Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

It depends on what pressures are exerted on them. If the heat grows enough, then they'll have thinner fur, or conversely, if the climate grows colder, then they'll grow thicker fur. It all depends on how their environment changes.

They already do that. They grow a heavier winter coat of hair in actual anticipation of a colder winter. If the weather warms unseasonably in the spring they will shed that winter coat all at once, literally 'taking if off' in a few hours time. I wonder how animals are able to anticipate future weather, and even food availability. Acorns are a primary food source for many animals going into the winter, and they seem able to anticipate severe shortages by reproducing fewer offspring earlier in the year. Does evolution have an answer for this?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Let's stick with the eye thing.

First of all, stereoscopic vision is determined by the position of the eyes relative to each other, not the shape of the eye socket.

I said telescopic vision, not stereoscopic vision. The eye socket of the eagle is deeper allowing a much greater depth of field i.e. focusing clearly on distant objects, which is effectively telescopic vision.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They already do that. They grow a heavier winter coat of hair in actual anticipation of a colder winter. If the weather warms unseasonably in the spring they will shed that winter coat all at once, literally 'taking if off' in a few hours time.

No, a coat that can be shed in different weather conditions is not the same as an animal evolving a PERMANENTLY thicker coat if the climate becomes colder for longer or permanently colder.

I wonder how animals are able to anticipate future weather, and even food availability. Acorns are a primary food source for many animals going into the winter, and they seem able to anticipate severe shortages by reproducing fewer offspring earlier in the year. Does evolution have an answer for this?

... You kind of answered your own question there. The animals produce fewer offspring.

 

[Speedwell]

I said telescopic vision, not stereoscopic vision. The eye socket of the eagle is deeper allowing a much greater depth of field i.e. focusing clearly on distant objects, which is effectively telescopic vision.

Since the depth of the eye socked varies from individual to individual, it is not surprising that the average depth of the eye socket would become greater in species finding themselves in an environment where telescopic vision provided them with a survival advantage. Amongst birds which hunt from altitude those which possess more acute telescopic vision would hunt more effectively, be more likely to survive and pass the tendency to deeper eye sockets on to their progeny.

 

[Speedwell]

Acorns are a primary food source for many animals going into the winter, and they seem able to anticipate severe shortages by reproducing fewer offspring earlier in the year. Does evolution have an answer for this?

The short answer is yes. The evolution of traits like that is a study all by itself, beyond the scope of a chatroom discussion, I think, but it is very interesting. I lived in the upper Midwest for a number of years, and noticed that the degree of "busyness" of squirrels in the fall was a better indicator of the severity of the winter to come than any prognostications of the meteorologists. The squirrels have apparently evolved the ability to respond to environmental signals which are beyond us.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I said telescopic vision, not stereoscopic vision. The eye socket of the eagle is deeper allowing a much greater depth of field i.e. focusing clearly on distant objects, which is effectively telescopic vision.

Deeper than what? The eagle eye is actually shallower than a human eye in comparision. But it has a larger foeva with a much higher concentration of photoreceptor cells, and this is what gives the birds such great eyesight. Still, evolution produced this through natural selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

If species evolve vertically then we could not have a common ancestor.

Then you don't understand what vertical inheritance is. This is vertical inheritance:

And that "evidence" you presented is a desperate attempt to show that evolution as presented is true. The cells did not change they just organized into colonies as a preprogrammed response to a change in environment.

You need to present some evidence instead of bare assertions.

And that whole article was filled with assumptions and words like "may" and theoretical, assume and inferred. It even denotes the difficulties in time associated with it.

I'm not convinced in the least that any of it proves evolution from a common ancestor.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

The size of the vertebrate genome, the randomness of retroviral insertion, and the placement of endogenous retroviruses in vertebrate genomes are direct observations. None of it is assumed. The ERV evidence proves common descent.

 

[Loudmouth]

They already do that. They grow a heavier winter coat of hair in actual anticipation of a colder winter.

The ability to grow more hair in response to colder temps is a genetic variation. Not all mammals are able to do that.

Acorns are a primary food source for many animals going into the winter, and they seem able to anticipate severe shortages by reproducing fewer offspring earlier in the year. Does evolution have an answer for this?

Of course it has an answer. The reason for these behaviors is the DNA sequence found in their genomes. That sequence is a product of random mutation and natural selection.

 

[Mobezom]

Animals are capable of reacting differently to different stimuli, whether in behavior or through expression of certain genes. An example of this is the rabbit, I can't remember which, that is dark-coloured if raised in a cold place, and light-coloured if raised in a warm place. Such a capability would be selected for, as it would enable the carrier of that capability to spread its species to other environments much more quickly than it otherwise could; evolution works over multiple generations, so a species without this capability would creep toward a cold place slowly over a hundred years, while a species with this capability can spread throughout the whole cold environment in a generation (excluding reproduction limitations).

A more complex example of this is the supposed prognostication of squirrels. They are in fact capable of "making a guess" based on certain signs that we cannot yet track accurately. They do not do this consciously; rather, just like how a brain is essentially a complex muscle control system, or a "logic machine", there is a simple "logic machine" within squirrels.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If species evolve vertically then we could not have a common ancestor.

lol, wut?

Unless of course you are,saying that there were a million or more common ancestors. If you are then it may fit within the context of creation in that God created all the animals and set in process a way they could evolve as forced upon them by nature.

Vertical. It seems you don't know what that word means.

And that "evidence" you presented is a desperate attempt to show that evolution as presented is true. The cells did not change they just organized into colonies as a preprogrammed response to a change in environment. A change I might add that was done by an intelligent source even if accidental.

lol.... sounds like "heads I win, tails you lose"

And that whole article was filled with assumptions and words like "may" and theoretical, assume and inferred.

Yes, it's called intellectual honesty and integrity.
I understand that those are strange concepts if all you ever read is creationist propaganda.

It even denotes the difficulties in time associated with it.

Yes, in science one is expected to acknowledge the difficulties of the idea you propose, along with potential problems, how it could be falsified, etc. It's that whole intellectual honest and integrity thingy.

 

[Mobezom]

Haha, that's a good point, Tag. We're uncertain, they're very very certain, so they must be correct, right?

 

[Speedwell]

Haha, that's a good point, Tag. We're uncertain, they're very very certain, so they must be correct, right?

I think they are, at least, baffled and frustrated that we would prefer the relative uncertainty of science to the absolute certainty of their interpretation of scripture.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think they are, at least, baffled and frustrated that we would prefer the relative uncertainty of science to the absolute certainty of their interpretation of scripture.

Creationists perpetually project their own dogmatism and faith onto science, and it shows with statements like the ones being posted in this thread.

 

[rjs330]

Then you don't understand what vertical inheritance is. This is vertical inheritance:

You need to present some evidence instead of bare assertions.



"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

The size of the vertebrate genome, the randomness of retroviral insertion, and the placement of endogenous retroviruses in vertebrate genomes are direct observations. None of it is assumed. The ERV evidence proves common descent.

All that chart shows is an assumed inheritance of mammals. It doesn't show my point at all and it sure doesn't prove a common ancestor of all living things. I keep getting the "spider was alsways a spider" and "a monkey was always a monkey" if that is true then we could not have come from a common ancestor. What was a mammal before it was a mammal?

The ERV evidence is so new that we do not have any deep understanding of it yet. At this point it shows common design as much as it might show common ancestor.

 

[Speedwell]

All that chart shows is an assumed inheritance of mammals. It doesn't show my point at all and it sure doesn't prove a common ancestor of all living things. I keep getting the "spider was alsways a spider" and "a monkey was always a monkey" if that is true then we could not have come from a common ancestor. What was a mammal before it was a mammal?

An amniote, the common ancestor of reptiles, birds and mammals. Mammals are still amniotes and always will be.
My great grandfather was German. How many generations of my descendants will be have to be born and pass away before my great grandfather stops being German?

The ERV evidence is so new that we do not have any deep understanding of it yet. At this point it shows common design as much as it might show common ancestor.

As long as you assume that retrovirus insertions are part of the "design."

 

[Mobezom]

All that chart shows is an assumed inheritance of mammals. It doesn't show my point at all and it sure doesn't prove a common ancestor of all living things.

It wasn't intended to refute. It was intended to teach. You misunderstood what vertical evolution was. That explained the meaning of vertical evolution. It apparently failed, though, at getting the point across.

I keep getting the "spider was alsways a spider" and "a monkey was always a monkey"

False. That is not what anybody says, except for Creationists.

if that is true then we could not have come from a common ancestor.

Well thank goodness it's false then.

What was a mammal before it was a mammal?

A reptile or similar. Synapsids, to be precise.

The ERV evidence is so new that we do not have any deep understanding of it yet.

It's old, therefore you get to ignore it. Suuuuuure.

At this point it shows common design as much as it might show common ancestor.

Only if your God intentionally left the residue of retroviruses in the particular patterns that would suggest common ancestry. I'd call that a lie. Does your God lie?

 

[Kylie]

They already do that. They grow a heavier winter coat of hair in actual anticipation of a colder winter. If the weather warms unseasonably in the spring they will shed that winter coat all at once, literally 'taking if off' in a few hours time. I wonder how animals are able to anticipate future weather, and even food availability. Acorns are a primary food source for many animals going into the winter, and they seem able to anticipate severe shortages by reproducing fewer offspring earlier in the year. Does evolution have an answer for this?

Yes. There are many life forms that have seasonal changes. This is just another one. They are responding to environmental cues that stimulate the growth of thicker hair as the weather begins to get cooler. They are not evolving thicker hair, then evolving thinner hair six months later.

Remember - evolutionary change takes place over many generations, not on a seasonal basis.

 

[Kylie]

I said telescopic vision, not stereoscopic vision. The eye socket of the eagle is deeper allowing a much greater depth of field i.e. focusing clearly on distant objects, which is effectively telescopic vision.

Sorry, my bad.

Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[Loudmouth]

All that chart shows is an assumed inheritance of mammals.

It isn't an assumption. It is a scientific fact.

That is what vertical inheritance looks like, contrary to your claims.

It doesn't show my point at all and it sure doesn't prove a common ancestor of all living things. I keep getting the "spider was alsways a spider" and "a monkey was always a monkey" if that is true then we could not have come from a common ancestor. What was a mammal before it was a mammal?

What was a Chihuahua before it was a Chihuahua?

Mammals are amniotes, as was the common ancestor that we share with other amniotes.

The ERV evidence is so new that we do not have any deep understanding of it yet. At this point it shows common design as much as it might show common ancestor.

What wouldn't show common design with respect to the location and distribution of ERVs in primate genomes?

 

[SteveB28]

Variation is one thing, change is another. Animals aren't clones. They depend on individual differences in order to identify and interact with each other, so of course there is variation. But that isn't evolution.

For example there are chemical differences in the secretions of each deer's interdigital and tarsal glands that allow other deer to identify that particular deer. This is true throughout the whole animal kingdom. But that doesn't mean evolution is taking place.

How do you think the "variations" arose...?



.