| Creation & Evolution Forum 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. |
 | | 
2nd July 2009, 11:00 PM
|  | Senior Member
 
 | | Join Date: 27th May 2008
Posts: 702
Blessings: 68,097 My Mood 
Reps: 3,018,467,977,464,365 (power: 3,018,467,977,468) | | Originally Posted by Hespera  Ke sez:
Originally Posted by LightHorseman  Apparently not, because thats not what we see.
Increased size is not the ONLY way to improve offspring survival. QUOTE
It isn't the only but primary way. QUOTE//////////
i wonder what makes you think it is the primary way. if it were then surely all organisms would concentrate on having a few large offspring, would they not?
Every organism has a complex strategy, and size is only one factor.
Your right, it isn't the primary way and i do not know how to measure it anyway but being big and strong definitely helps the species and offspring survive. |
2nd July 2009, 11:01 PM
| | Junior Member
 
| | Join Date: 16th December 2008 Location: usa
Posts: 7,243
Blessings: 2,123,659
Reps: 110,182,959,778,071,968 (power: 0) | | | ke sez:
I never said "always" but generally being bigger is better.QUOTE///////////////////
hespera sez.
We will have a hard time defining "better" in any way except in terms of survival success, reproductive success. The house rat is a way "better " design than the rhino, whale, moose etc. Way way more successful, and way more likely to still be around ten milion years from now.
The percent of really large animals is so small that it is almost freakish for animals to get big. |
2nd July 2009, 11:03 PM
| | Junior Member
| | Join Date: 16th December 2008 Location: usa
Posts: 7,243
Blessings: 2,123,659
Reps: 110,182,959,778,071,968 (power: 0) | | | ke sez..."Your right, it isn't the primary way and i do not know how to measure it anyway but being big and strong definitely helps the species and offspring survive."QUOTE//////////
H sez...
it definitely helps with some organisms by no means all or most. |
2nd July 2009, 11:09 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 27th May 2008
Posts: 702
Blessings: 68,097 My Mood
Reps: 3,018,467,977,464,365 (power: 3,018,467,977,468) | | Originally Posted by LightHorseman I'unno... I'm not a marine biologist. Maybe the extra size gives them a longer range to support calves during migration or something?
I dunno, a mystery for sure  |
2nd July 2009, 11:11 PM
| | Junior Member
| | Join Date: 16th December 2008 Location: usa
Posts: 7,243
Blessings: 2,123,659
Reps: 110,182,959,778,071,968 (power: 0) | | | Well Ke, did you get anything from this? Does sexual dimorphism seem inexpicable in terms of evolution? or do you see some ways that it makes sense? |
2nd July 2009, 11:14 PM
|  | Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
 
| | Join Date: 19th January 2005 Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,644
Blessings: 1,091,578 My Mood 
Reps: 6,155,096,027,645,786 (power: 6,155,096,027,658) | | Originally Posted by ke1985 Does this concept only apply to whales?
I wouldn't see why.
Although, in some species (such as the Southern Flying Squirrel), larger females aids the females in defending territories with food and nests. Males of that species, on the other hand, are smaller and non-territorial. Some bat species also have larger females, probably due to an increased wing size being beneficial to carrying fetuses (especially large fetuses).
So, as you can see, there are many different reasons why the females of specific species might be larger than the males.
Does this work across the board with all species? Of course not, but each species has dimorphism (or lack thereof) that is apparently beneficial to that specific species' niche and evolutionary development along with sexual selection in many cases.
Hope that makes sense 
__________________ "And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else."
-juvenissun
Celebrating your own brain, is kinda a gay! as far as i am concerned the brain is a paraisite! a tapeworm!
-Lillen
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
2nd July 2009, 11:17 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 27th May 2008
Posts: 702
Blessings: 68,097 My Mood
Reps: 3,018,467,977,464,365 (power: 3,018,467,977,468) | | Originally Posted by Hespera Well Ke, did you get anything from this? Does sexual dimorphism seem inexpicable in terms of evolution? or do you see some ways that it makes sense?
I am still confused about sexual dimorphism.
I really cannot fathom how different species (no matter what the enviornment is) produces differences in the sexes. While i understand the different roles of the sexes, I do not understand why some female species are bigger.  |
2nd July 2009, 11:21 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 27th May 2008
Posts: 702
Blessings: 68,097 My Mood
Reps: 3,018,467,977,464,365 (power: 3,018,467,977,468) | | Originally Posted by corvus_corax I wouldn't see why.
Although, in some species (such as the Southern Flying Squirrel), larger females aids the females in defending territories with food and nests. Males of that species, on the other hand, are smaller and non-territorial. Some bat species also have larger females, probably due to an increased wing size being beneficial to carrying fetuses (especially large fetuses).
I believe all the big cats (excluding the lion) do not apply to this concept yet the female is smaller.
This also applies to all bear species.
Why wouldn't this concept apply to them?
Interestingly, lionesses can be in groups as large as 25 yet they will allow 2 males to come in and kill their young. |
2nd July 2009, 11:27 PM
| | Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
| | Join Date: 19th January 2005 Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,644
Blessings: 1,091,578 My Mood
Reps: 6,155,096,027,645,786 (power: 6,155,096,027,658) | | Originally Posted by ke1985 I believe all the big cats (excluding the lion) do not apply to this concept yet the female is smaller.
This also applies to all bear species.
Why wouldn't this concept apply to them?
What concept? I explained more than one
__________________ "And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else."
-juvenissun
Celebrating your own brain, is kinda a gay! as far as i am concerned the brain is a paraisite! a tapeworm!
-Lillen
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
2nd July 2009, 11:29 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 27th May 2008
Posts: 702
Blessings: 68,097 My Mood
Reps: 3,018,467,977,464,365 (power: 3,018,467,977,468) | | Originally Posted by corvus_corax What concept? I explained more than one
In your initial post, you explained only one so I was referring to that one. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
