Login

Join for Free!
117216 members


Objections to Darwin

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Linn » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:12 pm

Sorry that is a new concept to you.
basic 101
that was discussed in threads already.
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby mith » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:20 pm

Ok, could you point out where please?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby catfishjim » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:08 pm

Linn wrote:Think! :wink:

A lion is considered one of those fittest things.


There is no reason to think that a LION is any FITTER in a Darwinian sense than a POTATO or a GNAT. Each organism is adapted to its environment. But over time, genes that produce very small advantages give their bearers a slight advantage.

When Darwin talks about the "fittest" he means "best adapted" to the given environment.

does the geological record show their sudden arrival?
YES!


Check your facts.

Genes are arranged in such a way to prevent changes. improvements such as size etc yes but not evolution.

Your "improvements" are exactly what is meant by "evolution." It's only when you take the "improvements" of millions of years that you get new species.

I thought you were serious, but maybe you'rejust joshing...
catfishjim
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Austria


Postby Linn » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:41 pm

catfishjim wrote:
Linn wrote:Think! :wink:

A lion is considered one of those fittest things.


There is no reason to think that a LION is any FITTER in a Darwinian sense than a POTATO or a GNAT. Each organism is adapted to its environment. But over time, genes that produce very small advantages give their bearers a slight advantage.

When Darwin talks about the "fittest" he means "best adapted" to the given environment.

does the geological record show their sudden arrival?
YES!





Check your facts.

Genes are arranged in such a way to prevent changes. improvements such as size etc yes but not evolution.

Your "improvements" are exactly what is meant by "evolution." It's only when you take the "improvements" of millions of years that you get new species.

I thought you were serious, but maybe you'rejust joshing...


why do you keep telling me to check facts?

You keep missing the point I am making.
Even if it is true that improvements are made, it does not change the species. Its been said over and over again that there is no evidence of a change from one species to an other. Wouldnt you expect to find SOMETHING in the fossil record to support this?
And millions and millions of years is alot of time that we should be finding a lot of fossils.
Can you see the logic here.
I am not making this up.

Something else to consider. What if......
its not so much that genes began to self mutate to adapt the organism to its enviroment, But that the organism that was already strongest survived and thus passed this on, We see this is instinctively in a female lion to choose the biggest, strongest and most ferocious matr with the biggest mane. This ensures stronger offspring.
However, in thousands of years you will not see any deviation from class.
A lion stays a lion.
we also see this with selective breeding of dogs over thousands of years. Its amazing to look at a little toy dog and imagine its ancestors were wolves. But they are still canis.

And, what happens when a horse and donkey is crossed?
You can produce viable offspring, but this offspring is sterile (although someone said there have been cases)
That is within the same species let alone two different species. Even with human genetic interferance and manipulation the result will be a monstrousoty unable to procreate. Hardly an adaption for the better.

And I know the facts. if you can show me that the fossil record shows that there is no sudden arrival. I will believe it. As in the past many things that were thouht to be true were not. It would have to be so big, that it could put an end to the debate once and for all.
We need to be open.
I am not joking, genes are resistant to change.
Never let your mind stagnate, keep searching keep learning.
Dont take my word, investigate on your own.
Respectfully,
Linn
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby mith » Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:24 am

Someone writes:

I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred english dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? )

This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

quoted:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Linn » Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:33 am

ah! plants my field of study.

yes that is very interesting.

what do you think of ligers?


http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby catfishjim » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:23 am

it does not change the species.


It's not a matter of "changing" the species. If the "orignal" species continues to be viable, then it doesn't necessarily have to change. At the same time, members of the same species that are endowed with a unique advantage may automatically find their place in a new niche.


What if......
its not so much that genes began to self mutate to adapt the organism to its enviroment, But that the organism that was already strongest survived and thus passed this on, We see this is instinctively in a female lion to choose the biggest, strongest and most ferocious matr with the biggest mane. This ensures stronger offspring.


With you all the way to this point. But WHY was this organism stronger than the others in the first place?


And, what happens when a horse and donkey is crossed?
You can produce viable offspring, but this offspring is sterile (although someone said there have been cases)
That is within the same species let alone two different species. Even with human genetic interferance and manipulation the result will be a monstrousoty unable to procreate. Hardly an adaptation for the better.

What do you mean? Are fish worse off because they can't mate with frogs? Some differences between horses and donkeys are easy to recognize as adaptation to different environments. So I don't see your point.

[/quote]
I am not joking, genes are resistant to change.[/quote]
Could well be - that's why it takes millions of years for new species to evolve.

Never let your mind stagnate, keep searching keep learning.


Roger that! But that's a great reason to keep an open mind about ongoing speciation. There is a lot of evidence that the actual breaks from one species to another are often episodic. That is to say, several new species may exist alongside older ones until some environmental factor or combination of factors serves to test the specialized adaption of each.

Think about the extinction of the dinosaurs: It makes a lot of sense to assume that if the earth grew dark and cold (compared to the way it way before, at least). So the overall ability of the planet to supply food was drastically reduced. This had to hit the super-megafauna the hardest: there just was no way for their habitat to support them any more. Just imagine the number calories from direct sunlight or air temperature on the one hand, and from food on the other, that were needed just to "fuel" one bronto or T. rex! In the previous climate, no big deal, but afterwards, no chance.

Their smaller relatives - including some reptiles that survive relatively unchanged today - didn't know it, and it's not like they had been waiting for this day or anything, but they were better adapted to the new situation.

But a change in conditions can also mean competition where there was none before. If there not enough food to go around, and if the conditions persist over time, then some species will end up getting left out.


About transitional species

Have a look a this website:
http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/ASPI ... e/evxt.htm

Of course, there's nothing conclusive about this, but it provides some food for thought.
catfishjim
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Austria

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron