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
Some random discussion on evolution...
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="pitabread" data-source="post: 73953230" data-attributes="member: 394892"><p>There are a number of issues with the OP:</p><p></p><p>1) Appears to be implying that evolution should result in a continual and constant state of morphological change. This is contrary with observations, which suggest a discordance between genetic changes and morphological changes.</p><p></p><p>2) Compares non-analogous scenarios. For example, the Cambrian explosion was a period 13+ million of years which involved numerous biological forms encompassing a much larger biosphere. In contrast, human evolution of 300,000 years involves a single species. Why the OP thinks that humans should have evolved a new body plan in this time is a mystery. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/scratch.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":scratch:" title="scratch :scratch:" data-shortname=":scratch:" /></p><p></p><p>Similarity, the E.Coli experiment while offering fascinating insights into evolution is also relatively limited biological speaking; again, using a single organism in a limited populations in a controlled environments.</p><p></p><p>And no, the 67,000 generations in E.Coli experiment is *not* the equivalent of 1 million years of human evolution given the difference in ecology.</p><p></p><p>3) Misconstrues what constitutes something "new" in evolutionary terms. Evolution does not build from scratch; it modifies what proceeded it. Taking whales as an example, they have numerous morphological traits which speak to their terrestrial origins; most notably the fact they still require surface oxygen in-take as they lack the ability to breath underwater.</p><p></p><p>Using birds as another example, their wings bear the hallmarks of modified vertebrate forelimbs; they are not a completely novel structure. This among other traits speaks to their ancestral origins as modified theropods.</p><p></p><p><em>edited: to correct length of Cambrian explosion</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pitabread, post: 73953230, member: 394892"] There are a number of issues with the OP: 1) Appears to be implying that evolution should result in a continual and constant state of morphological change. This is contrary with observations, which suggest a discordance between genetic changes and morphological changes. 2) Compares non-analogous scenarios. For example, the Cambrian explosion was a period 13+ million of years which involved numerous biological forms encompassing a much larger biosphere. In contrast, human evolution of 300,000 years involves a single species. Why the OP thinks that humans should have evolved a new body plan in this time is a mystery. :scratch: Similarity, the E.Coli experiment while offering fascinating insights into evolution is also relatively limited biological speaking; again, using a single organism in a limited populations in a controlled environments. And no, the 67,000 generations in E.Coli experiment is *not* the equivalent of 1 million years of human evolution given the difference in ecology. 3) Misconstrues what constitutes something "new" in evolutionary terms. Evolution does not build from scratch; it modifies what proceeded it. Taking whales as an example, they have numerous morphological traits which speak to their terrestrial origins; most notably the fact they still require surface oxygen in-take as they lack the ability to breath underwater. Using birds as another example, their wings bear the hallmarks of modified vertebrate forelimbs; they are not a completely novel structure. This among other traits speaks to their ancestral origins as modified theropods. [I]edited: to correct length of Cambrian explosion[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Some random discussion on evolution...
Top
Bottom