Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evolution questions for the science people
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TooCurious" data-source="post: 30945420" data-attributes="member: 10800"><p>Evolutionary change is spurred on by changes in an organism's habitat. Cockroaches and crocodiles have changed in minor degrees over the past several million years, but they don't exhibit changes as dramatic as some other organisms because they found an ecological niche a long time ago, and that niche has remained fairly consistent throughout the lifetime of the species, and so there has been little or no selection pressure favoring major changes.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>As Aron-Ra said, there are many species of crocodilians.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>They're not direct "ancestors" of one another, just as you and any brothers and sisters you have are not the "ancestors" of one another. The genome of one group within a ring species may be more similar than that of the others to the ancestral population, but for direct "ancestors," you need to look in the past.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Speciation has been observed in the laboratory with Drosophila (fruit flies), but you're probably looking for something more interesting than that, so I'll leave it to the experts.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>"Macro" evolution is only "micro" evolution repeated a bunch of times. It's nothing more arcane than that.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It may <em>look like</em> there's intention there, but there's no reason to suppose there really is.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Not especially so.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Flight wasn't a "goal." It is merely an effect. You'll note, there are several species of flightless birds--the ostrich, for instance. Structurally, it seems much closer to its dinosaur ancestors than, say, the sparrow or the hummingbird. And it doesn't fly.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No, by evolution via natural selection.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Rather, gradually over time, the shape of the bodies of birdlike creatures became more aerodynamic, their bones became lighter, and the muscles of their wings and shoulders became stronger. They probably started off by gliding. Eventually, a few were strong enough and light enough to generate enough lift to overcome gravity--which gave them a significant survival advantage over their fellows.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Explain to me, then, the ostrich, the emu, the cassowary, the kiwi.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>*shrug* When I step back and look at the whole process, it strikes me as so obvious as to be almost necessary, given the right conditions.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Numbers aren't everything. We exploit resources they cannot.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>That's okay. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/wave.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wave:" title="wave :wave:" data-shortname=":wave:" /> </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Nope, still a theory. In science, the word "theory" doesn't imply uncertainty or a guess, the way it does in common parlance. Instead, it means "an explanation." Heliocentrism (the idea that the earth revolves around the sun) is a theory--an explanation--that describes the planet's relation to the other objects in the solar system.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">As I'm neither a physicist nor a cosmologist, I'm not sure how liberal a use of the word it is to call string theory a "theory." However, there is a massive preponderance of evidence in support of evolution; it is a much more solid theory than string theory is at this point.</span></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Actually, it was a picture of a pegasus.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">And it would disprove evolution because it flies in the face (no pun intended) of our understanding of taxonomy and common descent. It's a mammal with six limbs and feathers, with no means of explaining the origins of these anomalous features.</span></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>If you want to believe that God created through evolution, that's your prerogative. But I think that--in part--comes from the idea you seem to have that evolution has goals. It doesn't. Birds did not evolve with flight "in mind." They simply evolved, and did so in such a way that they flew. Selection pressures favored flight, and mutation and variation made it possible.</p><p> </p><p>Imagine a puddle. The hole in the ground does not wrap itself around the water to create such a snug fit; rather, the water, being fluid, conforms itself to the shape of the hole. In this analogy, life is the water, changeable and fluid. The world, the environment, is the hole, and we mold ourselves to fit within it--not consciously or deliberately, but simply by the nature of what we are.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TooCurious, post: 30945420, member: 10800"] Evolutionary change is spurred on by changes in an organism's habitat. Cockroaches and crocodiles have changed in minor degrees over the past several million years, but they don't exhibit changes as dramatic as some other organisms because they found an ecological niche a long time ago, and that niche has remained fairly consistent throughout the lifetime of the species, and so there has been little or no selection pressure favoring major changes. As Aron-Ra said, there are many species of crocodilians. They're not direct "ancestors" of one another, just as you and any brothers and sisters you have are not the "ancestors" of one another. The genome of one group within a ring species may be more similar than that of the others to the ancestral population, but for direct "ancestors," you need to look in the past. Speciation has been observed in the laboratory with Drosophila (fruit flies), but you're probably looking for something more interesting than that, so I'll leave it to the experts. "Macro" evolution is only "micro" evolution repeated a bunch of times. It's nothing more arcane than that. It may [I]look like[/I] there's intention there, but there's no reason to suppose there really is. Not especially so. Flight wasn't a "goal." It is merely an effect. You'll note, there are several species of flightless birds--the ostrich, for instance. Structurally, it seems much closer to its dinosaur ancestors than, say, the sparrow or the hummingbird. And it doesn't fly. No, by evolution via natural selection. Rather, gradually over time, the shape of the bodies of birdlike creatures became more aerodynamic, their bones became lighter, and the muscles of their wings and shoulders became stronger. They probably started off by gliding. Eventually, a few were strong enough and light enough to generate enough lift to overcome gravity--which gave them a significant survival advantage over their fellows. Explain to me, then, the ostrich, the emu, the cassowary, the kiwi. *shrug* When I step back and look at the whole process, it strikes me as so obvious as to be almost necessary, given the right conditions. Numbers aren't everything. We exploit resources they cannot. That's okay. :wave: [FONT=Arial][/FONT] [FONT=Arial]Nope, still a theory. In science, the word "theory" doesn't imply uncertainty or a guess, the way it does in common parlance. Instead, it means "an explanation." Heliocentrism (the idea that the earth revolves around the sun) is a theory--an explanation--that describes the planet's relation to the other objects in the solar system.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial][/FONT] [FONT=Arial]As I'm neither a physicist nor a cosmologist, I'm not sure how liberal a use of the word it is to call string theory a "theory." However, there is a massive preponderance of evidence in support of evolution; it is a much more solid theory than string theory is at this point.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial][/FONT] [FONT=Arial]Actually, it was a picture of a pegasus.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]And it would disprove evolution because it flies in the face (no pun intended) of our understanding of taxonomy and common descent. It's a mammal with six limbs and feathers, with no means of explaining the origins of these anomalous features.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial][/FONT] If you want to believe that God created through evolution, that's your prerogative. But I think that--in part--comes from the idea you seem to have that evolution has goals. It doesn't. Birds did not evolve with flight "in mind." They simply evolved, and did so in such a way that they flew. Selection pressures favored flight, and mutation and variation made it possible. Imagine a puddle. The hole in the ground does not wrap itself around the water to create such a snug fit; rather, the water, being fluid, conforms itself to the shape of the hole. In this analogy, life is the water, changeable and fluid. The world, the environment, is the hole, and we mold ourselves to fit within it--not consciously or deliberately, but simply by the nature of what we are. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evolution questions for the science people
Top
Bottom