Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
Mammoths got smaller and dumber but they evolved??
Crocodiles got smaller and dumber but they evolved??
Really smart monkeys ( so called "cavemen ") got mostly smaller with the exception of some orangatan and gorillas got smaller and dumber but they evolved??
No explaination for the platapus so I guess it has just stayed the same for the platapus.
Same thing for some shell fish stayed the same.
Well if anything it appears to me nothing evolved may devolved but certainly not evolved.
What makes you think they got smaller and dumber? Some got a lot bigger. And what makes you think the existing ones are dumber?
They died out. A few got smaller (Catalina Island population, for example) But dumber? What makes you think so?
What makes you think they got dumber? And some got bigger.
Monkeys are an entirely different group than hominids. And later hominids are a lot bigger than earlier ones.
You mean "playpus?" It's a great example of a transitional between reptiles and mammals. Would you like to learn why?
Really? Tell us about that one.
Someone's taken advantage of you here. Education is the way out. Go and learn.
LOL hahahhaaha OK
__________________ 2 Timothy 2 : 23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
If you're just going to laugh at anyone who tells you why your completely unsourced and speculative drivel is wrong, why are you even making posts like this?
Mammoths got smaller and dumber but they evolved??
Crocodiles got smaller and dumber but they evolved??
Really smart monkeys ( so called "cavemen ") got mostly smaller with the exception of some orangatan and gorillas got smaller and dumber but they evolved??
No explaination for the platapus so I guess it has just stayed the same for the platapus.
Same thing for some shell fish stayed the same.
Well if anything it appears to me nothing evolved may devolved but certainly not evolved.
Dear me. Evolution isn't about things getting bigger/more complex/cleverer. It's about ... well, things saving their data into fresh bodies, and often they don't need to be especially big/smart/complex to do that. Evolution in a biological sense doesn't have any positive or negative connotations, it's merely change. Nothing less, nothing more.
Island descendants of large animals often get smaller because food and space are much more limited on a small island than on the mainland. In that case small size is advantageous to them, and that's what evolution is all about. You too big? You starve & you die before you'd have kids. You small? You find enough food, you survive and get all the mates. And your kids are gonna be small because they resemble you.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
Dear me. Evolution isn't about things getting bigger/more complex/cleverer. It's about ... well, things saving their data into fresh bodies, and often they don't need to be especially big/smart/complex to do that. Evolution in a biological sense doesn't have any positive or negative connotations, it's merely change. Nothing less, nothing more.
Island descendants of large animals often get smaller because food and space are much more limited on a small island than on the mainland. In that case small size is advantageous to them, and that's what evolution is all about. You too big? You starve & you die before you'd have kids. You small? You find enough food, you survive and get all the mates. And your kids are gonna be small because they resemble you.
Small survives and gets the mates in natural selection?
I thought the biggest strongest Lion , ape, deer itc got the girls...
I thought scientist say humans have been getting bigger and smarter??
__________________ 2 Timothy 2 : 23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Last edited by Carey; 1st November 2007 at 04:03 PM.
Reason: typo
Small survives and gets the mates in antural selection?
Not always. Small size can be good for you when:
there isn't much food around
too many predators want to eat you and by being small you can exploit a greater number of hiding places.
you live in/on a pond:
Pondskaters basically have the water surface all to themselves because they are able to use surface tension. The surface of a pond is a great hunting ground and probably protects them from some potential predators, and they couldn't possibly use it if they were large.
resources other than food are sparse: for example, the way many animals breathe simply doesn't allow them to grow large in an oxygen-poor environment (insects are one of those, but this also applies to anything that doesn't have large, specialised respiratory surfaces like we do). In this case, if the oxygen level drops (which has happened during earth history) the larger ones are more likely to die.
You are a parasite and you want to suck someone's blood without them finding and swatting you (ticks, fleas, lice...)
etc. I'm sure I've come up with only a tiny segment of all possible cases where dwarfs can rule the world.
True, when there is direct fighting for mates (like in deer, elephant seals, many beetles etc) then the larger male is likely to get the more mates. And if the number of eggs she lays depends on a female's size then large ones are obviously at advantage. But if the big guys/girls simply die before they had any chance to show their qualities then it doesn't matter how they would've swept away all their rivals if they survived.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
too many predators want to eat you and by being small you can exploit a greater number of hiding places.
you live in/on a pond:
Pondskaters basically have the water surface all to themselves because they are able to use surface tension. The surface of a pond is a great hunting ground and probably protects them from some potential predators, and they couldn't possibly use it if they were large.
resources other than food are sparse: for example, the way many animals breathe simply doesn't allow them to grow large in an oxygen-poor environment (insects are one of those, but this also applies to anything that doesn't have large, specialised respiratory surfaces like we do). In this case, if the oxygen level drops (which has happened during earth history) the larger ones are more likely to die.
You are a parasite and you want to suck someone's blood without them finding and swatting you (ticks, fleas, lice...)
etc. I'm sure I've come up with only a tiny segment of all possible cases where dwarfs can rule the world.
True, when there is direct fighting for mates (like in deer, elephant seals, many beetles etc) then the larger male is likely to get the more mates. And if the number of eggs she lays depends on a female's size then large ones are obviously at advantage. But if the big guys/girls simply die before they had any chance to show their qualities then it doesn't matter how they would've swept away all their rivals if they survived.
I wonder why science seems to think humans are getting bigger and smarter??
__________________ 2 Timothy 2 : 23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
I thought scientist say humans have been getting bigger and smarter??
As a general trend, maybe (though note that many modern human groups are relatively small). But, for example, mammal-like "reptiles" were getting smaller just before some of them became the first mammals.
Many things tend to get smarter as well - intelligence is often a good thing in that it gives you more flexibility and maybe helps you access resources you couldn't access otherwise (see chimps probing for termites with sticks). However, intelligence isn't the only way to adapt (well, bacteria have been around and flourishing for more than 3 billion years, and they aren't exactly the smartest living things ). Moreover, a large brain is costly; if the cost of its maintenance outweighs the advantages it gives you it's not worth developing a large brain.
You must understand that evolution is never as simple as "bigger is better" or "smarter is better". It's always influenced by many factors in a complex - and often changing - environment. (Except when you are a fruit fly in a lab of curious biologists )
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
As a general trend, maybe (though note that many modern human groups are relatively small). But, for example, mammal-like "reptiles" were getting smaller just before some of them became the first mammals.
Many things tend to get smarter as well - intelligence is often a good thing in that it gives you more flexibility and maybe helps you access resources you couldn't access otherwise (see chimps probing for termites with sticks). However, intelligence isn't the only way to adapt (well, bacteria have been around and flourishing for more than 3 billion years, and they aren't exactly the smartest living things ). Moreover, a large brain is costly; if the cost of its maintenance outweighs the advantages it gives you it's not worth developing a large brain.
You must understand that evolution is never as simple as "bigger is better" or "smarter is better". It's always influenced by many factors in a complex - and often changing - environment. (Except when you are a fruit fly in a lab of curious biologists )
Yes but the human species as a whole has been getting bigger.
Yet reptiles as a whole are much smaller.
If they actually became ammals why are there still so many reptiles around and larger ones like the Komoto virtually unchanged??
__________________ 2 Timothy 2 : 23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Linear Mode
