Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
... Natural selection now takes over again. Mutatis will evolve or it will go extinct. What will happen? Will they revert back to the original hypotheticus form? No, that niche is taken by the current hypotheticus: the termite-eater. ...
It take a good while to see some scientific argument from you.
The above quote has BIG problem. If it is only a niche problem, it is very easy to solve. It does not take much change to get used to a similar, but new niche, or even find the same niche other where. For example, polar bear will adapt when the ice cap is gone, just like they adapted to the ice cap when it appeared.
The rest of your long reply has the same problem at many places. This is a good example which illustrates that the evolution story is made of many factual statements linked by imagination. It is so easy to find the imaginary link to break up the story.
It would create dramatic changes because of natural selection, genetic drift and random mutation. You cannot discount two thirds of the mechanics driving evolution. Furthermore, nature is all about niches. A niche soon gets filled, leading to a species having to adapt to a new environment, a new place in the food change and a new food supply. Given millions of years, this will lead to what you call "dramatic changes".
Have you ever heard of whales? A whale is a mammal living in the water. The evolution of whales might be interesting to you, as it completely destroys this part of your argument.
You assume the environment would keep changing toward one direction during those millions of years. That is not possible. It is another imaginary link.
It take a good while to see some scientific argument from you.
The above quote has BIG problem. If it is only a niche problem, it is very easy to solve. It does not take much change to get used to a similar, but new niche, or even find the same niche other where. For example, polar bear will adapt when the ice cap is gone, just like they adapted to the ice cap when it appeared.
The rest of your long reply has the same problem at many places. This is a good example which illustrates that the evolution story is made of many factual statements linked by imagination. It is so easy to find the imaginary link to break up the story.
The reason for you seeing these "problems" is that you don't understand how evolution works, so there's no sweat off my back. Polar bears didn't suddenly adapt to a poofing into existence of the polar ice-caps. It was a gradual process that took millions of years. With the rate the ice-caps are melting, there will be no time for adaptation or evolution for the polar bears. They will die out.
You have to understand that a new but similar niche is NOT equal to the same niche. These slight differences will equate MAJOR differences when it comes to evolving to fitting that niche.
You assume the environment would keep changing toward one direction during those millions of years. That is not possible. It is another imaginary link.
I assume no such thing. You are setting up a strawman, or you simply don't understand. Perhaps you need to reach a new "level" of understanding?
There are very good reasons for that. The water-to-land change occurred because land provided a completely new environment, one filled with resources, food, and territory, and completely devoid of predators and competition.
There was also the growing trend for organisms to live in shallower and shallower water.
Generally, large morphological changes happen because a new environmental niche has become available. That's the point of punctuated equilibrium: organisms remain roughly the same for long periods of time, and only with the advent of new terrain do they rapidly change.
Obviously, biochemical evolution occurs all the time; the arms race against infection is a constant war. But macroscopic, morphological change is rare, but when it happens, it's rapid: pretty much ever novel mutation that was previously detrimental was now fantastically beneficial.
Why is it obvious? The mechanism for how and why it occurs is very well understood.
You could if you wandered south of Texas .
Mutation does not repeat (smallest chance), fine. But a mutation which fits to a backward changing environment should have the character of backward change, even it is a different change.
Why? Mutations work by adapting to their current environment. Since we never see a backward-changing environment, and since mutations don't work in reverse, we don't see 'de-evolution'.
They took millions of years, juvenissun. Don't get confused by the 'if the history of the Earth was a 24-hour clock...' analogy.[/quote]
How did fish know the land was that good? Was there a famine in the ocean? If I were fish, I won't go to the land no matter how attractive it appears. The only possible environment for that to take place is one like the tidal flat. But, what was on the tidal flat at that time? Nothing. Why would a fish want to hang around in that dangerous environment?
Be realistic. The beach environment is VERY hazardous to all fishes. How long was the time interval in which the amphibian appeared? Was the earth environment changed dramatically during that period of time? Your story simply do not fit with your theories.
I assume no such thing. You are setting up a strawman, or you simply don't understand. Perhaps you need to reach a new "level" of understanding?
If there were no such thing, why do you suggest that the evolution will continue along the same direction regardless the environmental change, and eventually "reach" to a new, "very different" species?
The reason for you seeing these "problems" is that you don't understand how evolution works, so there's no sweat off my back. Polar bears didn't suddenly adapt to a poofing into existence of the polar ice-caps. It was a gradual process that took millions of years. With the rate the ice-caps are melting, there will be no time for adaptation or evolution for the polar bears. They will die out.
You have to understand that a new but similar niche is NOT equal to the same niche. These slight differences will equate MAJOR differences when it comes to evolving to fitting that niche.
I don't think so. And the polar bear does not take "millions of years" to adapt to a new niche. They can do it in thousands of years or even shorter.
No matter how long would it take, when polar bears adapted, they will still bears, not elephants.
If there were no such thing, why do you suggest that the evolution will continue along the same direction regardless the environmental change, and eventually "reach" to a new, "very different" species?
Because evolution doesn't just stop? Organisms are constantly evolving because few creatures can perfectly fill a niche, and those who are very well suited in a niche are highly vulnerable to even the slightest changes in surrounding circumstances (not only environmental changes).
Exactly. Animals evolved from this to that through time. But why would it make dramatic changes, even given a long time period? For example, changed from water to land and from small to huge? That kind of change is OBVIOUSLY directed. One could not wonder around in a city, but ended up in another continent.
Mutation does not repeat (smallest chance), fine. But a mutation which fits to a backward changing environment should have the character of backward change, even it is a different change. We do not see that at all. What we see are many many forward, dramatic, runaway changes. And most of them did not take that much time to happen.
This is long, but I hope you read it, because I hope it explains what you think is dramatic change.
No, juvenissun, it is in no way obviously directed. It is a common sense extrapolation of the manner in which small changes add up over time, over many, many, many generations.
Remember our imaginary muskrat: suppose, at the insect eater stage we last noted, he was a squat, big-footed, thick-clawed, longhaired, long tongued animal with small weak teeth. He filled his niche just fine, able to get at the termites, dig 'em out, lick 'em up. His offspring prosper. At some point, one of the kits is born with short hair - a mutation. It isn't an important change, though this animal gets bitten more by the termites, so maybe it prefers to eat more of the other kinds of insects, and maybe it wanders into a less termite infested area where many of the insects are crunchier - a little harder on those weak teeth, but at least they don't bite! When this animal has her kits, a couple of them are also shorthaired, and they follow their mother's lead in eating the crunchy insects. The ones with even slightly stronger teeth have an advantage here: they get more to eat, and are more likely to be healthy and strong and live to have kits of their own. Only two mutations have made it possible for these animals to prosper: short hair and stronger teeth.
After many, many generations, all of the descendents of that one (or two or three) shorthaired termite specialists have short hair and stronger teeth. Along with that, the ones with shorter tongues survive well. Meanwhile, their cousins may still be eating termites at the edge of a desert, or some other environmental change may have happened.
So generations onward: these crunchy insect eaters have wandered to the coast, and it turns out that eating crunchy insects also makes you good at eating small crunchy crabs. And the more crabs you can eat, the better, especially since there aren't as many crunchy insects on the coast. And as generations live and reproduce, the stronger the teeth, the further into the water you can chase a crab, the more likely you'll have kits that also have healthy lives and lots of kits. Some kits are born with webbing between their toes. They turn out to be great swimmers, and can catch food even when the water is rough.
So we've come, over a very, very long time, from a muskratty thing in fresh water that might have looked a little like this: to a termite eater in a warm land to a coastal crab eater that swims in saltwater. (See? I've even given you the possibility of 'back to the water' ...but they've been land critters for a very long time now).
But our critters are not finished evolving: nothing ever does - the alternative is extinction. Generations and generations and generations later, many thousand begats, we might find the descendents of the crab eaters. Various useful small mutations have occurred: a waterproof coat... a thick short strong tail... a thicker layer of subcutaneous fat... skin flaps to close the nose when diving... short legs with feet that act as flippers. And because bigger animals lose heat more slowly than small ones, the bigger kits of each preceding generation were more likely to live and reproduce, so now, from being a scrawny little 30cm pond dweller, these animals are two metres long with big strong teeth, and might look a lot like this:
Remember, this was an imaginary example of evolution making a dramatic change. But that is the bare basics of how it works.
To your other point. No one has ever suggested these changes happened quickly. Where do you get that idea? because it is really wrong - you don't go from a tiny slamander like creature to a five tonne dinosaur in a short time - it took millions of years.
.
to a termite eater in a warm land to a coastal crab eater that swims in saltwater. (See? I've even given you the possibility of 'back to the water' ...but they've been land critters for a very long time now).
Linear Mode
