Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, we have all beef baloney, and mixed beef and pork, so it gets complicated.
 
No, it’s not. The problem is that evolution involves reproduction and time, and most large animals reproduce maybe once a year or less.

Dogs are an experiment in evolution, via selective breeding. The development of super bacteria are an inadvertent experiment-- by exposing populations of bacteria to antibiotics, we’ve introduced an environmental pressure-- non-resistant members die and the more resistant members live, especially if you are dumb enough not to finish your entire course of antibiotics.
 
Camouflage does not depend on a random mutation. It depends on variations of coloration and shape, just as people have.
 
Having studied man-made camouflage for years, there is no way tiny little changes + time will arrive at the kind of camouflage in the posted photo.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
In short, this book is not present a convincing argument that the mechanism of random variation and natural selection does not lead to the formation of new species.
Click to expand...
I imagine his book made a fare bit of cash; i guess that’s one positive.
 
What evidence there is points to random mutations cause problems. You are free to believe what you want. I have to be true to myself.
 
Well, baloney is made up of beef and pork. The human genome shares 80% similarity to cows. I couldn’t find the percentage for pigs, but a lot of papers show that pigs have a lot of similarities to humans: similar organs (actually, we transplant pig organs to people because they are a decent match), susceptibility to alzheimer’s and other diseases and so on-- so I’d hazard a guess that pigs are at least 80% or more similar to humans in their genetic makeup.

Therefore, you are about 80% similar to a piece of baloney. 😃
 
So you’re an expert on animal camouflage, huh?

There’s nothing particularly hard about evolution of a species to match the coloration and shapes of objects in its environment. We already have natural variations in both of those things, so not even a mutation is required-- just natural variation and enough generations.
 
Well, given that evolutionists believe we share genetic ancestors with ALL living things, then that banana you’re eating is a distant cousin! 😃
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You can hypothesize that all needed adaptations are built in to the genome fully developed, but there is no evidence that it is.
Click to expand...
Considering that 98% of human DNA is considered “junk” (non-coding) perhaps it is safer to wait until we know more before ruling out this possibility.
No one has ever found the information in the cell for a complex adaptation before it was ever needed. HGT can make it appear that the info was built-in, but no one has proven that an adaptation was pre-programmed before any organism anywhere needed it.
Click to expand...
In the experiment where bacteria were genetically modified so that the segment used to make the flagella was disabled, within four days they had evolved (?) a new way to create the flagella by re-purposing another switch normally used to control nitrogen levels to build the flagella instead.

That’s not quite the scenario you discussed, but it is an interesting adaptation that they were able to create an alternate method of creating a structure vital to their survival. And it basically happened over a long weekend - not tens of thousands of years.
 
Re-read my post. I’m an expert on man-made camouflage, which is, in part, derived from animal camouflage, but most types have no counterpart in nature. They are based on optical perception cues and disruptive visual components.
 
Why did you mention you’re an expert on man-made camouflage? To establish yourself as an authority on camouflage. But your expertise has nothing to do with whether animal species have evolved coloration and shape to match features in their environment.
 
There is zero evidence that time + tiny changes did anything to “evolve” anything. Much less complex camouflage between an insect or animal that matches certain parts of its environment.
 
The percentage might be higher since pigs are the most favoured animal for xenotransplants. Their so-called phylogenetic distance from humans makes cross-species infection less likely while their having been close to humans because of farming makes us more likely to be resistant to any infectious agents that might affect both pigs and humans. Their organs are comparable in size and are readily available, their organs are anatomically comparable in size and are readily available. We transplant bone and heart valves. Research is being conducted on baboons, I believe for pancreatic islet cells and kidneys.

I want to point out that none of this research which involves genetics has anything to do with evolution.
 
Last edited:
There are millions of pages of evidence, much of which is easily searchable on the internet, that exactly this happens. Coloration in humans is one example which is particularly easy to understand.
 
I didn’t say that humans are camouflaged. I said that coloration is one of the features of an animal that is easy to adapt, because color variations already exist naturally. Wherever there’s variation of a trait that matters for survival, the species will adapt. Here’s an example that is easy enough to understand: No only did the moths adapt a darker coloration that matched the industrial pollution, they reverted back to their previous color when that pollution was removed from the environment.

en.wikipedia.org

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top