The 2 Creatures That Could Deny Evolution !

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Except neitherhas lived in the same form for 200 million years. So no, you are wrong.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Except neitherhas lived in the same form for 200 million years. So no, you are wrong.

They're still sturgeons. Sure they can be big or small, but they're still sturgeons. Yao Ming isn't an evolved human. He's human.

a reply to: cooperton

Once again, your faith causes bias in your cognitive skills here.

Sturgeons have evolved.

Crocodiles evolved.

Your premise is wrong.

The end.

a reply to: cooperton

No.

Of course they are sturgeons NOW... but they have NOT been sturgeons forever.

There are at least 29 DIFFERENT species of sturgeon that have evolved from whatever animal was the proto-sturgeon. Contrary to the myth that they have not evolved since the Cretaceous, they are actually evolving remarkably quickly for a group of fishes with such a low species count.

Living fossils? Actually, sturgeon are evolutionary speedsters

“Sturgeon are thought of as a living fossil group that has undergone relatively slow rates of anatomical change over time. But that’s simply not true,” said Daniel Rabosky, assistant professor in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and a curator of herpetology at the Museum of Zoology.

“Our study shows that sturgeon are evolving very quickly in some ways. They have evolved a huge range of body sizes. There are dwarf sturgeon the size of a bass and several other species that are nearly as big as a Volkswagen.”

Most of the fish groups fall into one of two categories. Fish like the gar form species very slowly and show little range in body size. Others, like the salmon family—which includes salmon, trout, whitefish and char—do both: they form species quickly and have a wide range of body sizes.

Sturgeon have been around more than 100 million years and today consist of 29 species worldwide, including the lake sturgeon found in the Great Lakes. They don’t fit the general pattern found by Rabosky’s team; there are few sturgeon species but a great variety in body size.

“In that sense, they’re kind of an outlier,” Rabosky said.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo

If the whole amoeba/bacteria thing applied surely they would revert yes?

All organisms remain that same organism. We have tried with selective breeding to make an organism change into another organism, but it doesn't happen. Selective breeding is theoretically much quicker than "natural selection", so if it actually were possible to evolve an organism into another organism, we would have observed it by now.

I think we have different definitions of evolution. I was never taught it's about mutating one species into another. I was taught it was a species mutating into a hopefully better version of it self.
Evolution is upgrading what exists, not completely replacing it.

If I lived in a environment with bad air for example, I would expect if I and my descendants lived and bred there long enough that our lungs would evolve to handle the air being impure. Not that we would turn in giant alien spiders.

Like I said, look at cave men. Sure they're still humans, just as we are, but they are not the same kind of humans. Different bone structures etc compared to humans today.

So yes a sturgeon is still a sturgeon, but is a sturgeon today EXACTLY like a sturgeon from 200 million years ago in every way?
I doubt it.

And I'll leave it there otherwise I am just repeating myself and I cannot make my thoughts on the process any more clear and obvious than I already have.

tl;dr sounds like we're discussing 2 completely different things.

If you want proof evolution is real just look at humans.
I reckon if you took a Caucasian person and dropped them off in the Antarctic for a few million years they'd eventually turn into Eskimoes. Because wide round eyes you'd go snow blind and a long pointy nose would fall off from frostbite.

It's why 'races' exist. Because humans around the world have evolved to the conditions of where they and their ancestors have lived for generations.

No good having pale skin in Africa, or having dark skin in Europe.

Ok now I am done.

AtomicKangaroo: sounds like we're discussing 2 completely different things.

There is a discussion among the rational, free-thinking participants about the evolution of species by either random mutations and/or environmental conditions and there is another, seperate discussion from the religious claiming that they have never seen a rabbit change into a giraffe, they own rabbits and not one of them is a giraffe, and they have rabbits on their farm but no giraffes, therefore ‘evolution’ is fake.

Yes, there are two different discussions.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Clearly that seems to be the case hey.


Leaves me confused how so many people in the world learned to write while clearly never learning to read.
It's a pretty amazing skill.

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
If you want proof evolution is real just look at humans.
I reckon if you took a Caucasian person and dropped them off in the Antarctic for a few million years they'd eventually turn into Eskimoes. Because wide round eyes you'd go snow blind and a long pointy nose would fall off from frostbite.

It's why 'races' exist. Because humans around the world have evolved to the conditions of where they and their ancestors have lived for generations.

No good having pale skin in Africa, or having dark skin in Europe.

Ok now I am done.

An interesting thought.

And quite frankly fascinating that species are able to adapt and make slight changes to adapt to environment etc over time. If we have no control over changes and the gene pool is not altered - don't you find it fascinating that species change to survive/thrive? It brings up more questions than it answers.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Correct. Crab has been around 650 million years

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo

I think we have different definitions of evolution. I was never taught it's about mutating one species into another. I was taught it was a species mutating into a hopefully better version of it self.
Evolution is upgrading what exists, not completely replacing it.

If I lived in a environment with bad air for example, I would expect if I and my descendants lived and bred there long enough that our lungs would evolve to handle the air being impure.

Such adaptations happen relatively quickly. It is not evolution, because we are using epigenetic combinations that are already present in our genome. Take for example altitude acclimation, it is facilitated by increasing the gene that codes for 2,3-BPG increasing to allow better oxygen assimilation. No evolution, it is already present in the genome. Also consider the example you discussed: needing darker skin near the equator due to higher levels of sun. Melanin is already a biochemical present in the human body, and can be upregulated to allow assimilation into sunnier environments.

It is not evolution because they are using combinations that are already present in the genome.

originally posted by: rnaa

Of course they are sturgeons NOW... but they have NOT been sturgeons forever. There are at least 29 DIFFERENT species of sturgeon that have evolved from whatever animal was the proto-sturgeon.

Faith-based assumption. You assume your theory is true, and then apply it to what we observe now. Backwards science.

they are actually evolving remarkably quickly for a group of fishes with such a low species count.

Any laboratory examples of them becoming something that isn't a sturgeon? Or should I just take it on faith that evolution can happen?

“Our study shows that sturgeon are evolving very quickly in some ways. They have evolved a huge range of body sizes. There are dwarf sturgeon the size of a bass and several other species that are nearly as big as a Volkswagen.”

Yao Ming is tall, pygmies are small, we're all still human.

sturgeon have been around more than 100 million years

Empirical evidence to support this?

If you want to play the science game, you have to stick to empirical evidence, not relying on assumptions.

originally posted by: Noinden

Sturgeons have evolved.

Faith-based assumption

Crocodiles evolved.

Faith-based assumption

Your premise is wrong.

My premise is due diligence of empirical evidence. Yours is to assume evolution is true, and then apply all things in the world to that philosophy. Again, it is backwards science, and allows fantasies to emerge.

a reply to: cooperton

backwards science, and allows fantasies to emerge.

Evolution is a biological based science fiction of the origin of life on earth.
Then again Intelligent design is viewed like that as well, in the end both are faith based concepts, one puts it's faith in modern science the other in God.

a reply to: cooperton

Yao Ming is tall, pygmies are small, we're all still human.

Chimpanzees are small, humans are bigger, gorillas are even bigger, we're all still hominids.

originally posted by: rnaa

Chimpanzees are small, humans are bigger, gorillas are even bigger, we're all still hominids.

I'm not related to apes.

a reply to: cooperton

Can you please show empirical evidence of the Garden of Eden? How about the occupants you put so much faith into? No? OK, please explain and show evidence why not all species of animal were accounted for on the Ark, but are now present on Earth? Please also show empirical evidence - the type of which you are demanding from others - for your deity.

The majority of free-thinking individuals don’t believe what you do. That number will decline further over time. I’m sorry to tell you religion is dying.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: rnaa

Chimpanzees are small, humans are bigger, gorillas are even bigger, we're all still hominids.

I'm not related to apes.

Your genes say otherwise.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Can you please show empirical evidence of the Garden of Eden? How about the occupants you put so much faith into? No? OK, please explain and show evidence why not all species of animal were accounted for on the Ark, but are now present on Earth? Please also show empirical evidence - the type of which you are demanding from others - for your deity.

The majority of free-thinking individuals don’t believe what you do. That number will decline further over time. I’m sorry to tell you religion is dying.

Dieing, or "evolving"?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

LOL Blue Jay, why do you always lie? Both species HAVE INDEED changed AND change is never guaranteed in evolution if a species is well adapted. Your assertion is laughable and this has already been refuted on here countless times. It's like you guys live 30 years ago, you are puking up the same garbage arguments that have been long debunked:

www.thoughtco.com...

www.preceden.com...

I'm surprised you didn't mention the white shark. It's very similar to its megalodon ancestor, but smaller today. But of course you also have thousands of species of sharks that split off from them over hundreds of millions of years. Same is true with the crocodile ancestor. Where do you think alligators came from?

Evolution is a biological based science fiction of the origin of life on earth.

This says all I need to know about your knowledge of science. LMFAO!!!!!

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

Yes indeed. You nailed it. There is no guarantee of change in evolution.

When an organism is that well adapted, most changes end up being detrimental and thus are more likely to die out. The neutral mutations keep going and that is basically genetic drift, which may slightly change an organism but not enough to affect survival until some big environment change comes. Crocodiles are resilient. I'd bet on them to survive the next big extinction over humans.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Quadrivium

Mutations do happen weather or not they are needed.

The environment doesn’t not trigger a mutation.

No.

Then......

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.

You don't understand evolution or you have split personalities.

COME ON DUDE! You are doing it AGAIN.

He clearly said EVOLUTION happens when you must adapt to survive. Genetic mutations are random and do not usually happen at that same time, they usually happen earlier and are neutral. Evolution is genetic mutations AND natural selection, not just one or the other. A mutation can be neutral for millions of years until the environment changes.

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Quadrivium

What is the difference between a mutation and evolution?

Better question:
How do we evolve?

Can you define what a deflection is?

FACEPALM.