Denial of evolution II

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sniffy Banned Banned


    Evolution explains almost everything about the complexity of life on the planet. Read up a few posts BM and follow the links.

    What is it that you find so hard to understand? The fact that something cannot be fully explained yet doesn't mean that it won't be.

    It is quite possible that when conditions on earth were sufficient to sustain life; that there was indeed life. Billions of years; billions of incremental changes. Is that SO hard to contemplate and understand? And if so why is it any harder to comprehend than oh, say, god did it?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Almost? That's sorta' like all those 18th century people trying to convince others that iron ships could float on the ocean ....then saying, "...well, at least I think so!"

    That one life-form could evolve into the gazillions of animals that we know about on the planet. One lousy, single-cell animal evolved into the dinosaurs ....AND.... into the gorilllas and humans. Just a little farfetched for me to accept.

    So yours is that all will be understood in time??? Isn't that exactly what the theists say to their people? "My children, when you reach the House of the Lord, all will be understood." Faith.

    Where'd that life come from? And indeed, where did the planet Earth come from? Where did the solar system come from?

    No, I'm sorry, evolution has a helluva lot of explaining to do before I begin to worship it as most of y'all do.

    Baron Max
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    There are approximately 40 little animals, called Preá in Portuguese, living on tiny island called Moleques do Sul, which is about 8 km separated for a much larger Island called Florianopolis that have been studied by Pontifica Universidade Católic under leadership of Sandro Bonatto.

    About 8000 years ago, these two islands were one as the sea level was much lower. The tiny island is about the size of a football field and mainly rocks. But has some grass on ~10% of it.

    These Preá are so inbreed that DNA tests (type used in Brazil to determine disputed paternity, at least) cannot determine any differences. They are about half the size of the main island animals they evolved from during 8000 years of separation. Smaller size was favored by selection because of the very limited food supply. They are the only mammals on the tiny island and have no predators. - I.e. population is limited only by the lack of food for more than 40 but probably has been slightly increasing as they evolved to be ever smaller each 1000 years. (Probably no more than 20 of them lived after the connection to the main island was cut off 8000 years ago by the melting ice.)

    They are now a new species (Cavia Intermedia) but closely related to Cavia Magna of the main island. They are about the size and shape of a small rat, but with a face that looks much like a monkey, or even human, and fur covered (except the feet) with no tail. Head and back fur is brown and belly fur is whitish grey.

    Until they were discovered it was not thought by experts that a population of only 40 animals max could survive for thousands of years. They have, no doubt, lived all that time on the edge of extinction and practiced incestual mating with no ill effects, at least for the last 6000 or 7000 years. They are all now genetic identical. The ill effected off springs of inbreeding were selected out long ago as all live hungry on the edge of extinction at least in the mild winters. (Perhaps, like bears, they store fat during the summers - just my guess, not mentioned in the paper.)

    Their tiny island is part of a state park, now with special protection - only qualified researchers can legally visit, but some fishing boats do at times. The great fear is that one will leave a cat on the island. - Then this recently evolved new species will go extinct.

    There is a photo of one being held, belly up, easily in the palm of a hand on page A14 of the Folio de Paulo of 18 March 2009. (I was in Rio for few days and fortunately just let the papers accumulate outside the 14th floor apartment door. - I just finished working my way back thru the stack of them. - why post now.)

    These preá are sooo cute, with their little quasi-human quasi-monkey faces* peering out from great spread of surrounding facial hair. I bet they would make great pets. For protection of the species I hope some of the researchers think so also and steal a few for breading on the mainland and eventual sale as pets, before some fisherman's cat eats them all in less than a month.

    *The mostly hair free face is about the size of a lady's thumb nail, with no "snout." The eyes are slightly slanted, like an oriental's. If the nose has two opening, they are very close together. In photo the nearly flat nose and mouth look like an inverted T in a pink skin completely hairless area. I cannot be sure from the photo, but they appear to have only three strong toes. They are at the end of a a relatively long foot in the hind legs. - sort of like a rabbit's foot. I bet they do a lot of leaping hops over the rocks more than walking. The forelimbs are only half as large. They must have ears, but they are lost in the facial hair which makes their tiny heads appear to be almost as wide as their bodies. - No neck is visible.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 25, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    With well confirmed crossing of oceans by iron ships and well confirmed evolution of mammals like the Preá (see my last post, 83) there is no need to say about either evolution or that iron ships can float anything but: "I know this to be a fact." (not "I think it true.")

    A final comment on the evolution of the preá:

    A tiny population (40 or perhaps only 20, initially) living on the edge of extinction for 8000 years (due to limited food, not predators) have very rapid evolution compared to a large population living relatively easy, except for being eaten. (The predators eat the beneficial genetic innovations often before they can become a dominate part of the large gene pool) Thus the preá did in 8000 years what normally might have taken 8 million years. Became a new species.

    Also interesting to note that once genetic idenity has been achieved and ill effects of incest eliminated, then when a hail storm or huricane killed most of the preá, they could quickly rebuild the population back up to the food limit so long as one male and a few females made it thru the storm. In this sense, what is normally a problem (lack of genetic diversity) is actually a survival aid!
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 25, 2009
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, that's not the difference. The difference is that their objections were ridiculous, long in advance of any proof either way.

    The people who had sensible objections were the ones proven wrong.

    This, for example, is not one of them:
    That objection has no chance of being proven right. That's the equivalent of the folks saying "Iron, heavy as it is, floating all the way across the ocean. That's just too far-fetched." Even if no iron ship had ever been built, that objection would remain unsound. If maintained in the face of sound argument and evidence and so forth, it would become ridiculous.

    You asked why people who simply object to evolutionary theory are so often ridiculed. It's because of the nature of their objections, which they maintain in the face of sound argument and evidence and so forth. People with sound objections are not ridiculed.
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    I don't have any such "objections", ridiculous or otherwise. What I'm asking for is legitimate, scientific proof ....that would be similar to the proof of sailing the iron ships on the ocean.

    Y'all are the ones promoting the theory, yet no one has adequately explained to me how 1.) simple, single-cell animals turned into extremely complex animals that we know today, and 2.) where the damned single-cell animals came from in the first place.

    And, in fact, y'all surely must know that evolutionary theories don't even come close to explaining where the solar system came from or the galaxy or the universe. Surely y'all don't think one, single-celled animal started out there somewhere and evolved into the entire universe, do ya'???

    I'm sitting here completely openminded about the issue and, in fact, have agreed to numerous adaptations that have been shown/proven in the real world of animals. See? I'm not a raving freak-o seeking to denounce evolution as an evil thing out to destroy mankind. I just expect a little more proof than the usual answer of "....takes millions and millions of years...." That ain't no answer or proof, that's just smoke to cover that you don't know the answers.

    Y'all are the ones who've accepted the theory, y'all are the ones who seem to worship the theory, y'all are the ones who ridicule others who don't believe or fully believe, yet you can't answer those simple questions. Yet y'all continue to ridicule people who don't fully believe that the theory of evolution explains the vast complexities of life on Earth.

    Baron Max
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Baron Max:

    Once you accept that species can change over time, the only other element you need is geographical isolation. What happens is that your group of fish, say, splits into two groups, for whatever reason (and there can be many). Those groups each go along independently, gradually accumulating the kinds of small changes you say you believe can occur. And over millions of years those small changes take the two groups in quite different directions. Individuals in one group are not able to breed with individuals in the other group, and once breeding has become biologically impossible (as opposed to merely geographically impossible), we have two species instead of one.

    It explains everything about the complexity of life on the planet.

    That's a separate question from evolution.

    Why? You say you accept everything that is required, yet you refuse to put the pieces together and draw the obvious conclusion. That's either you being obtuse, or you don't really understand what you say you understand.

    That's a complicated question, and we don't yet have a definite answer.

    We have very good answers to these questions, but they are in the realm of physics, not biology.

    You can't worship a scientific theory. I'm beginning to doubt you understand how science works.

    The explanations are easy to find - either on the web or in many well-written books. It's not our fault that you're too lazy to go look.
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Proof is in post 83 (with extra in post 84). You just ignore the proof - sort of like those continuing to doubt iron ships can float.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Another example of speciation, Baron Max, is one that Darwin himself gave in The origin of species - Darwin's finches on the Galapagos islands.

    What happened there is a classic example of speciation. You start with one species of finch on one island. New islands are being formed in the Galapagos regularly by volcanic activity. These are gradually populated by plant and animal life. So, at some stage a small group of finches is blown from the original island to a neighbouring island in a storm, or rides on a mat of seaweed, or whatever. Once there, they establish a new home and essentially have no contact with the birds on the original island.

    Evolution then proceeds independently on the two islands. If one island has a different environment to the other (quite likely if one is older than the other and has different life on it), then the adaptations of the finches that are successful on one island will be different to the adaptations that are successful on the other island.

    Now, wait for 10,000 years, then visit the two islands. What do you find? You find what Darwin found - two islands populated by different species of finch, biologically incapable of interbreeding. The finches are easily distinguishable by things such as shape of beak, behaviours etc.

    Wait a few million years and return. Now what do you find? The bird species on the Galapagos may well have diverged so far that you can no longer in good conscience call a particular species a "finch".

    Wait tens or hundreds of millions of years and you'll return to find that some of the birds have evolved into completely different creatures. Maybe they lost the ability to fly. Maybe their wings evolved into legs. And so on.

    What's so hard to comprehend about this?
  13. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Perhaps if sentience, cognitive ability and emotion were better understood in terms of physical apparati - evolution would be easier to accept.

    Neuroscience is in it's infancy and Freudian logic hasn't proven worth in unraveling the origins of behavior, or for that matter, the evolution of behavior. Brain tissue doesn't exist from the past thus only cranial capacities can be analyzed, which don't seem to shed much light either...especially when coupled with anthropology.

    Since there are currently no models for the evolution of intelligence or the evolution of consciousness, or for that matter the explanation of consciousness. It becomes difficult to accept - though I accept it.


    The more complex question is; why specifically has intelligence proven advantageous? If it's so advantageous, what factors of our current environment are the root cause? And finally; if it's found to have always been advantageous why has it taken this long to evolve? It feels equally arrogant to say that highly-intelligent beings have only existed for 100,000 years as it does to say intelligent beings were specifically created.

    Potential answers include that the current mix of stable ecology, stable climate, and geological stability has allowed for intelligence to be most advantageous. Though; surely in the millions of years these factors must have coincided at least for one other period of time, beckoning the question again of 'What's unique?'
  14. Gustav Banned Banned


    pick yer poison
  15. sniffy Banned Banned

    No it isn't. I point to the evidence just as the ship builders point to the evidence. Would the observers necessarily have to fully understand exactly why the ship floats in order to accept ships floating? To see the ship floating and then to deny it is floating, well, that's just denial. But if someone came up with evidence to prove that the ship wasn't floating (ie that it had very long legs fixed to the hull and was, therefore, walking across the bottom of the ocean) then the naysayers could be triumphant: 'See the ship appears to float when really it is just standing on the bottom!'

    Evidence for evolution and transitional species lies in:
    Fossil records, geological records, biological records, genetic records (ie evidence). On their own these piece of evidence might add weight to the theory but taken together they add up to an overwhelming body of proof that some organisms developed from simple to complex, the periods in the earth's history when such things happened, including extinctions can be seen in the surface of the earth itself.

    For evidence for transitional species (dino to bird) look up Archaeopteryx. For whales with feet look up: Maiacetus. If you visit natural history museums you'll be able to see fossil records cross referenced to geological evidence. You could follow the links I put in my previous posts but I doubt you will bother.

    Prefer the proof of the pudding in real time; sweet peas, roses, pigeons, dogs, horses. Selectively bred real-time proof of evolution.

    Oh and see also mosquitoes and malaria.

    Still not convinced? Had the flu lately? If you did it wasn't the flu you may have had last it year. Maybe you had a flu jab? Don't worry it'll evolve. It'll get you one day.

    Ah, but I know I'm really preaching to the converted.

    Then 'god did it' should suit you just fine. Nice and simple. No evidence required. Only belief.

    Several single celled organisms probably. And of course you know that humans didn't evolve from gorillas, although it is a common misconception? You know that humans and gorillas had a common ancestor which is a quite different matter. The gorilla and the human evolved separately in response to the prevailing conditions over millions of years. Not so far fetched now is it?

    Well that's what the theists might well say to their children. Good for them. For some that just doesn't hack it just as when I stumbled on an ammonite on the beach aged 6;

    'Well god made that' didn't quite hack it for me. Go figure.

    God did it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Evolution is not for worshipping it is for understanding. As well you know.

    Keep stirring the hypo-crites Baroneous. It's a messy job but someone's got to do it.
  16. sniffy Banned Banned

    post yer evidence
  17. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    So the two groups of, what, fish will turn into the cape buffalo in one location and the gazelle in another? And you expect that, since I believe that a single specie can adapt variously, longer beaks, different plumage color, etc, can become an entirely new and different specie?? C'mon, James.

    How? By using the speculative "evidence" that you presented above?? As evidence of anything, that explanation would be thrown out of any court in the nation, yet you expect people to believe it just because you can type it out on a post in the forum?

    I don't think so. In order for all those speculative changes to take place, there had to be some starting point for it. What was that starting point?

    Like in your example above, you jumped right in with the two groups of fish. Okay. But for that wild speculation to have any meaning, you can't just jump in at the middle of things ....where did the fish come from?

    I accept that a single specie can adapt to various environments in different ways ....longer beaks, different colored feathers, small differences. But for a fish to become a cape buffalo just because of a different habitat is a major stretch of the imagination ...if one even has such a soaring imagination!

    James, what you presented above is nothing more than wild speculation, and most certainly not what anyone would take as evidence. It is interesting, howver, that one wild speculative theory is attempted evidence for another wild speculative theory. Does that happen often in sciences?

    Baron Max
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    And how does anyone, including Darwin, know what types of finches were on what island at what time thousands of years ago? See? Just wild speculation in some misguided attempt to explain a wild speculative theory.

    Darwin lived through all this 10,000 years and recorded all the happenings on the two islands? If not, how did he or anyone know what took place there in the distant past?

    Wild speculation, nothing more. In a court of law, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom if you presented such bullshit as evidence.

    Hard to comprehend? What ...wild speculation to explain some other wild speculation?

    Baron Max
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member



    It's the only sensible conclusion you can draw, if you really understand the process.

    Well, you could go back to the first cell with working DNA. If that doesn't satisfy you, then maybe you want to look at the first self-replicating molecules. Or, you can go back further and investigate the chemistry involved in amino acids and so on.

    Why don't you look up any semi-decent introduction to evolution on the web, or google "tree of life". You'll find some pretty pictures that show you the early ancestor species of fish.

    Have you read Darwin's On the origin of species?

    I notice you ignored the finches.
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Link, or be called out as a bullshitter.
  21. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Actually, what is rather amusing about this is that on a level he probably wasn't even aware of, he was quite right.

    There is a difference between the popular understanding of evolutionary theory, and the ongoing scientific exploration of it.

    I will pose a question.

    How is the accidental drowning of a female dung beetle in shit, as a result of the attention of too many males, an advantage to the species?
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    They don't. They know what finches are there now. Darwin, in particular, carefully documented the different varieties of birds on the Galapagos when he visited. At the time, he had no idea they were all finches. He assumed they were completely different because they looked so different. But they're not.

    What's your explanation? Individual creation of each separate species by God? Now that is wild speculation.

    He was a scientist, and science often deals with the deep past. Consider a completely different field - plate tectonics. How do scientists know where the continents were 100 million years ago? There were no humans to map them out. Do you think out picture of continental drift is also wild speculation? How about our theory of the formation of the solar system? Nobody saw that either. Is all science that explores the past just wild speculation, in your opinion?
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    I know of no old bones or any other finds that show one specie turning into another one ....say James' fish turning into a cape buffalo. Do you? If so, please present that evidence ....and NOT the wild speculations of archeaologists as they peer at some old fossilized bone.

    Do fossilized bones show the millions of years of change, one minor change after another, until that fish has finally turned into a cape buffalo? If not, aren't you just looking at one bone and saying, "Gee, I think this cape buffalo bone used to be a fish bone!" Wild speculation!

    Specie adaptation and/or selective breeding programs ...sure. But when was the last time an evolutionist took two peas and breed them into a horse?

    Far fetched? No, but there's no evidence for what you're saying ...only wild speculation that wouldn't be accepted in any court of law as evidence. And continued wild speculation after wild speculation in some attempt to explain another wild speculation is simply ....unacceptable as evidence.

    Baron Max
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page