A
anon65111186
Guest
Okay thank you for being candid. I on the other hand have a hunch the Church will pretty much stick with evolution as it has, depending of course on the science as it evolves (no pun intended
)
- Status
)
B
buffalo
Guest
The Church is bound to the truth.
E
edwest211
Guest
Yep. So easy, I’ll bet no human being could do it.
A
Aloysium
Guest
My wife didn’t consider me the most fit. It was love.
T
Techno2000
Guest
That’s if you believe they had ancestors. Can you show us fossils or skeletal remains of their necks gradually getting longer ?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Right, and he does it without hands.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Not only did long necks evolve from selective pressure, but something else evolved too - the preferences of the opposite sex to prefer mates with longer necks. Therefore what “looks good” to members of the opposite sex tends to gravitate to what is in fact beneficial to pass on to the young. The same selective pressures apply. There is no way a permanent discrepancy can exist between what “looks good” to the opposite sex and what “works well” for reproduction (which includes caring for the young - not just producing them). That’s why men are attracted to women with large breasts. They correlate with ability to feed babies. If we as a society were to adopt the practice of feeding babies exclusively by bottles, and if the human race were able to continue for several million years more with that practice, evolution would eventually eliminate prominent breasts on women, as well as the preference among men for such breasts.
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
The storytelling is simply amazing - what imaginations.
E
edwest211
Guest
Of course. Just goes to show you that any story can be made up to fit the theory. Evidence? No, just more storytelling. Time is the key element. In the shadows of time, evolution can do uh… whatever we say it can do.
After years of reading material like this, it’s becoming obvious that “fitness” is not a valid concept in a dynamic environment. Living things need food and water now, not millions of years from now. History shows that environments can go through changes, even catastrophic changes, that take far less than 24 hours, so there’s no time for anything to evolve or be selected. The two concepts do not belong together.
After years of reading material like this, it’s becoming obvious that “fitness” is not a valid concept in a dynamic environment. Living things need food and water now, not millions of years from now. History shows that environments can go through changes, even catastrophic changes, that take far less than 24 hours, so there’s no time for anything to evolve or be selected. The two concepts do not belong together.
Last edited:
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
.Somebody earlier posted a picture of an okapi as an example of a giraffe precursorbenjamin1973:
So the higher leaves were immune to food shortages…sorry that ain’t going to happen.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I have been reading complaints like this in this thread for a long time and they just don’t make sense. Let’s take your last one here - that environments can change suddenly.
Yes, they can. And sometimes, when environments change suddenly, whole species do in fact die out. It is believed that extinction of the T-Rex and his buddies was the result of just such a change in the environment because the change was so massive that none of them could survive. Not only the T-Rex but many other unrelated species went extinct at the same time. It was a mass extinction event. So your complaint that evolution cannot happen quickly enough to adapt to such changes is baseless.
But what about sudden but less severe changes in the environment? In that case many animals may find themselves ill-suited for survival, but not so ill-suited that they all die off. Maybe only 3/4 of them die off, and the remaining 1/4 have a really hard time of it. If they are mobile, perhaps they can migrate to a more favorable environment. That can happen without evolution, and fairly quickly. The species did not change, it just relocated. In any case, if any representatives of the species survive, evolution can then begin its slow work of selecting those that are better suited to the new environment - eventually resulting is substantial changes to the form of the species. There is no surprise there.
Fitness for reproduction remains the most reasonable factor in shaping the course of biological evolution.
T
Techno2000
Guest
T
Techno2000
Guest
How did they survive without their necks getting longer ?Techno2000:
.Somebody earlier posted a picture of an okapi as an example of a giraffe precursorbenjamin1973:
So the higher leaves were immune to food shortages…sorry that ain’t going to happen.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I know, I know, I know (16 characters).qui_est_ce:
How did they survive without their necks getting longer ?Techno2000:
Somebody earlier posted a picture of an okapi as an example of a giraffe precursorbenjamin1973:
So the higher leaves were immune to food shortages…sorry that ain’t going to happen.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
No, it doesn’t. Camels just happened to be around just as increased desertification occurred in certain parts of Africa? And they could be domesticated? And humans just happened to know what to do with them? Nope, too many moving, integrated parts.
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s what I was going to say…
E
edwest211
Guest
Of course, they had it uh… all figured out… somehow… lots of time… no, uh…
B
buffalo
Guest
A big issue is the change in blood pressure when the giraffe moves its head from the ground up. They have an elaborate monitoring system that controls it.
- Status