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.
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.
Why do you think polar bears can adapt in so short a time? It is not so, and bears are suffering right now with the disappearance of longlasting Arctic ice. Biologists are finding many underweight bears who may be unable to survive winter hibernation or birth surviving cubs. Without human intervention, polar bears may well become extinct in the wild in the not too distant future. They will only live in zoos.
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.
two things you left out.
a lot of little changes add up to a big one.
"But a mutation which fits to a backward changing environment should have the character of backward change, even it is a different change."
"backward changing environment" doesnt make much sense, but.... how about an ichthyosaur or dolphin, that looks so much like a fish? there is what you are looking for.
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.
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? Non thing. 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.[/quote]
Regarding how you have "studied evolution"...This is kind of funny, how you smoked yourself out!
ANYONE who studied evolution or knew anything about paleontology, comparative anatomy etc knows that the fish - amphibian transition was not an ocean beach or a tidal mud flat. The fish were FRESH WATER FISH. Amphibians are fresh water animals. Always were.
You'd know that evolution has nothing to do with what an animal "knows".
its about what happens to work for them.
We DO see de-evolution. Loss of limbs and eyes for example, is common.
More evidence you never studied enough evolution to make a decent argument.
"famine in the ocean". No. But the land was a wide open environment with all sorts of opportunities. And food. And no predators.
And, as for fish going on land, they are still doing it. Walking catfish, mudskippers, eels. Others gulp air, and a lot of them can survive out of water for hours. "If you were a fish" you'd be where the creationists are. Stuck in the past, unable to change.
Finally there is no need at all for any dramatic change, any change at all for (some) fish to find an advantage to being able to leave the water. Why would you think that there is? it makes no sense at all. Here is a fish with lungs and fins that help him out on the land, there is a fat insect, and having that sort of environment stay stable would be way better than having it change in disruptive ways.
Anyway, seriously juv.... if you dont know enough to know that early fish / amphibians wer fresh water, and that sort of ignorance is what feeds your anti evolution beliefs....why dont you get a book?
Come back when you can make sense and not trip yourself up so badly?
They didn't. It was simply that, throughout the species, mutations were occurring across the board. Some of these allowed fish to live in previously uninhabited waters: this is a good thing, so those fish survived and proliferated. THis process continued, with mutations occurring that gradually allowed the species to inhabit waters further and further upstream. Every organism has senses that give it information about its environment; shallow-water fish don't go to the pelagic because they can feel the pressure.
It's simply statistics: over time, the population moves further up towards the beach since, on average, things are simply better up there. Consider: more fish are eaten on the deeper side than the shallower side, to there is a trend for the population to move upstream. This creates a selection pressure that selects for genes which aid fish in shallow water (using air for buoyancy, as in the Devonian lungfish, or adapting their fins to walk on the hitherto untouched seabed, as in some anglerfish).
Originally Posted by juvenissun
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?
Because it wasn't dangerous: it was idyllic, especially compared to the environment they were currently occupying.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
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.
On the contrary, it fits in exactly: environmental changes open up niches that surviving species can evolve to occupy. This is part of the more general trend that species will evolve to take full advantage of any ecological niche they come across (be it due to geographical migration, environmental change, or genetic mutation that opens up the new niche).
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
They didn't. It was simply that, throughout the species, mutations were occurring across the board. Some of these allowed fish to live in previously uninhabited waters: this is a good thing, so those fish survived and proliferated. THis process continued, with mutations occurring that gradually allowed the species to inhabit waters further and further upstream. Every organism has senses that give it information about its environment; shallow-water fish don't go to the pelagic because they can feel the pressure.
It's simply statistics: over time, the population moves further up towards the beach since, on average, things are simply better up there. Consider: more fish are eaten on the deeper side than the shallower side, to there is a trend for the population to move upstream. This creates a selection pressure that selects for genes which aid fish in shallow water (using air for buoyancy, as in the Devonian lungfish, or adapting their fins to walk on the hitherto untouched seabed, as in some anglerfish).
Because it wasn't dangerous: it was idyllic, especially compared to the environment they were currently occupying.
On the contrary, it fits in exactly: environmental changes open up niches that surviving species can evolve to occupy. This is part of the more general trend that species will evolve to take full advantage of any ecological niche they come across (be it due to geographical migration, environmental change, or genetic mutation that opens up the new niche).
Your post here correcting juv is such a good example to illustrate that what the theocreos actually disbelieve is their own mistaken ideas!
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).
I don't think so. We have not evolved for quite a while.
I don't think so. We have not evolved for quite a while.
And we probably won't, and we've got our enormous brains to thank for that. We're able to adjust to virtually any environmental change due to our advanced technology. We're pretty well suited for our environmental niche, but if things were to change too drastically... you can bet we'd either evolve or go extinct just like everything else.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Live as though you were to die tomorrow.
Learn as though you were to live forever.
-Mahatma Gandhi
I don't think so. We have not evolved for quite a while.
How long have you been watching? There was an interesting post on Eskimos evolving a little ways back.
__________________
Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be.
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And we probably won't, and we've got our enormous brains to thank for that. We're able to adjust to virtually any environmental change due to our advanced technology. We're pretty well suited for our environmental niche, but if things were to change too drastically... you can bet we'd either evolve or go extinct just like everything else.
You are hitting your own foot. We are protected from environmental elements does not mean our genes do not mutate. If the principle of mutation is true, then we will evolve no matter what. The niche is such a delicate thing, so a tropical home would be in a different niche than a subtropic home. People should evolve.
Linear Mode
