Some questions of evolution that hopefully some of you can clear up.

reply to post by Terapin


Thank you Tarapin !

The topic is evolution and my animal questions were ment to relate to their evolutional history.

To this day evolutionists have difficulty explaining a starfish.

And yes Tarapin I was refering to a platypus.

In regards to the cheetah, the FACT is a cheetah does have traits of both a dog and a cat. The most interesting is diseases. There are feline diseases that only a feline can contract. There are canine diseases that only a canine can contract. But a cheeteh can contract both .

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
In regards to the cheetah, the FACT is a cheetah does have traits of both a dog and a cat. The most interesting is diseases. There are feline diseases that only a feline can contract. There are canine diseases that only a canine can contract. But a cheeteh can contract both .

I would like to see proof of this "fact".

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Terapin

 

To this day evolutionists have difficulty explaining a starfish.

Do you have any support for that statement or is it just another fundie creationist talking point? S. Asakawa, H. Himeno, K. I. Miura and K. Watanabe, evolutionary chemists and biologists all, have explained in detail the Nucleotide Sequence and Gene Organization of the Starfish Asterina pectinifera Mitochondrial Genome in Genetics, Vol 140, 1047-1060, Copyright © 1995

"It doesn't break into a 'soup'. It goes through metamorphosis which is quite normal. It has absolutely nothing to do with mutations."

Alright, I chose my words poorly for a scientific discussion.

1. Within the coccoon (and yes, I am aware that the process is called metamorphosis,) the caterpillar's body changes, resulting in the LOSS of certain physical body parts (such as numerous legs,) and the CREATION of entirely new body parts such as wings and a probiscus. Indeed, during this process there is a partial "liquification"and re-constituition for lack of a better term of the former body parts, resulting in an organism with an entirely different shape.

You said this has nothing to do with mutation.

That is missing my earlier point, however.

The process of evolution is characterized by natural selection, and the"survival of the fittest" which is DEPENDENT UPON mutation/form changes over millenia.

The theory of evolution explains very well how single celled organisms can give rise to much more complex organisms throughout time. However, in the case of the butterfly, we have a creature which goes through an unusual transformation. I cannot imagine there being any gradual mutations resulting in a caterpillar's transformation, nor can I imagine there being one immense mutation resulting in the evolution of a caterpillar to a catterpillar/butterfly.

Hopefully I have explained myself better!

So to recap:

Evolution presupposes change in body form through mutation (a part of natural selection).

Therefore, I am wondering how it has occurred through progressive mutations/adaptations that a caterpillar can add-in a metamorphosis stage in its evolution.

Again, I absolutely DO believe in an evolutionary process, but I do not understand how certain evolutionary "leaps" occur.

Re Giraffe necking:

I suspect that the advantage of having a longer neck when used in fighting or "necking" came about after they evolved longer necks and was not the initial driving factor. Horses you may realize also engage in necking much like giraffes but they have not developed longer necks because of it.

Antelopes also engage in necking, as do a number of other animals. While I may be wrong, it would seem logical that the behaviors associated with having a long neck developed once they had evolved the longer neck. A short necked animal would fight by other means, and there would be little benefit to having a slightly longer neck when your opponent could ram you in your side or other method used by mammals with normal sized necks. Once the Giraffe had developed a longer neck, then it would be logical that it would also develop behaviors associated with it. Somewhere along the way, after the neck had begun to elongate, the two became intertwined and then the behavior helped continue the evolution of a longer neck.

reply to posts by Jukiodone, nataylor and Lasheic

A recent study showed that territorial disputes amongst Giraffes are very common with the best fighter "occupying" the best grazing territory. Because the best fighter occupies the best grazing territory, this male Giraffe is more desirable to the female Giraffes.

Ah, so it's a fitness advertisement - the product of sexual selection rather than simple natural selection. That explanation makes sense.

Thank you, and nataylor too, for correcting me. Could one of you link me to some of the research? A u2u would be appreciated.

And Lasheic, thank you also for your correction - elaboration, rather.

A day on which one learns something new is a good day.

some people on here really do you beleive in evolution that much these people that tell us about evolution are always changing their story to things that we can see the earth isn't even 6 billion years old.

look if you really want to pay attention do some research see how they do carbon dating and how they find the age of fossils it is a load of bull.

Ill start it off for you shall i fossils age are determined by what layer of earth they are recovered from.

So now you should want to know how are the ages of the earth layers determined well they are determined by the fossils found in them confused?

You should be this lie has been around for too long so i spose you are saying how do they carbon date it then well thats easy they ask you where you found it how far down it was pretty much every detail so they pretty much have a rough idea due to how they find out as before.

If you don't beleive me then go and have a proper look at it or go to a museum and ask them you will come out more confused that what you went in there.

^^^ This is what a lack of education will do. ^^^ Gee paw, I can't understand it so it must be lies.

The wonderful thing is that Libraries are full of good scientific information and you can learn if you want to. The evidence for the fossil timeline is far more than you make it out to be. Evolution is happening before your eyes and we have seen species evolve within our lifetime. I guess if you have your head buried in the sand you can't see it very well, but that does not mean that it is false. It just means that you choose to ignore the world around you. Science is your friend, don't be scared of learning.

I tend to go towards ID when it comes to explaining us. Nature does not evolve anything it can not use to Feed and Breed. We live on a water planet so highly advanced mammals living on land does not seem to fit Darwin. Another issue is time, it would take a very long time to go from living in trees to stepping on the moon. Given that 1 million years is the blink of an eye to nature it does not seem possible to have evolved humans on Earth.

reply to post by Dockman45


We have seen species evolve within our lifetime. We witness evolution yet you deny it. I am not talking about fossils, but real living species that have changed within the span of a mans lifetime. Small changes over time can add up to great changes. While we do live on a water planet, the land is abundant and not barren at all so why can not land based life evolve? Quite a lot can happen in 1 million years. We know for a fact that DNA does not make an exact copy of itself in every generation and that changes happen constantly.

[edit on 27/3/10 by Terapin]

I dont believe for a second that we've got a complete and full understanding of "Evolution" however we do have some very compelling evidence that we can interpret into feasible models.

If anyone is interested in evolution have a read of what the real inventors of evolutional theory thought ( Darwin just combined this with modern biology at the advent of the printing press..)

Anaximander 600 BC: Suggests what we now call evolutional theory
Al-Jāḥiẓ : 800 AD: Sets out survial of the fittest and natural selection
Zhuangzi : Sees evolution as a never solveable puzzle saying "life is limited; the amount of things to know is unlimited..)

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Jukiodone]

reply to post by Jukiodone


Agreed that we do not have a full understanding of Evolution and all the ways tat it works, But we do have a solid foundation to work from and we are learning more every day. The work being done with DNA and uncovering genetic diversity is adding a great deal of understanding.

I was wondering could there be a connection between the Quetzalcoatlus and the giraffe? I know this is unlikely but there are so many of the same characteristics.

Originally posted by Maddogkull
I was wondering could there be a connection between the Quetzalcoatlus and the giraffe? I know this is unlikely but there are so many of the same characteristics.

Quetzalcoatlus, a reptilian Dinosaur, had been extinct for over 60 million years when the Giraffe, a ungulate mammal, began to evolve from it's antelope like ancestors. The Okapi is closely related to the Giraffe but neither of them have much in common with reptiles.

Nature often uses the same tricks in finding success. Perhaps Quetzalcoatlus has more in common with the modern Heron or Stork, as birds evolved from the Dinosaurs and those birds also have the long neck and similar feeding patterns associated with Quetzalcoatlus.

In addition, Giraffes are from African while Quetzalcoatlus is associated with North America.

reply to post by vkturbo

How does your post address the OP question?

And do you really think anyone with a scientific background (such as you clearly don't have) wouldn't have been aware of any such issues - if they were real?

You're way behind the curve here. Better kick that turbo in if you want to catch up.

One thing missing here is another process in evolution and that is selective breeding quite often led by the female.

Birds of paradise dont evolve colourful plumage to eat but to attract a mate to breed but he needs a female to be attracted to his display and that is her choice.

In herds the alpha male gets the pick of the females but a female will often choose to also mate with other individuals behind his back. Its probably a trait that ensures variety in the group but it is a factor.

The selective side would be in effect during the good times and to me keeps a succesful animal pretty unchanged. During Harsh times and enviromental change the alpha male would keep a tighter control of a smaller group of females ensuring his advantages become the dominant trait which helps the herd survive and establish the trait.

Technology may have dampened the effect of enviromental evolutional change on humans but selective breeding certainly still plays a part.

Can someone answer a question for me? If we are all one, which I think we are, then what happens when we see our murderer or rapist after we leave this life? Do they just continue on just like the good folks do? If so, then what is the reason to be good in this life rather than bad? I just can't see a person who lives in this life and kills and rapes people just continuing on as nothing had ever happened. Maybe the good people who have learned what ever it is to learn get to exit coming back to this earth life and the mean people have to keep coming back till they learn how to do right. Is this anywhere close to an answer? I sure would like to know this...Thanks

Originally posted by Caji316
Can someone answer a question for me? If we are all one, which I think we are, then what happens when we see our murderer or rapist after we leave this life?

The theory of evolution doesn't state that 'we are all one'. We all evolved from a common ancestor, about seven and a half million years ago in the case of humans and about four billion years ago in the case of all life. That doesn't make us all one in any sense; it just makes us related, and very, very distantly at that.

Another question the theory of evolution does not answer is whether there is life after death. Evolutionary theory is only concerned with this life; there's nothing in it to suggest there's a heaven, and nothing to suggest there isn't, either.

Therefore evolutionary theory does not answer the question 'where do rapists and murderers go after they die?'

Do they just continue on just like the good folks do? If so, then what is the reason to be good in this life rather than bad?

Can't you think of any reasons to be good, apart from ''cause the Bible tells me so?' I can think of many reasons to be. The first and most important is because good people (meaning, people who treat others honestly, fairly and kindly) are liked and trusted better than bad ones. Human beings are social creatures; we can't live solitary lives and be happy. We're all people who need people. Those who are liked and trusted by others can be more confident of getting help and emotional support from others when they need it. There's one reason to be good.

Another reason is that evildoers are often punished for their misdeeds, either by the party they have injured, or by his friends, or by specialists empowered by society to do the punishing, such as judges, prison wardens and executioners. That's another reason to be good, a pretty powerful one.

It leads us to the third reason, which is that peaceful, mutually supportive and harmonious communities develop when people are good to each other. In such communities everybody thrives, especially children. Another powerful reason to be good.

I'm sure you can think up many similar reasons for yourself.

I just can't see a person who lives in this life and kills and rapes people just continuing on as nothing had ever happened. Maybe the good people who have learned what ever it is to learn get to exit coming back to this earth life and the mean people have to keep coming back till they learn how to do right. Is this anywhere close to an answer? I sure would like to know this...Thanks

There is no-one who can give you a truthful answer to these questions, though every religion on Earth claims otherwise.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Because every human embryo starts as a female, the y-chromosomes importance in males takes place later, so nipples develop before the 'male genes' tell them not to