A definitive reply to Evolutionist Propaganda

Re: re; evolution

Why aren't there a huge array of different animals, at various stages of evolution, walking around?
Click to expand...

Because we're in the midst of another mass extinction! Humans for the first time are responsible

Seriously though, if a certain sucessful mutation in a species makes them better at exploiting limited resources, they will thrive while the predecessor will perish, if the mutation allows the animal to occupy a new niche, they can co-exist. There are numerous permutations of outcomes

This doesn't prove that one evolved from the other. <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>

They don't necessarily have to. One of the amazing things about natural selection is convergent evolution. This is the evolving of unrelated species to fill the same ecological niche, giving them the same attributes. For instance in australia there were no land mammals apart from bats, yet marsupials evolved to fill the same ecological niches that exist here, making them looking almost identical in some cases, e.g. the native australian rat looks like a european one but is a closer relative of the kangaroo. Conversely there is a type of rodent in Mexico that looks like a kangaoo but is a mammal. The same goes for eyes evidence of 40 indepentent evolutions here.....

Tecnically your right, darwins theory is widely accepted as fact due to the overwhelming body of evidence, but not proven or even pr
Click to expand...
<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->
 
Where is it all going to end?

We're pretty arrogant at reckoning that we are the most evolved species.

This does seem to be so in the grey matter department (with notable exceptions, but now is not the time to start trolling ;) ).

But think of our shortcomings. What would we give to be able to fly? I personally would sacrifice at least 200 points in the Leaving Cert.

Or to swim underwater like a fish.

Or to jump from branch to branch like an ape (hey, we once could do that, why did we lose that particular advantage?)

Or run like a cheetah?

Or remember like an elephant?

In 20 million years time will we have all these attributes? :D
 
Re: Where is it all going to end?

In 20 million years time we may not exist...and if we do we probably won't need our bodies anymore.
 
Re: re; evolution

Anyway - these taxonomic diagrams do show that we are at least RELATED to sponges in a genetic evolutionary sense if not DESCENDED from them. This is far from irresponsible and is, in fact, generally accepted theory on the matter.
Click to expand...

Yes, cats have spines, humans have spines. We are 'related'. However, it doesn't prove or disprove evolution. By whatever means cats and humans came into existance, a spine seemed to be a good idea, so it became a common element.

'convergent evolution.'? - Think how improbable this is. Would it not make more sense to believe that evolution didn't have a hand in this? Like the general theory, this is pure speculation.

Tecnically your right, darwins theory is widely accepted as fact due to the overwhelming body of evidence.
Click to expand...

What evidence? There's been no conclusive evidence posted on this thread so far.

Seriously though, if a certain sucessful mutation in a species makes them better at exploiting limited resources, they will thrive while the predecessor will perish, if the mutation allows the animal to occupy a new niche, they can co-exist.
Click to expand...

This is where 'survival of the fittest' comes into play. Remember, it's death of the weakest.
 
Re: Genetic evolution

Hi 'blank'
I understood all animals as being decended from sponges as they constitute the most primitive / original form of animal and also earlist known.

Are you suggesting that a few families of animals independently evolved from more primitive life forms?
 
Re: Where is it all going to end?

Or to swim underwater like a fish.
Click to expand...

Did you know the human emryo at the early stage looks almost identical to embryos of many other animals and even has 'gills' around its neck until a good few weeks into gestation?
 
"fittest"

Survival of the fittest does NOT mean survival of the strongest. Fittest = those who FIT into the ecological niche best. ie birds with long beaks can dig into the sand and reach those hard-to-get-at yummies; birds with shorter beaks don't get as many and so die off. The long beak FITs that particular sand-digging niche.

Darwin wrote in the mid-nineteenth century. No doubt if he was writing now, he'd come up with some other term than 'fit'.

So humans aren't the most *evolved* animals; we're generalists who can survive in many environments and can eat many different things. The robin in the garden is well fitted to his circumstances and has evolved into that cheeky gardener-following worm eating niche.

Evolution doesn't progress towards some sort of perfection; it just keeps going, as DNA modifies. (Of course, sci-fi fans will recognise that eventually we will lose all our hair and grow huge craniums - crania - to hold our massive brains. Funnily, we don't seem to grow huge necks to hold them up.........)
 
Re: "fittest"

Of course, sci-fi fans will recognise that eventually we will lose all our hair and grow huge craniums - crania - to hold our massive brains. Funnily, we don't seem to grow huge necks to hold them up

Not forgetting that our limbs will become all spindly and useless. Eventually we'll all look like the Asgard!!
 
Re: Genetic evolution

> Yes, cats have spines, humans have spines. We are 'related'. However, it doesn't prove or disprove evolution. By whatever means cats and humans came into existance, a spine seemed to be a good idea, so it became a common element.

Sorry - my use of the term "taxonomic" above was incorrect. The diagrams that I was talking about did not do comparisons of physical taxonomy but specifically genetic and evolutionary timeline comparisons. Apologies for any confusion caused. By doing genetic comparisons it is possible to measure how "close" different species in terms of their DNA and also to estimate the evolutionary timelines between their divergence. For example, such evidence suggests that humans and chimps diverged in terms of evolution c. 4+ millions years ago and that our genetic makeup is 98%+ identical. This evidence refines the previously palaeontological evidence that we split up to 20 million years ago. The gist of Gribbin's book can be summarised (very) roughly by saying that genetic evidence now suggests that rather than humans evovding from (proto) apes, apes evolved from (proto) humans.

> I understood all animals as being decended from sponges as they constitute the most primitive / original form of animal and also earlist known.

Again I am open to correction - I'd need to refresh my memory on the exact details of this subject...!
 
Re: Genetic evolution

The diagrams that I was talking about did not do comparisons of physical taxonomy but specifically genetic and evolutionary timeline comparisons. Apologies for any confusion caused. By doing genetic comparisons it is possible to measure how "close" different species in terms of their DNA and also to estimate the evolutionary timelines between their divergence
Click to expand...

I don't suppose these diagrams are on the internet? I'd love to see the evidence of 'evolutionary timelines'.

I can understand how it is possible to see how similar species are by comparing DNA, but I fail to see how it is possible to 'estimate evolutionary timelines'.
 
This page contains some examples:

[broken link removed]

If you are genuinely interested in this subject then I would strongly urge you to read the Gribbin and Diamond books referenced earlier as they are a pretty easy and interesting read and deal with the subject more comprehensively than any of us can here on AAM. Like me you will probably have loads of unanswered questions having read them but you will also have a more rounded summary of the currently accepted arguments surrounding the theory of evolution too.
 
Re: Genetic evolution

By whatever means cats and humans came into existance, a spine seemed to be a good idea, so it became a common element.
Click to expand...

So why are there many types of animals (invertrabates etc) that have'nt been 'blessed' with this common element then?
 
Thanks for the link.

However, as usual, it just assumes that evolution is fact. There's nothing to support any of this. Quote This is science at its best. !

Since you've taken the trouble to provide the link, I will read it all.
 
So why are there many types of animals (invertrabates etc) that have'nt been 'blessed' with this common element then?
Click to expand...

I don't know. They probably don't need it. Variety is the spice of life.
 
Re: Genetic evolution

I missed that point earlier. Again it's a common fallacy to think of evolution as progressively and inexorably causing organisms to develop "good" traits and to lose "bad" traits. In fact evolution simply involves developing the appropriate traits which best adapt the organism to its environment. The summary cliché "survival of the fittest" might better encapsulate evolutionary theory if restated as "survival of the most environmentally adapted". The various forms of vertebrates developed backbones which helped them to adapt to their specific environments. It doesn't necessarily make them "better" or "more evolved" than invertebrates or other organisms which adapted differently to their own environments.
 
> However, as usual, it just assumes that evolution is fact. There's nothing to support any of this.

Er, I simply chose the first Google result that contained the type of diagram to which I referred earlier that's all. If you can't accept that evolution is accepted as orthodox scientific theory, is backed up by the available (palaeontological and genetic) evidence and are not willing to do a bit of independent research and background reading then you are unlikely to be convinced by amateurs like myself or others here addressing individual points/issues to the best of our ability and consequently this discussion is probably best terminated now to save us all time and effort... :\
 
Evolutionary time-lines

I can understand how it is possible to see how similar species are by comparing DNA, but I fail to see how it is possible to 'estimate evolutionary timelines'
Click to expand...

You're right, its not possible to extrapolate solar year dates from genetic distances alone, that is only possible through a combination of disciplines. All you really need is an example of a ceature that has a fossil record so that the date of its emergence (and divergence from relatives) is known. This will then give you an idea of the amount of time that has passed since two animals diverged.

Next, examine the DNA from particular genes of extant versions of these animals and determine the amount of genetic difference between them. A good example of a gene to use is the "16s Ribosomal RNA" but there are others. This gene is present in different forms in all life, from bacteria to humans to plants etc.... The great thing about this gene is that is changes at a pretty constant rate.

Since you have an idea of the amount of time since these animals diverged and you have examples of the gene from both species, you can extrapolate the rate of genetic change in the gene per year.

You now have a marker to estimate the divergence time of all species of life that contain that gene. Doing this with several genes builds a model of the amount of "error" in your calculations, and means that it is possible to be pretty exact when it comes to estimating evolutionary timelines.



T.
 
The various forms of vertebrates developed backbones which helped them to adapt to their specific environments. It doesn't necessarily make them "better" or "more evolved" than invertebrates or other organisms which adapted differently to their own environments.
Click to expand...

Going back to mollusks again, the snail is severly limited in the niches it can occupy due to its lack of internal bone framework, limiting the size it can grow to. The octupus is also a mollusk but can grow much bigger as it lives in water. This is a common problem with all invertrabrates, so humans and other higher taxa would not have evolved if evolution had proceeded only down this path
 
Just a matter of time

I agree that 20 million years is too short but by sheer random process in a zillion squillion years the perfect being will evolve. The flying, swimming, 60mph running genius who never forgets. And they will look back and see this site and say "he foresaw all this".

I also think that the amoeba trick of asexual reproduction will also be perfected and then one sex (I daren't say which) will become redundant.
 
re;

'also think that the amoeba trick of asexual reproduction will also be perfected and then one sex (I daren't say which) will become redundant.'

Was reading about a development recently where the female egg can be ovulated by a gene of someone else. Its just been done in the lab, but not yet on humans. This is more than just cloning as it combines the genes of 2 parents. So there you go, looks like men will be redundant soon........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top