trees didn't get taller and giraffes with long necks seem more vulnerable to carnivores so it seems less survivable. Evolution doesn't really explain a lot of questions in this area.

It is a nice theory which can be used for good or for evil.


Remember That Evolution is completely random and based soley on mistakes that are made when DNA is copied. Most mutations are harmful and about 99 % of are species that have ever lived are now extinct. Nothing adapts to the environment, the changes are just copy errors. Certainly, an environmental insult, such as increased radiation levels, chemical change in a food source etc can lead to a mutation, yet this change is totally up in the air. Also a massive environmental change can speed up the rate of mutation and thus the rate of evolution. This is called punctuated equilibrium. A good example of this is the K- T boundary 65 million years ago.

The members of a species that gain an stable, inheritable change in their genotype, and thus Phenotype will have more offspring that those members of that species that do not have this mutation. This means that over time this change will be passed on, conserved, in the entire species.

also, how would one be able to say what a "bizarre looking" creature would look like. The term bizarre is a completely subjective term
"You must not have looked in the new dictionary for the word Genocide, Because Right next to it is a picture of me with a capton that reads...over my dead body!"

The Doctor