T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah… but don’t you know Random Mutations can solve any problems.
- Status
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Yep, and that’s why there are dinosaur bone fossils all over the place, and no dinosaurs. You can’t evolve a response to a meteor hitting the Earth.
As for “living things need food and water now,” this is exactly the point of evolution. Those individuals which have an advantage in getting “food and water now” as well as being able to avoid predators, fight disease, etc. will have a better chance of surviving to reproduction than those which have no advantage.
Understand that evolution isn’t an intelligent response that animals choose. There’s no “figuring out.” Short-necked animals aren’t sitting around praying and waiting for their necks to miraculously grow long. Some animals die, some survive, and the genes of those which survive flourish, along with the traits represented in those genes.
As for “living things need food and water now,” this is exactly the point of evolution. Those individuals which have an advantage in getting “food and water now” as well as being able to avoid predators, fight disease, etc. will have a better chance of surviving to reproduction than those which have no advantage.
Understand that evolution isn’t an intelligent response that animals choose. There’s no “figuring out.” Short-necked animals aren’t sitting around praying and waiting for their necks to miraculously grow long. Some animals die, some survive, and the genes of those which survive flourish, along with the traits represented in those genes.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There were smaller deserts in Africa before increased desertification. The camels could have evolved there and then spread quickly when desertification increased. No problem.
No surprise there. Lots of animals have the capacity to be domesticated. See the experiment I cited earlier about the domestication of the red fox by a Soviet scientist in the 1950s - an experiment that continues to this day.
Humans are, like smart. Very smart. (And stable too!) They can figure out lots of things. Still no smoking gun.
T
Techno2000
Guest
What were some of the animals that evolution fail to make fit and subsequently died out as a result ?
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you, buffalo.
E
edwest211
Guest
Not convincing. Humans are not that smart.
T
Techno2000
Guest
How did the much shorter female Giraffe and much shorter juvenile Giraffes survive these…food shortages ?
A
Aloysium
Guest
I get the explanation that long necks evolved from selective pressure, but I don’t buy it because that random mutation of the cervical vertebae would have had to go simultaneously along with quite extensive modifications to the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. As you say, this would have been accompanied by changes in the preferences for mates with longer necks. The process seems anything but random.
As you suggest, there would likely be no coexistence between what looks good to the opposite sex and what doesn’t work. On the other hand, seductions do occur and a tendency for psychopathology may have genetic as well as social and psychological roots. Someone who may look good to us may not be the best for us.
There are definitely psychodynamic factors, which Freud would have much to say about, which may explain a tendency to be attracted to large breasts. Generally speaking what attracts couples, disregarding the main ingredient - love, God’s bringing the them together, are more along the lines of socioeconomic, cultural, and personality factors.
As to the impact of feeding babies exclusively by bottles, it’s sort of like the circumcision argument against Lamarckism. The amount of fat tissue doesn’t really matter for lactation, although it impacts on hormone levels and the production of lactose.
All this is about adaptation, by the way. Adaptation fits creation better than it does evolutionary theory.
As you suggest, there would likely be no coexistence between what looks good to the opposite sex and what doesn’t work. On the other hand, seductions do occur and a tendency for psychopathology may have genetic as well as social and psychological roots. Someone who may look good to us may not be the best for us.
There are definitely psychodynamic factors, which Freud would have much to say about, which may explain a tendency to be attracted to large breasts. Generally speaking what attracts couples, disregarding the main ingredient - love, God’s bringing the them together, are more along the lines of socioeconomic, cultural, and personality factors.
As to the impact of feeding babies exclusively by bottles, it’s sort of like the circumcision argument against Lamarckism. The amount of fat tissue doesn’t really matter for lactation, although it impacts on hormone levels and the production of lactose.
All this is about adaptation, by the way. Adaptation fits creation better than it does evolutionary theory.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
What happens is that changes themselves act as an environmental pressure. If you have a big brain and skull, for example, you’re going to have a lot of neck and back problems-- unless you have an especially strong neck/shoulder configuration…
A
Aloysium
Guest
When you get lots of what you thought were random changes, it’s time to consider that there’s another cause influencing the outcome.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Evolution doesn’t have a goal, and can’t fail. It is the interaction between traits and environment as they affect the chances of successful reproduction.
As for animals that have died out: google is your friend. You can pretty easily find long lists of extinct animals. I believe that some species have become extinct just in our lifetimes.
As for animals that have died out: google is your friend. You can pretty easily find long lists of extinct animals. I believe that some species have become extinct just in our lifetimes.
E
edwest211
Guest
That is the problem with modifying relatively complex animals:
An unguided missile fired from an aircraft will hit something, but based on real life, it will not hit the target or “desired” goal.
- Selective pressure is fictional. In a ten year period, there could be two dry spells. And it’s no help if the local creek dries up. Sure, the animal may attempt to find another water source, but in a very short time, evolutionarily speaking, the rains return, the creek fills up and the ‘selective’ pressure is gone. These brief on and off periods do not fit a thousands of years model much less a millions of years model.
- An invasive species comes into the environment. It could be a predator or another animal eating the same food, plus there may be not enough food to go around. So, mindless evolution creates horns or claws or you name it, to drive away the invasive species. Or mindless evolution creates a disease that only affects the invasive species.
An unguided missile fired from an aircraft will hit something, but based on real life, it will not hit the target or “desired” goal.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah, they all died out because man encroached on their environment.God doesn’t make unfit animals.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Right , God created animals from the earth, they are masters of their own little niche on this planet. There’s no waiting around for millions of years for random mutations to figure it all out.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Man is part of the environment of animals. Some, like pigeons, cockroaches, and rats, do extremely well in an urban environment. Localized species of frog that depend on a small system of ponds or whatever tend to do extremely poorly-- you drain those ponds to make a road, and off they go into the void.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I’d agree with this. Evolution doesn’t “do” anything. In my opinion, the word is too emphasized by both atheists and Christians. Evolution isn’t really a mechanism-- it’s a description of what happens when variable traits come into contact with the environment over many generations.
Your conclusion is a straw man. No evolutionist would ever say the things you are saying, nor think it.
Your conclusion is a straw man. No evolutionist would ever say the things you are saying, nor think it.
E
edwest211
Guest
Not even think it. I suspected that was the case. ‘Variable traits’ in a variable environment is not an explanation. It’s part of a story that is repeated a lot.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
“Reproductive fitness” isn’t your sexual health. It refers to all traits which affect your ability to reproduce successfully-- or more precisely, to have offspring which succeed in extended your genetic contribution one more generation. In the post you just quoted, I explained that, and said that “selection by a mate” was one of the things that contribute to reproductive fitness.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Giraffes got taller so they could eat monkeys out of trees. No great mystery; just simple, common-sense science, my friend.
G
Glark
Guest
But Genesis doesn’t tell us “how the earth and life was created”. The only information we can glean from the Genesis account is that Adam and the other creatures were created about 5778 years ago. It doesn’t say when the earth was created. And it doesn’t offer even the slightest hint that life forms evolved.
The Church teaches that the faithful are free to believe in a literal “six days” interpretation, which means the faithful are free to completely reject the theory of evolution.
Incidentally, those faithful who reject evolution miss out the grand total of exactly NOTHING, as accepting the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes is perfectly useless information and is a complete irrelevance to science. For this reason, a biologist who believes in billions of years of evolution has no technical advantage over a biologist who believes in six days of creation.
- Status