Rejecting evolution with science...

Ekstasis said:
what about the so-called "living fossils" ? What is the evolutionary reason for animal species identical or virtually identical to their 150 million year fossilized ancestors? Natural selection decided "nah, you guys are okay..carry on surviving you're well equipped"
Click to expand...

Well, yes.
 
Ekstasis said:
what about the so-called "living fossils" ? What is the evolutionary reason for animal species identical or virtually identical to their 150 million year fossilized ancestors? Natural selection decided "nah, you guys are okay..carry on surviving you're well equipped"
Click to expand...

Since when is extinction of a species a predictable component of evolution...? :confused:
 
Ekstasis said:
what about the so-called "living fossils" ? What is the evolutionary reason for animal species identical or virtually identical to their 150 million year fossilized ancestors? Natural selection decided "nah, you guys are okay..carry on surviving you're well equipped"
Click to expand...

You got it correct. Once a species is suited to it's environment or a variety of environments, there doesn't need to be further evolution. In other words any mutation that appears doesn't give much advantage or any at all. So the mutated animal is "outbred" so to speak. Eg. Crocodiles and sharks haven't really changed for a few hundred million years. Some of their species have gone extinct though.
 
DJ... said:
Since when is extinction of a species a predictable component of evolution...? :confused:
Click to expand...
I was under the impression animal species are evolving all the time? 150 - 300 million years should be sufficient time for an animal to have definite visible differences in anatomy or not? Just a question, maybe I'm not understanding it correctly
 
SaiyanZ said:
Unless people believe that God steps in every few hundred years and tweaks say a thousand species slightly. Ever so slightly that they are close to their parent species but not quite. This is done to test our faith to fool us into believing that the process is natural and not through his magic. He must be real busy though with all the millions of types of bacteria given that they can evolve in a matter of days. Maybe that is why bacteria kept God busy for 3 billion years before he decided to create something more complex.
Click to expand...
Sounds like deism, not theism. Sure, some may believe this, e.g. IDers.
 
SaiyanZ said:
You got it correct. Once a species is suited to it's environment or a variety of environments, there doesn't need to be further evolution. In other words any mutation that appears doesn't give much advantage or any at all. So the mutated animal is "outbred" so to speak. Eg. Crocodiles and sharks haven't really changed for a few hundred million years. Some of their species have gone extinct though.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
Ekstasis said:
how does natural selection "know" that though? Excuse the dumb question, I'm no scientist :o.
Click to expand...

If the environment that the species evolved in has not changed and they are adept for living in these conditions there would be no reason for them to evolve as there is no pressure to do so.

It is basically the same reason why humans will not evolve further as we have negated the pressures of natural selection.
 
Ekstasis said:
how does natural selection "know" that though? Excuse the dumb question, I'm no scientist :o.
Click to expand...

Evolution has no conscience. It is not some self-aware thing inside someone. It doesn't know anything. You evidently do not understand the very basics of evolution at all. I'll quote this for you:
DJ... said:
I'm gonna put this here as well as the other thread as I think it has bearing on both. A little context - discussing macro vs micro evolution and why the mechanism distinction is merely in the minds of creotards, as science merely uses it as a way to refer to scale.

____________________________________________________________________

What's more, artificial speciation experiments prove that these small changes result in speciation. It was proposed, tested, observed and analysed to be true in multiple organisms, such as the famous e-coli experiment for which there exists in excess of 50,000 new generations which all show genetic mutations and evolution in action. Ergo we know that many small changes result in new phenotypes and large changes overall. To deny it is simply ridiculous. Another interesting bacteria is the nylon eating bacteria. Nylon is a man-made compound, and a recent one at that. The nylon-eating bacteria can only consume nylon - the enzymes they utilise are unique to them, and cannot break down any other known substance, and if it can, that substance forms no part of their ecosystem. The nylon-eating bacteria is the direct result of evolution in action.

And before Creotards rage in like a bull in a china shop, bacteria are tested because of their short reproduction cycles, meaning that multiple generations can be reproduced in a short time-frame. The very same principles apply to humans, albeit on a longer scale as our reproduction cycles are far longer than that of bacteria. It is simply implausible to test this on humans, but it is rather imbecilic to state that the same changes do not take place in humans, especially when evolution theory is able to predict what we are likely to find in the fossil records, and then go on to do so. Additionally, if you reject evolution, then please explain what mechanisms of a 23 base pair chromosome structure prevents these changes but allows for them in all other combinations?

We know that evolution takes place. If you reject evolution, then I urge you to try to take Methicillin to treat your next bacterial infection. Methicillin was an effective anti-biotic for decades and treated a broad spectrum of infections. That was until it began to somehow lose its efficacy. The bacteria evolved after exposure to Methicillin. Minor changes to the bacteria's DNA made it more or less resistant. Those that were less resistant died off but those that were more resistant lived on and replicated this genetic change into their "offspring". These more resistant strains now began to flourish until they were effectively the only strain left.

I'm sure you've heard of MRSA This is how it's name is derived. MRSA stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, because of the evolution of the Staphylococcus bacteria to eventually become resistant to the most popular penicillin based anti-biotic at the time.

Now you want to tell me that evolution is nonsense? Then go look up the various vestigial organs and structures in the animal kingdom, particularly in the ape and human kingdom. Then look up the ape genetic mutation on chromosome 2 of human DNA with regards to the vestigial centromere that was predicted by evolutionary biologists. Evolution could only be true if there had been a fusion of 24 base-pair ape chromosomes. Guess what - it is there, as predicted. It has been studied in depth. It shows common descent from apes, clearly showing evidence for natural selection, and in fact speciation. If there was a god, why would he leave all of these vestigial structures in the animal kingdom? It makes no sense whatsoever. The only explanation that can predict is evolution and subsequently tested with science. No science has been able to prove it untrue yet, and it would have to be a real whopper of a revelation considering the overwhelming evidence proving evolution on multiple scales of measurement.

Evolution exists. It simply cannot be refuted...
Click to expand...

Very simply: Evolution doesn't direct things to change. The change happens - we know this. It is proven. We call that change evolution in biology as it best represents the process. Most "changes" are not beneficial and they die out as they're not reproduced very well. Those changes that result in a beneficial "change" survive and breed this new trait into their offspring, through genetics. This tiny change results in greater survivability or better reproduction, and the new trait/gene flourishes in comparison to its slightly different counterpart. This happens with every single generation. In other words, there are millions upon millions of changes that have taken place and are still happening. No two people for example are the same, and no two animals are the same. They have genetic differences. These changes are observed. To reject evolution you'd have to reject genetic change/difference in species. You can't. Or you'd have to disprove hereditary passing on of genes. You can't. You'd have to disprove that beneficial changes increase survivability. You can't. The fact that none of these can be challenged scientifically, speaks volumes. That alone is evolution in a nutshell.

Think of it this way. Positive genetic change = greater prevalence. Simple as that for your needs at the moment. No direction ever takes place. Evolution doesn't wake up and say "hey, let's make that octopus have eyesight now".

If an animal reproduces well within its environment and no predators threaten its numbers then it reproduces just as well as those with genetic differences. No beneficial mutations are necessarily bred into the population in vast numbers, so no real changes are realised. Take crocodiles for example. Very well suited to their environments (yet we can see their evolution in the fossil record up until that point). Nothing has impacted on them that has resulted in slight mutations being of any more benefit to them as a species. Remember that evolution is still taking place within their species. They are still developing mutations - they're simply of no considerable benefit to them, so they don't become prevalent in the overall species, however alligators, different types of crocs etc are once again all evidence of them diverging at some point based on various external factors.

So I hope you can see how your question is rather stupid. Evolution makes no decisions in and of itself. No claims to that effect have been made...
 
Last edited:
DrJohnZoidberg said:
If the environment that the species evolved in has not changed and they are adept for living in these conditions there would be no reason for them to evolve as there is no pressure to do so.
Click to expand...

I'd be wary of using this wording. To a creationist it makes it sound as if evolution makes a decision. Others understand, but they like to harp on technicalities as if it is evidence of <insert whatever nonsense they make up>...
 
DJ... said:
I'd be wary of using this wording. To a creationist it makes it sound as if evolution makes a decision. Others understand, but they like to harp on technicalities as if it is evidence of <insert whatever nonsense they make up>...
Click to expand...
Nonsense generalization is.... nonsense :sick:
 
Techne said:
"insert whatever"-tards.... really? :erm:
Click to expand...

Not all 'tards take aim at evolution within the context I provided. In fact I have only ever encountered objections within the context provided, by those affectionately referred to as 'creotards'...
 
In other news, labeling people as "insert whatever"-tards is seen as mature behaviour. It even fosters good discussions, proper debate and respectable relationships between people that call each other "insert whatever"-tards.
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
In other news, labeling people as "insert whatever"-tards is seen as mature behaviour. It even fosters good discussions, proper debate and respectable relationships between people that call each other "insert whatever"-tards.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who likes to "rofl" and "lol" at sincere, serious posts. Phony phrony doing what he does best...
 
Techne said:
In other news, labeling people as "insert whatever"-tards is seen as mature behaviour. It even fostered,good discussions, proper debate and respectable relationships between people that call each other "insert whatever"-tards.
Click to expand...

Stop whining about this Techne. You've been repeatedly informed it doesn't apply to you. I'm sure you've seen how IDers behave, and it ends up being frustrating and pointless.
 
So, the guy who labels people as tards expects others to think he is being sincere and makes serious posts. Ok, gotcha, ;). I think I have had enough of your rabble-rousing. Boring :sick:.
 
Creotards refers to a specific subset of the population of morons. It is an incredibly apt description, which has been colloquialised. The fact that every mention of it results in the same bloody argument with you (you defending a group you do not represent, nor fall into [although I'm now starting to have my doubts]) is just inane...
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Stop whining about this Techne. You've been repeatedly informed it doesn't apply to you. I'm sure you've seen how IDers behave, and it ends up being frustrating and pointless.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you defend people calling other people "insert whatever"-tards. Doesn't matter who is on the receiving side, i just think any discussion can do without that nonsense. Simple really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X