Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[eri]

I said EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH is adaptive, regardless of the fact that evolutionists insist that adaptation happens only through populations and only through random mutations via selection.

Yes, we realize what you're saying. We're trying to tell you that the adaptations you're talking about are built into the geneome of the animal, and are not evidence of individual cases of evolution happening during the animal's lifetime. And animals without that gene for adapting won't adapt within their lifetime. Although you don't agree with us, you have yet to provide an example of an animal that has shown no signs of being able to adapt to a radically different environment doing so.

If every animal on Earth could adapt this way, why do white people who move to Africa still have white skin? Why don't they adapt to have black skin instead so they don't end up with horrific sunburns? Why didn't I get smaller with thicker limbs like the Eskimos when I moved to Montana a few years ago? Wouldn't that have helped me survive?

 

[supersport]

Most of the nine species of the genus Vulpes, to which the red fox belongs, can adapt to diverse climates and habitats.

http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/animals/fox.html

 

[supersport]

Yes, we realize what you're saying. We're trying to tell you that the adaptations you're talking about are built into the geneome of the animal, and are not evidence of individual cases of evolution happening during the animal's lifetime. And animals without that gene for adapting won't adapt within their lifetime. Although you don't agree with us, you have yet to provide an example of an animal that has shown no signs of being able to adapt to a radically different environment doing so.

If every animal on Earth could adapt this way, why do white people who move to Africa still have white skin? Why don't they adapt to have black skin instead so they don't end up with horrific sunburns? Why didn't I get smaller with thicker limbs like the Eskimos when I moved to Montana a few years ago? Wouldn't that have helped me survive?

So basically what you're saying is that the neodarwin mechanism of "adaptation" through population is no longer necessary because individual adaptation has evolved?

Peoples's skin color IS adaptive...underlying genetic pigmentation takes longer to change, however....but I suggest it shouldn't take thousands/millions of years as suggested by Toe.

 

[Tomk80]

the fact is, adaptation your way would take thousands of years to spread throughout the population.

Not necessarily, but it will take a few generations, yes.

Not only that but are you suggesting that one form of fox is that much different than the next?

Not that much, but notably in some respects, yes.

Are they not all part of a main group -- with basically the same abilities and characeristics?

They are all part of the group 'foxes' yes. They all have characteristics and abilities in common. They are not all completely the same though.

Are you honestly saying that one type of fox can do something that the next cannot?

Yes. For example, red foxes cannot change the color of their fur to white in winter, which arctic foxes can do.

http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLet...Evolution.html

Anyone still buy this?

Yes, it is basically correct, although a stated a bit clumsily. When I place a red fox in the middle of the arctic, it will die. It will not grow massive layers of fat and fur. It has a limited adaptability. Also, the adaptibility it does have is already genetically determined when it is born and will not change much (if at all) during it's lifetime.

 

[Tomk80]

So basically what you're saying is that the neodarwin mechanism of "adaptation" through population is no longer necessary because individual adaptation has evolved?

No, what he is saying is that there is a limited adaptivity that is genetically determined. To go beyond this adaptivity, changes in genes are needed. These are not going to happen within the lifetime of an animal.

Peoples's skin color IS adaptive...underlying genetic pigmentation takes longer to change, however....but I suggest it shouldn't take thousands/millions of years as suggested by Toe.

Genetic pigmentation does not change in a lifetime. It occurs only through mutations or recombination, which is then passed on. That is evolution.

 

[LightHorseman]

But evolution isn't about taking animals and dumping them in antarctica, its about gradual changes! When you get sudden changes that are equivalent to dumping things in Antarctica... then what you get is mass extinctions!Macroevolution ISN'T ABOUT WHOLE NEW ORGANS APEARING FULLY FORMED!!!! An organ slowly changes over time, tiny mutations on top of other tiny mutations, over thousands of years, change structure. We aren't talking about going from tadpoles to eagles in one step, but slowly, slowly, over many generations.Lets look at birds. A lizard with birdlike characteristics poassed those characteristics on, and through mutation, some of its offspring had even MORE birdlike characteristics. Repeat this process a couple hundred times, and guess what? Eventually you have a bird with lizardlike characteristics! Nowhere is there required the formation of a completely new organ, fully formed. Just gradual changes over time, that comply with the environmental pressures inherent in the environment.Don't believe me, go look at your local Archaeopterix fossil!

 

[LightHorseman]

• an animal produces offspring or "replicates"
• the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies
• some of these copies survive and replicate again, others die before they can replicate
• which copies replicate and which die before they can do so is influenced by the environment
• inexact copies whose differences make them less well adapted to the environment have a higher probability of dying, those better adapted get a higher chance of surviving to replication age.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment; they don't change genetically during their lifetime.

 

[supersport]

Most of the nine species of the genus Vulpes, to which the red fox belongs, can adapt to diverse climates and habitats.

http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/e...imals/fox.html

does this mean nothing to anyone? And they're talking about individual adaptation.

 

[astroweezer]

Most of the nine species of the genus Vulpes, to which the red fox belongs, can adapt to diverse climates and habitats.

http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/animals/fox.html

Do tell me, oh wise supersport, how an individual fish adapts to being placed on land?

Or how does the individual snake adapt to the antartic?

Or how does the individual fox adapt to the geothermal vents under the sea?

Methinks they won't survive.

=w=

 

[Tomk80]

Most of the nine species of the genus Vulpes, to which the red fox belongs, can adapt to diverse climates and habitats.

http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/e...imals/fox.html

does this mean nothing to anyone? And they're talking about individual adaptation.

Yes, that it states what I already stated. Red foxes have a limited adaptability, which makes them able to adapt to a wide range of climates. They will not adapt to become arctic foxes, in that they will not suddenly start changing the color of their fur. To start doing that, they'll need to build up a number of mutations over a period of generations. A red fox will not adapt so much that it will start looking like any of the other 9 species.

What part of 'adapting but with limits' do you not understand?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

• an animal produces offspring or "replicates"
• the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies
• some of these copies survive and replicate again, others die before they can replicate
• which copies replicate and which die before they can do so is influenced by the environment
• inexact copies whose differences make them less well adapted to the environment have a higher probability of dying, those better adapted get a higher chance of surviving to replication age.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment; they don't change genetically during their lifetime.

Why are you posting a post from Supersport? or is my browser playing games?

 

[eri]

Thanks, Tom. My computer died for a few minutes. And it's 'she'.

Is it just me, or is this thread going in circles?

 

[Tomk80]

Thanks, Tom. My computer died for a few minutes. And it's 'she'.

Woops

Is it just me, or is this thread going in circles?

Did you expect anything less?

 

[notto]

And they're talking about individual adaptation.

No they are not.

 

[supersport]

Do tell me, oh wise supersport, how an individual fish adapts to being placed on land?

Or how does the individual snake adapt to the antartic?

Or how does the individual fox adapt to the geothermal vents under the sea?

Methinks they won't survive.

=w=

you're probably right...who said they would? I never claimed animals were invincible...I merely claimed they don't have to wait on their populations to adapt to their climates and surroundings.

 

[supersport]

No they are not.

well, heck EVERY animal can adapt through populations -- otherwise, according to you guys -- no animals would be around.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months.

What's there to collapse, Supersport? Evolution and the Bible are incompatible. I have four axioms against evolution:

1. There's no need for evolution, since God created the universe perfect.
2. The universe has only been in operation for 6000 years.
3. Evolution violates God's principles of love and harmony.
4. Since Jesus is pro-Creation, why should His followers be pro-Evolution?

 

[notto]

you're probably right...who said they would? I never claimed animals were invincible...I merely claimed they don't have to wait on their populations to adapt to their climates and surroundings.

But they do. A Red fox will never turn white or get shorter ears like the arctic fox. They are different species and the differences are expressions of genetics that have been changed over hundreds of generations.

Your claim is invalid and contrary to observed evidence. What you are suggesting has never been witnessed and there is no mechanism that allows for it.

It has been proven incorrect with direct observation of migration in the wild and animals in captivity.

Of course, you are now moving the goal posts.

supersport: the fact is a fox can change back and forth from white to dark depending on season.
notto: Any fox?
supersport: well...any fox that goes north

 

[supersport]

What's there to collapse, Supersport? Evolution and the Bible are incompatible. I have four axioms against evolution:

1. There's no need for evolution, since God created the universe perfect.
2. The universe has only been in operation for 6000 years.
3. Evolution violates God's principles of love and harmony.
4. Since Jesus is pro-Creation, why should His followers be pro-Evolution?

All I care to do is shoot down the outdated mechanism of random mutations via natural selection...after that it's all gravy. (I've even let atheists do it for me.)

 

[supersport]

But they do. A Red fox will never turn white or get shorter ears like the arctic fox. They are different species and the differences are expressions of genetics that have been changed over hundreds of generations.

Your claim is invalid and contrary to observed evidence. What you are suggesting has never been witnessed and there is no mechanism that allows for it.

It has been proven incorrect with direct observation of migration in the wild and animals in captivity.

So if you think genes are so important, how do you explain that mice and humans have the same 29,000 genes? How is it that they're expressed so differently to make us different creatures?