does evolution exsist

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by sifreak21, Jan 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    @ Matthew: I can answer it, I think: putting that calcium there, that does nothing for survival. It is therefore a waste of resources.

    Those whales that form smaller vestigial leg bones will have just a slightly better survival margin. Given long enough, that would shrink those bones to elimination in the population.

    @ LEO:
    would you consider the evolution of the human body louse( that I linked to before) micro or macroevolution?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/he...e.4842725.html
    It's changed appendage shape to hold onto clothing better. Pretty significant change , given the scale of the critter involved.

    In fact, That's a good question for you:
    At what point would you consider microevolution to no longer be microevolution and be macroevolution?

    What would your yardstick be for that divide in definition?
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    More lies, or if not that, incredible stupidity and inability to see, even after pictorial evidence in post 478's three stages of the land animal fossils becoming a whale. That evolution to form the whale occurred so recently (on geological time scale) that all the intermediate stage fossils have been found.

    Also in the case of the Arctic birds where the western Norwegian birds are a different species form the Eastern Canadians ones, ALL the intermediate stages of this evolutionary transformation to a new species are still living! Read more at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2716559&postcount=400

    How can you deny that one species evolved into another, when in one case all the intermediates still live and in the other, (evolution of whales) all the intermediate fossils exist? I.e the fossil record show the slow evolution of one life form into another. Certainly it is not complete for all species - few of the bones of creature that went extinct 100 million years ago still exist. There is one exception - the trilobites. They were so numerous that even though less than 1 in a million became a fossil, we have fossils of 10 different orders and more than 20,000 different species! Go to site: http://www.trilobites.info/

    to see these 10 orders:
    Here is the oldest order:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    fossils of it are not easy to find as they went extinct so long ago.
    and here are the last (most recent) two orders:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    These most recent to go extinct orders are more common.
    but at site you can click on each image to see sample of different species that fall into that order and facts about it.

    You can buy cheaply a few trilobite fossils there are so many still showing all stages of evolution thru 10 different orders!
    I have a few that were given to me, by a friend who had several thousand, many different species and a few different orders.

    SUMMARY: THIS POST OF YOUR JUST REPEATS YOUR PRIOR LIES - DOES NOT ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO YOU AS PICTURES.
    (You appear to be so stupid that I thought pictures would be needed for you to understand the point.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i cannot access the site so i cannot answer the question.
    the posts by HR and james has made it abundantly clear that a clear dividing line does not exist.
    two things:
    1. i don't give a rats ass about your pictures.
    2. i wish you would read the evidence i have posted before you accuse me of lying.

    in other words billy i will believe "science" before i will you okay?
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    There is a clear dividing line.

    Evolutionary theory can not make predictions of the future, therefore it does not satisify all the requirements of a valid science theory. It does a good job at correlating the data from the past and can explain the trends in this data over billions of years. But since it can't make predictions it is really the evolutionary correlation; technically.

    Because science and philosophy sometimes merge, the criteria needed for a science theory was waived for evolution since many scientists practice this philosophy. But since that smells of corruption, with respect to the rules of science, evolution becomes a target.

    If evolution was formally called a correlation, this would downgrade its status to correlation, the debate would become discussion. But with an exemption allowed only for one theories and not others, someone needs to stick up for the rules of science, even if science is at the mercy of other pressures.

    Don't get me wrong, I can see the gradual changes in life over billions of years and can see how well the model works. But theories need to make predictions and not just get grandfathered into that status.

    Because evolutionary "theory" sort of cheats to get more prestige, it is not open for discussion less the truth be known. It comes down to a dogmatic defense, with anything different heresay. If you didn't have to provide cover, we woudl talk without anxiety.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2011
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    False.
    False.
    False.
    And... false.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  11. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Try this.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    same thing. it's a login page.
     
  13. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Then try this, or this.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    judging by the links provided by rav it appears that three kinds of lice are being compared to one another. i do not understand what that has to do with eithe micro or macro evolution.
     
  15. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    This one goes to a site talking about an update on the research:
    http://www.livescience.com/9225-humans-lice-clothed-naked-hairless-bodies.html

    Apparently they've pushed the date back for clothing quite a bit...to 170k years.

    Here's a clipped image for you:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The blurb with it:
    So those two are fairly obviously different. But it took roughly 170,000 years for those changes to occur in something that's that small, that simple an organism, and one that breeds really fast...so 170,000 years is macroevolution at a quick clip.

    170 k years ago we created a new niche (literally) for parasites to survive in by making clothing, so the head lice we already ran around with started being selected for their ability to cling to an artificial environment-clothing, particularly the seams of it. The less successful ones presumably got shaken out.
    Macroevolution takes huge stretches of time.

    I think that's what makes a lot of people think it's just not possible...they don't comprehend the timescale.

    Basically, macroevolution IS microevolution with multiple thousands of years added.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2011
  16. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    SUMMARY: YOUR STATEMENT BELOW IS FALSE -- EVOLUTION DOES MAKE PREDICTIONS.
    Hundreds of which have been confirmed and not one has proven to be false!
    This is a false objection, which has been raised and answered earlier. Both Creationist and evolution theories make predictions. For example, if all the animals were formed at the same time, then bones of dinosaurs, birds and man would be found in the same undisturbed layers of earth together as all were dying in the same decades.
    Evolution states the the birds evolved from dinosaurs, and before man existed. Thus evolution predicts that the deepest (oldest) layers with dinosaur bones will not contain bones of birds or man. Bird bones will be found only in more recent layers, but long before any layer with bones of man.

    Two different predictions about where these bones of different species will be found. Evolution's prediction is correct and creationist theory's prediction is false. Here from old posts are some other confirmed predictions of Evolution theory:

    From: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2689745&postcount=170

    Here are seven other predictions of evolutionary theory that have been confirmed by a natural, not man made, experiment:

    “... However, enviromental theory does also predict what factors will speed the development of a new species. The major ones are:

    (1) Isolated gene pool, so new benefitial gene for that enviroment will not be too quickly lost among a wider population
    (2) Very small gene pool so new beneficial gene can quickly spread through out the small gene pool.
    (3) No Predators to eat the bearer of the new beneficial gene before it can be spread into later generations.
    (4) Harsh conditions so that even a slight beneficial gene may make a difference in survival. For example creatures that only can digest bananas might have a genetic change that allowed them to digest grass, but if there are lots of bananas available and that is what the bearer of the grass digestion gene learned to eat, that gene, although potentially beneficial, (4) will not offer much survival advantage,
    (5) until the massive banana blight hits and 90% of the gene pool starves to death. (5)Very harsh environment conditions make even small genetic advantage very big survival advantage. - Get it selected for.
    (6) Harsh condition lasting for long periods, no just a passing drought etc. but for tens of thousands of generation as significant fraction of the gene pool starving to death due to over breeding.
    (7) Being trapped in a tiny areas with no means of moving to where conditions are less harsh.


    These are seven predictions that evolution theory makes about what can shorten the time required for a new species to evolve. If all seven are strongly satisfied, then the rate of evolution can be speeded up by a factor of 100 (not a million years, but species evolving in 10,000 years.) It just so happened that from the end of the last ice age, about 8,000 years ago, all seven were very strongly in effect for the full 8,000 years and a new species did evolve, confirming these seven predictions of evolution theory. That species, called the preá, evolved from the guinea pig species that lives still unchanged on a much larger island only 8 Km away by boat. Not only do the preá, have quite a different appearance, size and facial features, (very tiny and flat –quite human like with no snout) etc. but the preá, cannot mate and produce fertile off springs with the guinea pig species they evolved from. – I.e. the preá, is a new species….”
    From post 1016 in now locked thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91631

    For more on the preá , including a photo of one, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2714823&postcount=266

    It is obviously impossible to confirm now a prediction about the future but here is one in larger type below, based on evolution theory, I made less than a day ago:

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2011
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    wouldn't the theory of evolution also predict something like a unicorn or pegasus?
     
  19. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    If God(or whatever) created many kinds of animals to put on the earth, with the intention of this life to endure for millions upon millions of years in an ever-changing environment, would it not make sense to endow each kind with a genetic flexibility which would allow it to adapt(to at least a certain degree).

    If we are part of some grand experiment, does it also not make sense that God might create many variations of similarly designed animals(at any point in time), which could be mistaken for different steps in the evolution of a single lineage?

    If both of the above are true, might the lines between genetic flexibility and an entirely different creation get blurry?

    If 'God' uses some sort of 'computer program' to design life, might that explain why all life is written in the same language, and why all life forms seem to have commonalities in their design.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2011
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No. Evolution results from the accumulation of CHANCE changes in the genetic code.

    Just like chance flips of a coin, it is not possible to predict what the next flip will be, head or tails, nor is it possible to predict if a run of 10 heads (the "Head species") will come before the run of ten tails (the "Tails species").

    What is it about chance you can not understand so you ask such a silly question?
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    "each kind" evolved from single celled life. There is no evidence to think the "man kind" was walking around and stepping on the trilobite "kind".

    There is lots of evidence that the kinds slowly transformed into different kinds. This evidence is very complete in the "Whale kind" as the transformation came about only recently (geological time scale) after the land had many different animal kinds walking on it - one of which went back into the water where its ancient pre-land ancestors came from. As this was so recent, we have fossils of all the intermediate stages of the formation of land animals into whales.

    I admit that it is possible an evil god did consistently trick man's intelligence. For example, perhaps no supernova exploded 10 billion years ago, but God created a steam of light only 5000 years ago that appears to come from a source 10 billion light years distant. Perhaps there is no sun - just god making light steam towards Earth, as it there were a sun.

    To account for the absence of man and bird bones in the same layer with dinosaurs bones, we could assume that there never were any dinosaurs - god just made bones we could find and be tricked again. etc. Yes with an evil god intentionally tricking man, all our science could be wrong.

    Certainly an evil god could plant bones in the surface layers of Earth so as to support evolution theory, make the continuing DNA changes only appear to be a continuous accumulation of many small chance changes, that support / agree with / the fossil evidence, etc.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2011
  22. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I had an idea.

    Maybe the calcium deposit in whales will actually evolve into a completely new complex organ, vital to the function of these future whale-like creatures inhabiting a completely different future environment, 100 million years in the future.
     
  23. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Why do you need to force such silly ideas to my side... to make your side appear less silly?

    A more rational idea would be that 'God'(or whatever) simply created the dinosaurs first.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page