T
twf
Guest
Ah yes, but 99% of scientists are wrong and need to be educated by armchair theologians who understand “real science” better than they do…
Last edited:
Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts
- Status
F
Freddy
Guest
Aaaaargh! Changes in the environment don’t produce changes.
Changes in the evironment allow certain changes to be beneficial. Cold climates DO NOT CAUSE THICKER FUR. But if, by chance you have a genetic change that gives you thicker fur, then you have an advantage.
I don’t understand why you don’t understand. This is very simple. You may not agree with it, but the fact that you don’t understand it…it’s not credible.
T
Techno2000
Guest
I know all about so-call fit and unfit offspring, I’m just playing your game.
Can you give me an example… in real life, right now of an organism that’s not fit for its environment ?
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
What does that have to do with environmental changes ?
B
buffalo
Guest
goal directed? hmmmmmm
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
We know eyes are an advantage. What we don’t know; is how did the shape of an eye lens develops over 1800 incremental steps. If the eye lens improves 1800 times, the optic nerves and brain would also have to improve by 1800 incremental steps.
All these improvements would still be pointless; if the increased information was not acted on in an improved way by the limbs.
If the magical HOX gene could duplicate this for two eyes, why aren’t there more species with 5 or 7 eyes.
R
rossum
Guest
Spiders can have up to 8 separate eyes. Dragonflies have thousands of simple eyes in each of their compound eyes. There is more than one way to evolve light reception.
R
rossum
Guest
Environmental changes determine whether the mutation is neutral, deleterious or beneficial. If Jimmy’s parents had changed environment to live in a dark cave then using less energy to build eyes could be beneficial.
Mutations happen before selection. It is the selection part that depends on the environment, not the earlier mutation. That is why cave fish are often blind and moles have very bad eyesight. In both cases it is because of the environments where they live. An eagle with the eyesight of a mole would be at a severe disadvantage hunting for food.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Freddy, if the evidence was convincing; then we would all agree with you.
The model I have seen for the eye lens to evolve does not seem random. !800 incremental steps to meet 7 parameters.
I understand what you have said, but I can’t accept this for an explanation as to how the eye lens could evolve.
You have explained how natural selection works; and I don’t have a problem with that.
If God is in control, then he can guide mutations. If there is no god; I just don’t see how 1800 steps to meet 7 parameters could be called random or unplanned.
R
rossum
Guest
They aren’t random. The initial mutations were random, and there were a lot more than 1,800 of them spread over the whole population for a few hundred thousand generations. From that wide pool of many mutations natural selection selected the beneficial ones.
Because the whole population is evolving the process is massively parallel. For example, the average human has about 75 mutations. Multiply that up by a population of about 2.4 billion per generation and 200,000 generations. That is a very large pool of mutations to select from.
B
buffalo
Guest
Eyes just happened to evolve many time. The god of BUC is mighty powerful.
R
rossum
Guest
Again you try to denigrate science by calling it a religion: “The god of BUC…”
Do you really think that religion is inferior to science?
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Pretty much any amphibian. There’s a reason they’re all going extinct. They’re not fit for the environment and can’t adapt fast enough.
Drop the big number. It means absolutely nothing, but it does annoy me. I already told you how it would evolve. Perhaps you need to read it again?
False. No changes would be required of your processor if you improve your graphics card. Why would the brain need changing if you only change a sensory tool? The information is still presented to it in the same manner.
The organism would use the information provided by its eye the same way all other species do, it’d just be better at it because it would have more avaliable information.
If the evidence convinced you. Refusal to accept what science has concluded for years does not invalidate the theory. It just means you don’t understand it.
That’s because the model you’ve seen isn’t a perfect model of true evolution.
Then what would you accept, Eric? He literally described adaptation guided by natural selection.
Obviously you do, because when it’s explained in the context of actual features, you don’t accept it.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
God designed our universe according to unbreakable physical laws. Those laws govern every interaction between matter in our world. It is these laws which result in mutation, and these laws which create differing conditions which cause natural selection to matter. How can God “guide” mutations, exactly? They’re not random events, they’re deterministic. Replicate the same exact conditions and the same thing will happen, every time. Our existence is not an accident, it’s the natural result of how our universe was created. You think mutation and natural selection are random, but I don’t know why. I’ve maintained that they’re deterministic, because they have to be. All interactions between matter are
T
Techno2000
Guest
What amphibian exactly, and what reason they are going extinct? Please stop with the vagueness.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Almost all of them. Frogs, for example. Many species of frog are going extinct because they can’t adapt to the environment mankind is creating. If you need more information, Google exists. I can only spoon-feed so much information.
I’m not being vague. “Pretty much any amphibian” is not vague, it describes pretty much every amphibian.
I’m not being vague. “Pretty much any amphibian” is not vague, it describes pretty much every amphibian.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Man’s encroachment on an environment is a modern-day phenomenon that has nothing to do with natural climate change.
F
Freddy
Guest
If we get to a point where koalas are restricted to parts of Victoria and South Australia, a big bushfire event like the one we’ve just seen could threaten the survival of the species.
Scientists fear that is exactly what has happened to between 20 and 100 species in the last few months, including the long-footed potoroo and Kangaroo Island’s glossy black cockatoo.
If we include invertebrates, it’s estimated that up to 700 species will be pushed to extinction by this season’s bushfires. Think Australia's bushfires killed a lot of animals? Weak environmental laws threaten the lives of more - ABC News.
F
Freddy
Guest
I can’t add any more than the excellent response by the good Captain.Freddy:
Freddy, if the evidence was convincing…
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Ah yes, because an amphibian can certainly tell the difference between a temperature rise caused by man and a temperature rise caused by natural cycles. It’s called the “That’s not how that really works” effect.
- Status