The 2 Creatures That Could Deny Evolution !

a reply to: Quadrivium

I made one statement about evolution, and another about mutations. Neither contradict each other because a mutation and evolution are 2 different things.

You don’t understand that so you conflate the two, which doesn’t make sense, then you blame the contradiction on me.

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Quadrivium

What is the difference between a mutation and evolution?

Enlighten me, for I am so confused.

As I said, maybe you should try to get past freshman biology first.
You do understand that we are on the internet......
No need to be confused, just look it up, like you probably think I am going to do.....
No need:

a reply to: Quadrivium

Il wait,

What is the difference between a mutation and evolution?

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Quadrivium

Il wait,

What is the difference between a mutation and evolution?

Better question:
How do we evolve?
Here is a clue:

Evolution happens when you must adapt to survive, both the animals you listed are at the top of the food chain in their respective environments.

What need would they have to evolve?

A mutation must make survival easier for a species for it to spread throughout that species.

See the bold text. This shows me that you already know.
Yet you are still saying in the same post that we must adapt and there is a need to evolve. Both go against the Modern Synthesis.

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

You don’t understand that so you conflate the two, which doesn’t make sense, then you blame the contradiction on me.

Please see my above post for the clarification you undoubtedly need.

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

What is the difference between a mutation and evolution?

See the fruit fly experiments and the animals of Chernobyl, they both mutated but did not evolve.
RNA/DNA can self correct quite effectively or terminate the ability to reproduce.
Sometimes also it goes awry like with this Liger in cross breeding and it stops further mutations.

originally posted by: gallop
Thus proving that creationists still have yet to fully comprehend the theory of evolution.. Wow and in 2019 no less..

*reads signiture*

Well maybe you could fully explain the science of evolution, ha ha ha haaa
Science, it’s people like you who hate science, who show it no respect and pervert it to suit your faith

If science could explain irreducible design (doubt you have ever heard of that phrase) then you may have a right to question my opinion

Anyway, io9.gizmodo.com...
Plenty

How about we get some real science not pop culture opinion and atheistic faith to show the science

Sometimes nature does not have to fix what isn't broken.
The creature's adaptations work very well for it's environment. Most likely any adaptations since those millions of years, did not work in the creature's best interest and natural selection made sure they did not take hold.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You have a PM

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

Evolution happens when you must adapt to survive

Exactly.

Ok , define the trigger point and mechanism.

There isn't one. Hence why these species had not changed.

Original post

Evolution happens when you must adapt to survive

Your reply

Exactly.

So , again , what is the trigger point and mechanism ?

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Gothmog

Random mutations happen, some helpful some not, helpful mutations make it easier for that individual to survive and pass on that mutation, non helpful ones make it harder for that individual to pass on that mutation.

I feel like this was all explained pretty well in freshmen biology

Like the "mutation" where man lost most of the body hair ?
During the Ice Age ?

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution happens when you must adapt to survive, both the animals you listed are at the top of the food chain in their respective environments.

What need would they have to evolve?

A mutation must make survival easier for a species for it to spread throughout that species.

But didn't everything begin from just single celled life? Why hasn't the crocodile become smarter. They should be riding around on air boats drinking crocodile coolers by now.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Well clearly their was some evolution because we have something like 20 species of crocodilia on Earth and yes they all resemble the ancient sarcosuchus but they are clearly not the same species.

It's the same for sturgeon. We have living variations and non of them will be an exact copy of ancient relatives. There's other species that have similar histories, the shark comes to mind.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Quadrivium

They don’t happen when you need them, they happen randomly, they stick around if they are useful, which helps you adapt, which helps you survive. Some species never got the random mutation that might have helped them adapt to a changing environment, hence the long list of extinct species.

And therein lies the dilemma.
If the mutations were truly random, evolution would happen whether it was "needed" or not. If it were truly random, why would the environment have anything to do with it?
They "stick around" if they are useful? Does that mean they at taken back if they are not?

Evolution does happen regardless, if a random mutation is beneficial it enhances that particular creature's chance to survive and procreate. Thus creating a genetic line with the mutation. Simple stuff really.

It goes both ways, a mutation that is a hindrance will lessen the chance of survival and ability to breed. I mean for instance in the Amazon there's species of dolphin that thrive but bottlenose dolphin wouldn't do well in rivers and likely wouldn't be able to support the numbers with the availability of food in most rivers in the world.

The same could be said for seals or whales, I chose mammals to make my point because it doesn't matter if they're in fresh water or salt water. Their issue would be food and space, I reckon they'd evolve/adapt to be smaller over time but they'd never get that far. Every time I've heard of such creatures living up river they die of stress...

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There are many discovery's that could throw evolution in it's current guise out of the window but like any religion it's adherent's will not accept the alternative to it.

They may be persuaded to bend there view though, while the creatures you mention are ancient and contiguous there are other species that have appeared again and again and again through the fossil record, I say other species but what I mean is they have Re-appeared or if the evolutionist argument is used re-evolved repeatedly after going extinct several times, one such is the Rhino, there have been many different completely unrelated yet remarkably similar looking creatures that have appeared in the fossil record in the period since the end of the dinosaurs.

But if they kept going extinct then why did they keep re-evolving?, of course there is the Great Panda originally remarkably similar to the bears we know of today and originally an omnivore just like them but it could not compete with the appearance of REAL bears because it is a marsupial and has a lower birth survival so was outbred by Bears leaving only the niche version which specialized in green bamboo shoot's that we know of today and which many people love.

But as for evidence contrary to the great religion of Evolution in which so many have absolute faith, well it often conveniently vanishes or else is ignored or even has rather less than scientific research done to try to discredit it, that research is then not questioned because it HAS to be right get it but the research that show's it is real therefore has to be WRONG see the trend.
www.thenakedscientists.com...

Humanity has not re-evolved again and again and again and if this is a real human skull then humanity has BEEN before - but guess what as a religious guy I have an answer - Let us (re) CREATE (fully formed) them in our image.

If the dodo bird went extinct before we knew it existed, evolutionists would claim it was an ancestor species of another bird living today.

But we know the dodo went extinct, and the species was forever gone from Earth.

The same with all of the extinct species are forever gone from Earth, as well.

No species - extinct or living - 'evolve' into another species.


They hold up extinct species - if they weren't known to humans, that is - as 'evidence', which is absurd.

There is indeed a creature that defies evolution, one that goes against the grain of accepted theory and scientific thinking; an anomaly in the modern world: the religious fundamentalist.

originally posted by: turbonium1
If the dodo bird went extinct before we knew it existed, evolutionists would claim it was an ancestor species of another bird living today.

Obviously false. Ther are many examples of species in the archeological record in which the lineage reached the end of the line.

But we know the dodo went extinct, and the species was forever gone from Earth.

The same with all of the extinct species are forever gone from Earth, as well.

Are they though? With the incredible breakthroughs in the fields of DNA, and cloning, it is possible to resurect an extinct species, in fact the dodo is something being looked at currently. The question isn't so much can we, as it is should we.

Does that mean humans now have the power previously reserved for "gods"?

No species - extinct or living - 'evolve' into another species.

Lol

They hold up extinct species - if they weren't known to humans, that is - as 'evidence', which is absurd.

I'm not even sure what that is meant to convey.

We have yet to resurrect any extinct species, so claiming it is possible, is purely speculation on your part.


And it's not relevant to the issue, anyway.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Quadrivium

My statements were not contradictory, they involved two different things, mutations and evolution.

You don’t understand the fundamentals of what you are discussing so you are constantly confused by the subject.

Please look back on your post.
Evidently, I understand it better than you. Perhaps you should of went a little farther than 9th grade biology.
It's not too late to admit you made a mistake. After all, what YOU wrote is plain for everyone to see.
Why not just stop now.

So everyone participating in this threadd is wrong but you.

LMAO

Pricless.....

If they agree with Quantumgamer1776's first two post in this thread, then yes, they are wrong according to science.