Science against evolution

page: 39
12
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by theophilus40
 


I often wondered and asked in class before why did only monkeys develop to the intelligence homo sapiens? Why don't we have dogs and cats and dolphins walking upright and talking if evolution is true why then is only the monkey's path to evolve into an intelligent upright speaking species???


The whole paragraph above has a single flaw prevalent in its undertones, that of intelligence being the aim of evolution. (I am ignoring "monkey to human")

Monkeys, dogs and dolphins are as intelligent s they need to be to survive in the environments they inhabit.

If we look at a possible scenario for the evolution of us from a common ancestor (NOT A MONKEY)

At some point, the animal that eventually evolved into us and the other primates was separated from its kin.

Separation is the key element that allows speciation to occur. For branching speciation, where a single ancestor spawns multiple species, you need physical separation. For a single species to evolve into a different species from it ancestor without branching, you need separation by time.

At the time that our ancestors tree branched off into the line that became the primates, an observer would not have been able to find a physical difference between the group that was to become us, and the group that was to become the other apes.

However, this hypothetical observer, with hindsight, might watch the groups and notice how one group often strays onto the Savannah in search of food where as another group rarely leave the safety of the trees, and draw a conclusion that the more inquisitive group on the savannah, is more likely to be the group that evolves into us.

We know that in order for this animal to become us and the other apes, they cannot stay together. If they stay together, breeding is likely to occur which will ensure that the tribe evolve together.

SIDE NOT - there is a third option for a separation that accelerates evolution of a species without necessarily causing branching, and that is extinction. Extinction doesn't have to mean the entire species being wiped out. In the example I am positing, a disease could have wiped out all of the animals that preferred the safety of the trees, removing their genes from the breeding pool and leaving the genes of the more inquisitive savannah dwellers. Or it could go the other way and perhaps a savannah based predator could perform the same removal of the more inquisitive savannah dwellers

It is more than likely, that in actuality, the separation of the tree and savannah dwellers was due to distance. As the savannah dwellers became more comfortable in their new environment, they just stopped returning to the trees.

We know have the same species of animal, living in two different environments, and natural selection can begin to operate on each group, and each group has a more limited the gene stock available.

Genes survive to reproduce, and will use whatever is the most appropriate vehicle to do so. A different set of skills and characteristics are required to survive in the trees, than those that are required to survive on the plains.

If an animals environment rarely changes, natural selection will hone it into the perfectly evolved animal for its niche. As a species, it will prosper and very little change would be observed over time.

While it is easy for us to imagine that intelligence is the ultimate survival attribute in any environment, I would argue that our ancestors inquisitiveness and nomadic nature placed it onto multiple environments where problem solving (i.e. intelligence) was the best survival tactic.

When an animal is displaced, and forced into an environment that is far different to its usual habitat, it quite often struggles to feed it self, or even defend itself, as it has no concept of what is food or what a predator is in the new environment.

In order to migrate into differing environments an animal needs to be able to work these things out. In other words, it needs a certain amount of intelligence.

All species survive merely by individuals living long enough to reproduce, whether it be by running faster or killing quicker. I would argue that for our ancestor, it was the speed with which they could solve the problem of not being the fastest, strongest or best hidden.

Our intelligence is not the aim, goal, or even the pinnacle of evolution, its just another phenotype of genes to ensure the survival of the gene. And it might not be enough to do even that.

ETA - a good example of speciation happening right now is Ensatina, From one end of the horseshoe to the other, each group of salamanders can produce offspring with either of its immediate neighbors. However the groups at the ends of the horseshoe are unable to produce offspring. They are different species/
edit on 7-2-2013 by idmonster because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2013 by idmonster because: Grammar check - Very poor, see me after class!




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Great reply as usual ID.

I would add that the big picture is that change within the population is not done one at a time. As our brain size increased we also evolved to stand erect and walk on two legs. To use more sophisticated tools.

Being bipedal gave many advantages of speed, agility. To be able to see our environment from an elevated viewpoint of the grasslands where we could better detect prey and predators at the cost of not being as suited to live in the trees and the advantage on the grasslands from the elevated view no longer being so if in a wood or jungle.

This also meant our hands were then freed from being used for walking unlike other primates to manipulate the environment and use tools.

So that one change of evolving to a bipedal creature allows other changes to come to the fore which is also selected for by the environment. So each change that gives advantage in that environment either compliments or gives disadvantage to other changes that are happening at the same time.

So as our environment changes we, all the animals, plants insects change with it and when those changes become significant the branches Idmonster explains become evident.


edit on 7-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 



I often wondered and asked in class before why did only monkeys develop to the intelligence homo sapiens? Why don't we have dogs and cats and dolphins walking upright and talking if evolution is true why then is only the monkey's path to evolve into an intelligent upright speaking species???

An excellent question. Evolution is not goal oriented. There is no goal to be intelligent. Evolution is all about survival. A while back there was a man named Lamarck. He suggested that the giraffe had a long neck because the animals were stretching to get to higher branches. Today we know that is not true. Actually back then it was determined that Lamarckian evolution did not pass muster. Still, the notion of a goal or the actions of an individual are passed on. Intelligence is not required for survival for all species.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Rest on the cabbit as I continue to laugh about the horse and donkey breed or the dog and wolf breed


As usual you can't ignore everything but you try.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


No one HAS witnessed a species evolving into another species, thats pure assumption. Your example of the bleach process is nothing more than adaptation, which also has nothing to do with evolution. There is no proof that adaptation has anything to do with evolution, and if you read the article closely, from wiki, you will see that first of all it was written by an evolutionist.

No one has contested the authenticity because no one has had a negative interest in this pseudo science. There is no proof that all changes are part of a process known as evolution. There is no proof that a species can evolve into another species. There is no proof that anything other than adaptation is occuring in these processes. There is no proof that evolution is responsible for the diversity we see today.

It really sounds to me like your just coming up short with some proof. Just because a species stops breeding with its group doesn't mean it's changed species.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Rest on the cabbit as I continue to laugh about the horse and donkey breed or the dog and wolf breed


As usual you can't ignore everything but you try.
You have had the Horse/donkey hybrid explained in great detail and people went to a great deal of effort only to find you reject everything that did not fit your fantasy with a dismissive one liner.

The wolf/dog many people went to even greater lengths to correct your 'cabbit' view of the world you live in and again you dismissed everything, denied everything determined to remain in your self imposed ignorance.

You accuse others of playing the repeat game so to ensure we don’t go back to the threads where the above was gifted to you and this time take advantage of that information and educate yourself.

Cabbit



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


No one HAS witnessed a species evolving into another species, thats pure assumption. Your example of the bleach process is nothing more than adaptation, which also has nothing to do with evolution. There is no proof that adaptation has anything to do with evolution, and if you read the article closely, from wiki, you will see that first of all it was written by an evolutionist.

No one has contested the authenticity because no one has had a negative interest in this pseudo science. There is no proof that all changes are part of a process known as evolution. There is no proof that a species can evolve into another species. There is no proof that anything other than adaptation is occuring in these processes. There is no proof that evolution is responsible for the diversity we see today.

It really sounds to me like your just coming up short with some proof. Just because a species stops breeding with its group doesn't mean it's changed species.
From start to finish your reply displays you are in total denial. It showcases you did not understand one word of splits post, but what else can we expect from a guy that not only thinks cats can breed with rabbits but actually defended that fundamental mistake that without doubt shows you don’t have a clue what evolution describes and after over a year that is shameful

Really .... cabbits ........



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I really do think that any reply to a tooth post should end with:

Cabbit


Whiskey just came down my nose when I got to the end of colins post

Cabbit
edit on 7-2-2013 by idmonster because: Whiskey coming down yourr nose burns



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




No one HAS witnessed a species evolving into another species, thats pure assumption. Your example of the bleach process is nothing more than adaptation, which also has nothing to do with evolution. There is no proof that adaptation has anything to do with evolution, and if you read the article closely, from wiki, you will see that first of all it was written by an evolutionist.

No one has contested the authenticity because no one has had a negative interest in this pseudo science. There is no proof that all changes are part of a process known as evolution. There is no proof that a species can evolve into another species. There is no proof that anything other than adaptation is occuring in these processes. There is no proof that evolution is responsible for the diversity we see today.

It really sounds to me like your just coming up short with some proof. Just because a species stops breeding with its group doesn't mean it's changed species.

After a long time of attempting to inform you what evolution is all about you post an absolutely clueless post.
Please take a basic biology course when you get to high school.
edit on 7-2-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Laught all you want, there is still mules made from horses and donkeys
.

There is still dog / wolf hybrids made from dogs and wolves
.

I don't care what your lame excuse is, they still interbreed, and I don't buy that dogs are wolves, thats just a cop out. If dogs were wolves, why are they called different names, why do they have different anatomy?

wolf and dog differences



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Laught all you want, there is still mules made from horses and donkeys
Thank you I will .......
Cabbits


Wow Mules are made from horses and donkeys. I thought they were the result of the two breeding


There is still dog / wolf hybrids made from dogs and wolves
Wow made from dogs and wolves. I thought they were the result of the two breeding


I don't care what your lame excuse is, they still interbreed, and I don't buy that dogs are wolves, thats just a cop out.
Another amazing science class that totally destroys the science we know today and all it took was tooth does not buy it


If dogs were wolves, why are they called different names
Well the name Spot usually is because the dog has spots. Patch because the dog has patches and Fang after its teeth. It is all down to the owners really which is why dogs that do not have owners do not have names

I am sure you are not asking why wolves and dogs are classified as that because you have had that explained many times.


why do they have different anatomy?
They don’t. Well they don’t until they breed with cats or rabbits of course to produce dats and dobbits or wots and wobbits.

Cabbits



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Wolves and dogs share the same ancestors


First line from your link.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Exactly, and if they share the same ancestor, there is no way they are the same species.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You really just like to make stuff up. Sharing the same ancestor is exactly what defines evolution. 2 humans standing next to each other share the same ancestors. I guess they aren't the same species!


Your link confirmed evolution and you didn't even realize it. Ah well, your loss.
edit on 7-2-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


ADAPTATION in this case is a species of Bacteria having certain genetic traits that allow it to survive the bleach and thus as each subsequent generation of bacteria that has not been killed by the bleach multiplies as they are fed...and again bleach is added until a STRAIN OF BACTERIA NO LONGER IS KILLED BY BLEACH...is all that exists...and is Genetically Different from the original strain and thus a New Species of Bacteria.

The Bleach not only kills the bacteria that is genetically susceptable to the bleaches effect but also forces the Bacterial Life to change on a Genetic Level chemically so both Survival of the Fittest as well as Genetic Mutation by Chemical Reaction is taking place.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I meant common ancestor, and no there is no proof they are related.

You can connect all the dots you want, but without proof, your only guessing.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Adaptation is not proof of evolution.

Granted all changes are alegedly evolution, but no one has proven that all changes are all part of this master scheme known as evolution, your just guessing.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


I meant common ancestor, and no there is no proof they are related.

You can connect all the dots you want, but without proof, your only guessing.
Why dont you show everyone a link that supports you then?

How many dots did you connect to come up with the cabbit BTW

Cabbit



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Adaptation is not proof of evolution.

Granted all changes are alegedly evolution, but no one has proven that all changes are all part of this master scheme known as evolution, your just guessing.
Again king cabbit you demonstrate you know nothing about evolution despite over a year and nearing a thousand pages. A level so low you believe a cat can breed with a rabbit .......................................................................................................(gulps)
...........................................................................................................................(tears well up)
Cabbits



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Why dont you show everyone a link that supports you then?

How many dots did you connect to come up with the cabbit BTW

Cabbit
None, I looked at damning video, especially the one that shows the rabbit and the cat breeding.



new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join