T
Techno2000
Guest
It just did…leave it at that.
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
What was wrong with the old tail, it worked for a couple million years.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
The changes are random mutations. Where the changes are beneficial then those changes will spread in the population. This is evolution 101. If you are going to criticise something then at least know what it is you are criticising.
True, but there will mostly be shared processes within the cell, not in the larger body of the organism.
It is the outcomes that drive natural selection, and hence the outcomes drive evolution. Whether a mutation is beneficial or deleterious depends on the outcome from having that mutation.
Open your eyes and look around you. Is every human the same height? Does every human have equally long legs? Does every human have equally long arms? There is variation in all natural populations. Where this variation is heritable then evolution can work on it. Again, you need to learn more about what you are attempting to criticise. By not knowing, your criticisms are missing your intended target.
R
rossum
Guest
It worked on land initially and later in shallow coastal waters. In the different, deep sea, environment then a tail with a fluke was better. In a different a different shaped tail gave an advantage. Beavers are another example of a tail’s shape changing in an aquatic environment.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, the cult of evolutionary scientists determine their own labels. The “someone” who comes up with something better must be one of their own. The cult, insuring that their own drink the doctored Kool-Aid of macroevolution and ostracize those who don’t, controls that field (for now).
Skeptics can only point out the incoherence in evolutionary science’s own methods of qualifying that which is speculation, hypothesis, theory or fact.
Abiogenesis and macroevolution overlap. Both attempt to provide explanations for things never observed; in the former, life from non-life, and the latter, a diversity in living beings that cannot be explained by adaptation (microevolution).
Let’s move to a different requirement that validates a scientific hypothesis – control. The benefits to mankind in understanding microevolution are manifest. No argument there, only caution recommended.
What benefits to mankind has the research in macroevolution provided or is envisioned to provide? In other words, what harm would be done if we stopped funding research in projects aimed at expanding, for instance the tree of life project? What is the benefit to mankind if we discover the math that underlies a speciation (? still needs definition) event? How will we be able to control nature to our benefit?
E
EndTimes
Guest
True and true… My science sources trump scientism baloney
E
EndTimes
Guest
You may wind up waiting until Doomsday…
For, that macro- has never been evidenced nor can it be replicated for it can not be…
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
You’re right. All we can do is try to make the time we have productive. We must, therefore, choose to ignore those who post no content, only polemics.
F
Freddy
Guest
Maybe you haven’t checked the news for a few days. Nearly 2 1/2 million people have come down with a virus. It’s killed over 160,000 so far. Luckily for you and your loved ones, what we know about evolution and how viruses evolve will help us ‘control nature’ to design a vaccine that will protect us for a while and keep the death rate down. Sooner rather than later I hope.
R
rossum
Guest
Again you are implying that religion “cult” is inferior to science.
You are wrong. It is not evolutionary biologists that determine the rules of science, it is all scientists. Physicists, astronomers, chemists, biologists etc. I have given the example of the changing theories of gravity. That example was nothing to do with evolution.
Thank you for yet again confirming that your sources are sadly lacking in relevant knowledge. I suspect that they are a good example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Abiogenesis happens before life starts. Macroevolution happens after life starts. They do not overlap.
B
buffalo
Guest
Dead wrong is dead wrong.
Natural selection was thought to be creative, but that was dead wrong. Since it is a conservative process and you continually claim it is essential, macro then is dead wrong along with it. The entire foundation was built on sand.
R
rossum
Guest
Natural selection was never thought to be creative. Natural selection reduces the number of variants in a population, weeding out deleterious variants.
The creative part of evolution is random mutation, which introduces those variants: beneficial, neutral and deleterious. Evolution is more than just natural selection.
Evolution overall is a creative process, introducing new beneficial and neutral variants into a population’s genome over time. You are not arguing against evolution here, but against a caricature of it.
N
Noose001
Guest
I don’t see any evolution here i’m sorry.
How?
What is beneficial to a fin that paddles, a limb that walks?!
R
rossum
Guest
Then Charles Darwin saw more than you. Variation exists in populations, from human populations to barnacle populations. Some variations are not beneficial, haemophilia in humans for example. Most variations are neutral: blue eyes or brown eyes. A few variations are beneficial. That is the start of evolution. If you don’t know what evolution is then you are not in a good position to criticise it.
Cut off your legs and you will soon find out what the benefits of having limbs that walk are. Did you really have to ask me that? Could you not have worked it out for yourself?
N
Noose001
Guest
Gene dominance, co-dominance, recessiveness explains the variations.
Darwin knew nothing about hereditary science when he came up with these speculations.
I meant a fin is a fin when it functions as a fin, there’s no improvement to that function, if anything, there can only be a reduction to the function.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
With an explicit admission that in that sand the transitional fossils would be found. Unfortunately, after 130 years, the evidence just isn’t there.
The macroevolution crowd’s chant has changed for the old negative “god of the gaps” to let’s hear it for the “fossils of the gaps”. Maybe that’s progress: they have added hope to their faith based initiative and still wish to call it science. Doesn’t seem like they discovered charity yet.
P
Pattylt
Guest
The lobe allows the animal to maneuver in shallower waters yet still swim…as the lobe portion grows , it allows further maneuvering into more shallow water…to puddles…to mud…each allowing the animal to utilize resources it’s ancestors couldn’t. It allowed it to out reproduce it’s less lobed brothers…which led to more progeny with the heavier lobes…which led to a loss of the fin portions…no longer needed in its newer ponds and puddles…which lead to eventual limbs that allowed it to leave even the mud puddles and explore a vast new environment with vast new resources it could utilize. I’m still baffles at how someone doesn’t understand how this happens! The lack of understanding seems to be more obstinance than inability.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
That statement is absolutely wrong. But, since it is denied, it makes the macro issue more of an uphill battle.
N
Noose001
Guest
I’m sorry this is an impossibility. Even though it is only a story, gradually loosing one function to gain another makes the organism less likely to survive especially that moment when it is not having a fully functional fin and a fully functional limb.
R
rossum
Guest
Darwin observed variation. He was correct, there is variation in populations. since Darwin’s time we have learned a lot more about how that variation arises, including the processes you mention as well as mutations.
For a mudskipper, improving the way its fins work on land is an advantage. For a flying fish, improving the way its fins work in the air is an advantage. Our distant ancestors, such as Tiktaalik, were more like mudskippers – fish that made excursions onto land. For that purpose, dual function limbs were useful. Frogs still have dual-function limbs, able to move both on land and in the water.
- Status