Evolution is a story

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not?

I'm sorry but it had to be done. (I'm not sorry)

 

[Ophiolite]

Your arguments make no sense and your conclusion is against actual evidence.

He is responding to his inner fish and swimming in circles.

 

[Loudmouth]

I could not make this statement very precise (so there there would be rooms for argument), but in general, I would say that one obvious trend of evolution is that the functions of life is becoming more complex through time. There is absolutely no reason for the evolution process to do that.

There is every reason that increased complexity would be a general trend in evolution. Function and comlexity tend to be like a ratchet. Once you gain a beneficial function it is usually detrimental to lose that function. Therefore, new functions pile onto new functions which increases complexity over time.

 

[Loudmouth]

acteria continue to adapt. But they stay as bacteria. They are not going to evolve into anything which is not bacterium.

We and chimps are primates, as was our common ancestor. We are still primates.

We and bears are mammals, as was our common ancestor. We are still mammals.

We and fish are vertebrates, as was our common ancestor. We are still vertebrates.

This is all evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why not?

The past doesn't go away. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. This is why are you still a primate, still a mammal, and still a vertebrate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They ARE supposed to.
You are cheated by evolutionists. Evolution has a trend.

A trend towards "more succesfull at surviving and reproducing" in the habitat it finds itself.

Not a trend towards "faster, bigger, stronger, smarter".

You'ld have to be seriously ignorant about the basics before being able to make such a blatant mistake.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Life forms become higher in "level" through time.
"A higher level life form". What does that mean?

Depends on context, I'ld say.

From the perspective of a human, I'ld probably understand in the psychological / narcistic fashion of we being "high" and all other species "lower".

From the perspective of taxonomy, I'ld say the "levels" follow the arrow of time. As time goes on, life becomes ever-more specialised.
So "primate" would be a "higher level" then mere "mammal".

But more importantly, I don't think this "higher life forms" is proper technical jargon in biology.

For example, I'm sure you heared the phrase that "all extant life is just as evolved". We are not "more evolved" then a chimpansee.

We are on our own evolutionary path and our ancestral bloodline is just as long as that of the chimp. It's an unbroken chain for 3.8 billion years of reproduction cycles.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't buy that interpretation. The environmental pressure today is not any higher than those in the past time. The earth is a stable planet.

LOL!

Even completely ignoring the fact of continous geological activity, which is constantly reshaping the surface of this planet (and wheater patterns along with it), I can assure you that the environment in Siberia is very different today as opposed to back when mammoths and sabel tooth tigers used it as their hunting grounds.

And let's not even begin discussing dino's.
Hint: mammals didn't do to well, back then (as opposed to today)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bacteria continue to adapt. But they stay as bacteria. They are not going to evolve into anything which is not bacterium.

Why do you keep repeating these same claims which have been demonstrated time and again to be a complete misrepresentation and/or a complete lack of understanding of the actual theory of evolution?

I also addressed this nonsense more then once.
For example:

The evidene for Evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... and bacteria continuously to adapt.

No evolution.

That is evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

That is evolution.

It is not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Bacteria continue to adapt. But they stay as bacteria. They are not going to evolve into anything which is not bacterium.

Characteristic of evolution.

Evolution says there is no prediction. But if we review what evolution did in a long period of time, we do see a trend.

If any change occurs over an extended period of time, you'll see a trend with hindsight. When organisms are extremely simple and inefficient, increases in complexity will often provide a selective advantage; once basic functions are relatively well optimized, the trend is for fewer and fewer species to show increases in complexity over time, and for amplitude of those increases to reduce also.

It's a case of diminishing returns; once a mature ecosystem has evolved, the the benefits of further increases in complexity are constrained by the costs of those increases.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is not.

Denial won't change the facts.

 

[juvenissun]

It's a case of diminishing returns; once a mature ecosystem has evolved, the the benefits of further increases in complexity are constrained by the costs of those increases.

So, function A is evolved because of environment A1.
Then the environment changed to B1, so the conditions of A1 is gone.
Then the evolution deal with B1 and develop function B.
The question is: why is the function A still needed. It is simply a waste of energy. So the function of A should fade away.

But we do not see that in life evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, function A is evolved because of environment A1.
Then the environment changed to B1, so the conditions of A1 is gone.
Then the evolution deal with B1 and develop function B.
The question is: why is the function A still needed. It is simply a waste of energy. So the function of A should fade away.

But we do not see that in life evolution.

But function A either dies off or is evolves in to function B. Which is what evolution shows.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, function A is evolved because of environment A1.
Then the environment changed to B1, so the conditions of A1 is gone.
Then the evolution deal with B1 and develop function B.
The question is: why is the function A still needed. It is simply a waste of energy. So the function of A should fade away.

But we do not see that in life evolution.

Except that we do.

A nice example of this are the non-functioning eyeballs of moles which are hidden behind a thick layer of skin.

 

[juvenissun]

But function A either dies off or is evolves in to function B. Which is what evolution shows.

No. In most cases, function A still exist. It only add function B onto it. And the new life has both function A and B.

 

[juvenissun]

Except that we do.

A nice example of this are the non-functioning eyeballs of moles which are hidden behind a thick layer of skin.

So, evolution is false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, evolution is false.

Hilarious.

First you say "we should see X (if evolution is true)!!".
I then respond with an example of X, showing that it is exactly what we see.

Your response? "So, evolution is false!!".

Absolutely hilarious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. In most cases, function A still exist. It only add function B onto it. And the new life has both function A and B.

Can you give a specific example thereof and explain why it is apparantly a problem for evolution theory?