Evolution or adaptation?

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by JASON ANTHONY, Jul 13, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,487
    You've closed your mind to logical evidence.

    Kill whitey.
    test
  2. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    you clearly are not too well versed on the topic. try doing a bit of research before you attempt to take down the dominant theory in biology.
    test
  3. zyclon B gas

    zyclon B gas sososerious

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    16,218
    whit happens.
    test
  4. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,487
    whit happens.

    kill whitey.
    test
  5. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182


    ganiksoserious
    test
  6. zyclon B gas

    zyclon B gas sososerious

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    16,218
    clearly i'm not, which is why i voiced my opinion without any factual basis. instead of pointing out the obvious, how about responding to the question?

    can you talk about why my opinion is wrong regarding the inconsistencies i perceive?
    test
  7. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    sure.

    first of all the only 'inconsistency' you pointed to was that sharks seemingly haven't evolved as much as other creatures in the last hundred million years or whatever. that's not an inconsistency, evolution works through both random and non-random forces. the non-random force is natural selection, and selection drives creatures to perfect certain 'niches' in their ecosystem which is how all lifeforms survive.

    if a shark can get by doing the same thing then it's perfectly reasonable that you wont see much large-scale change. there's no outside pressure which is pushing natural selection in the direction of one particular change. that might not be true for other creatures of the time which fill different niches and live in different ecosystems. also, not all evolution is outwardly apparent and it's not actually true that sharks have remained unchanged. they might have changed relatively less than other creatures, just like everything else new species of sharks evolve and go extinct, as reflected in the fossil record.

    as for dinosaurs to birds, "i refuse to believe" isn't an argument. i'll simply say that fossil evidence supports it, the morphology of dinosaur skeletons vs modern birds supports it, and in that recent case where a mummified dinosaur was found with flesh still in tact, molecular research done on the fossil gives additional support to that theory.

    "similar doesn't mean the same" - but if evolution is true then similarities should have a certain pattern to them. they should break down into a nested hierarchy. a good way to explain nested hierarchies is a comparison with computer directories. it's the same basic structure. you have a folder that says 'life' on it, and in it you have several sub folders. you click one of those and you have more sub folders inside the sub folder, and so on and so on.

    this is an analogy for the tree of life, which is based on evolutionary lineage.
    [​IMG]
    once a sub group branches off that means it has evolved new definitive characteristic that distinguishes it from the parent group. as you go down through the kingdom, phylum, class, family, etc of a particular lineage, the species at the end of that lineage all have all of the characteristics of each taxonomic group they belong to.

    so its organized in such a way that for instance humans have the characteristics of each of these sub groups which define our lineage:
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Primates
    Family: Hominidae
    Tribe: Hominini
    Genus: Homo

    since these groupings are based on evolutionary lineage, it means we are distantly related to all member species of the kingdom animalia, and even more related (and more similar) to the other member species of class mammalia, and even more so to the other species of primates, and so on. and no, we're not more similar to dolphins. not sure where that came from but it's absurd.

    each lifeform has its own lineage that will break down in this same way. so similarity is not randomly distributed but is broken down into distinct hierarchies, if evolution is true. and this observation holds true, which lends a lot of support to the theory. it's apparent in both DNA and morphology.

    since DNA is passed on through reproduction, it makes the most sense that this isn't just an arbitrary pattern but rather the outline of actual biological lineages over time.
    test
  8. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,487
    test
  9. zyclon B gas

    zyclon B gas sososerious

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    16,218
    Human genes are helping Texas A&M veterinarians unlock the genetic code of dolphins

    Anyway, if the climate drastically changed, and *****ly as many people suggest, wouldn't it have taken a ***** devolution from pterodactyl to hawk, etc.? i mean, some dinosaurs by all means seemed like perfect killing machines and would have thrived even during today's times. why in the world would they devolve into something that could be kicked and die? just doesn't make sense...

    anyway, as you said some things are random, so i guess that's that.

    influenza flipped the "only the strong survive" theory on its head. but that was one isolated incident.
    test
  10. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    that's an interesting article but it doesn't support the idea that we're more similar to dolphins than apes. in all honesty we are apes, but ignoring that technicality we still share both more DNA and more similar morphology with chimps than dolphins.

    as for your questions, there a few issues to clear up. first, there's no such thing as devolution. its all evolution, whether the creature seems less impressive or not. 'survival of the fittest' is somewhat misleading and is actually a circular statement. the fittest survive because they are the fittest, and they are the fittest because they survive. so natural selection simply means certain genetic traits are more successful at propagating simply because they lead to increased survival and/or reproduction among a particular species in their particular environment.

    so where one might think dinosaurs were the perfect killing machines who might out-compete all the smaller creatures, that's not necessarily so. its not certain how the dinosaurs disappeared, but assuming it was some catastrophic event which lead to drastic climate changes then smaller creatures can very often be more resilient. they require less food and are often more adaptable.
    Probing Question: Why did mammals survive the K/T extinction?

    though to be frank this conundrum isn't caused by the theory of evolution. even if all the creatures existed at once and the dinosaurs were simply killed off and the rest of us survived, you'd still be left with the question of how mammals and birds managed to survive. except it'd be a lot harder to explain how it is that all those creatures could have existed at once.

    and in all honesty it could be that birds and dinosaurs shared a common ancestor rather than birds evolving from dinosaurs, that's just not the dominant theory. but its not like evolution hinges on that particular lineage. but based on their skeletons it'd be really surprising if they're not closely related at all.

    as for the 'random' aspects of evolution that deals with things like mutation and genetic drift. it's basically just blind probability, where as natural selection is non-random in that it selects (by process of elimination) for certain genes.
    test
  11. zyclon B gas

    zyclon B gas sososerious

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    16,218
    appreciate the responses.
    test
  12. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182
    Any known incidents or pictures of Evolution in action?
    test
  13. KRich662

    KRich662 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,043
    Any pictures of Jesus or God? Or proof? Or anything other than one book that stole it's stories from other religions? :)
    test
  14. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182
    For the record, you idiots don't know shit...lol..

    but for the record on the topic.

    the Dinosaurs were scientific experiments gone haywire by the Nephillim and their techniques of gene splicing. These animals aka Dinosaurs were wicked creatures that lived amongst mankind and had to be destroyed because they would eat us literally. hence the Great Flood.

    GOD flooded the planet to rid this place of that wicked shit the Nephillim created along with most of the Nephillim themselves.

    But having small minds and limited education resources, you idiots suffer great mental capacity to understand why the term "Evolution" was created.

    You need to be led astray as to not know the truth.

    Esau claims we evolved from Apes but you don't see his ass out there trying to adopt a family of Chimps from the jungle do you? long lost relatives? where they at? the trees of the jungle? get real Esau, you lie like a fuckin rug...lol
    test
  15. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182
    stay on topic. Got any pictures of Evolution in action that we can see?
    test
  16. zyclon B gas

    zyclon B gas sososerious

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    16,218
    Check the peppered moth. Observed over 200 years. Evolution in progress.

    The flood was most likely just the rapi.d melting of the glaciers, which would have caused massive floods across the world.
    test
  17. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,487
    :lol: gene splicing?
    test
  18. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    :funny:

    i should have stopped reading at "the dinosaurs were scientific experiments.." but i'd be lying if i said i did.

    quality stuff, as usual.
    test
  19. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,487
    Lmao@ Nephillim cutting stem cells with sharp rocks.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)