Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
'Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. ’

I mean, c’mon. Next you’ll be asking for a creature that has scales AND feathers. Oh, hang on. There’s one in the fridge. We’re having chicken tonight.

Dear me…where do you get these web sites from…?
Click to expand...
It is important to look at the references.
 
Bradskii said:
Dear me…where do you get these web sites from…?
Click to expand...
This is the important one, but linked the site for transparency as I did not have the original.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."


Making me do all this extra work - -geesshhhh
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Dear me…where do you get these web sites from…?
Click to expand...
This is the important one, but linked the site for transparency as I did not have the original.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/210/4472/883

Making me do all this extra work - -geesshhhh
Click to expand...
And what was the answer to that question…?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Dear me…where do you get these web sites from…?
Click to expand...
This is the important one, but linked the site for transparency as I did not have the original.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Click to expand...
And breaking news just in from the recent Flat Earth conference: http://fe2018.com

‘The central question of the conference was whether the world is spheroid in shape. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No’.
 
Quote mining.

Directly after your quote: what is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution: the two can more probably seen as a continuum with notable overlap

and later:

“No one questions that, overall, the record reflects a steady increase in the diversity and complexity of species, with the origin of new species and the extinction of established ones punctuating the passage of time. But the crucial issue is that, for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones. 'For millions of years, species remain unchanged in the fossil record,” said SJG, of Harvard, “and they then abruptly disappear, to be replaced by something that is substantially different but clearly related.”

Only the first page is available, but I suspect the article goes on to explain that the “abrupt” changes (usually over the course of millions of years) are driven by significant environmental change, so that in a static environment, creatures evolve to a steady state but then remain fairly static, but when there are significant environmental shifts, we see significant evolutionary change.

This is a fundamental difference between young earth creationism and science. YECs rely entirely on quote mining bits and pieces from actual scientists and never do their own research, and so have a very poor understanding of the actual concepts.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and if you remember my example of genetic algorithms you would understand why stasis is predicted in a steady environment. Once an organism hits a peak in fitness in its environmental niche there is little selection pressure to change.
 
And just remember that “abrupt” means “over millions of years and with related precursors.”

And that under young earth creationism, there shouldn’t be any new appearances of creatures at all. Everything should exist in the oldest layers.
 
Last edited:
Allegedly, it takes millions of years to go from point A to point B. Yet we have polystrate fossil trees that pass through multiple layers of rock and which are evidence of rapid burial because they did not rot from exposure to the elements.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
They would need the thick fur immediately, when it got cold, not millions of years later.
Click to expand...
Only if it got cold very quickly. Slower climate change would allow evolution to keep up.
Click to expand...
If the Amazon jungle slowly changed into an arctic environment would evolution be able to keep up ? I’m talking about jungle plants and animals morphing into arctic thriving species.
 
Last edited:
Atreju said:
Once an organism hits a peak in fitness in its environmental niche there is little selection pressure to change.
Click to expand...
or

Once an organism hits a peak in fitness in its environmental niche there is little designed adaptational pressure to change.
 
Atreju said:
And just remember that “abrupt” means “over millions of years and with related precursors.”

And that under young earth creationism, there shouldn’t be any new appearances of creatures at all. Everything should exist in the oldest layers.
Click to expand...
Sedimentary flood deposit layers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top