What's new
By:

Evolution discussion

AKMVP said:
Stop bear analogy for once - pakicetus was not bear like.

And are you saying that you agree that evolution from pakicetus to whale took place but it was not caused by evolution forces but it was rather well organized and directed by intelligent designer making necessary changes in genetic codes of these transitional species until he/she got what he/she was aiming for - a whale?
Click to expand...

Okay it ain't bear-like....looks more like an anteater.

No, I don't believe whales came from "pakicetus," but you do so show me the progression chart you made up from the fossil record.
 
Can Darkwing show us the progression from fish to human or from pakicetus to whale. I gotta see this "science" stuff you all are talking about.
 
Hey I found this really creepy *** fake progression on the internet

origin-human-evolution.jpg


I'm going to have nightmares.

It looks to be suggesting that 4 legs just popped right out of the fish...or maybe the fishes retarded baby just mutated 4 legs simultaneously when it was born. I bet it was bullied in school.
 
AKMVP said:
Afraid to learn the truth?

Just skip to part 3 then, I think it will give you most answers.
Click to expand...

I tried. That narrator chick is way too annoying.

The story is made even more ridiculous with her sing-songy narration.

Find one with a brogue, british accent, or even australian and I'll go for it.
 
PearlWatson said:
I tried. That narrator chick is way too annoying.

The story is made even more ridiculous with her sing-songy narration.

Find one with a brogue, british accent, or even australian and I'll go for it.
Click to expand...

Most people commenting on her vidoes say this:

"After watching hundreds of these sorts of videos I can say that this series is definitely in the top tier in terms of quality. It's a nicely presented scholarly approach to explaining Cetacean Evolution to us laypeople. Also, you have a very clear and pleasant sounding voice. Excellent job, and thank you for your efforts".

"Beautifully done... very informative and I love your voice :)"

"Although this forced me to stay up late I am very glad to have sat through all four videos. Very well organized, presented, illustrated, and narrated videos".




But you find it annoying. Interesting.
 
I had to find the fake linear progression chart myself since you refused.

whales-graph.jpg


See how clean and well organized that sequence is.

All that Darwiniac effort spent piecing that together was wasted on supporting a designed progression. If all the fossils they find fit into the progression nicely where are all the "unfit" retarded babies that nature rejected?
 
One Brow said:
The current evidence is that whales have a much more recent common ancestry with hippos than with bears, and hippos also have legs.
Click to expand...

So the hippo was just one of the retarded babies of the pakicetus and the indolyus that managed to survive? The other retarded baby went on to make the dolphin and the whale somehow.

whale_evo.jpg


Where did the idolyus come from? Just curious.
 
PearlWatson said:
See how clean and well organized that sequence is.
Click to expand...

Obviously as it is humans ( evolutionists) who put those pieces of the puzzle together. And you just confirmed it here:

PearlWatson said:
All that Darwiniac effort spent piecing that together was wasted on supporting a designed progression. If all the fossils they find fit into the progression nicely where are all the "unfit" retarded babies that nature rejected?
Click to expand...

So you again agreeing with evolution but only disagreement you make that somebody was designing it? Have it not crossed your mind that what you call "unfit retarded babies" are in this chart up till the end?
So again, lets be clear - you agree that whales evolved from pakicetus/indionyhus, ambulocetus and so on... you believe though that it was not by evolution laws/principles throughout millions of years but by rather by "some intelligent designer" manipulating those "unfit retarded babies" and molding them to his liking until he created whale? Am I right?
 
Here's my take and what I understand about evolution:

Individual species do show a capability and proclivity to adapt to their surroundings, and an argument can be made that they "evolve" over time. However, as advanced geneticists will tell you, there is a genetic boundary between one species and another. That is, there is a physical limit to the degree that a species can change, over time or via direct hybridization experiments.

So while Darwin's thesis that species will adapt to improve their survivability is valid, there is genetic evidence within and between defined species that belie the claim that one species can transform itself into another altogether. Hence, the hypothesis that 'evolution' can account for the origin of multifarious species through transmutation--a single-celled organism ultimately becoming a monkey, then a human--is not supported by modern biology and genetics research.
 
I'll add a bit more....

Darwin put forward two theories really, one being 'natural selection' (that species adapt in favor of certain useful traits they have, or risk extinction), and the other being 'common ancestry' (that all species have a common origin or ultimately common ancestry, that all living creatures essentially comprise a single family tree of sorts). Both theories were put forth 150 years ago. The latter, in particular, could not be proven at the time, and has not been proven since. So it remains a theory or, for some, a simplistic paradigm by which to compare one species to another.

'Common ancestry' does not gain support from archeological evidence that documents the existence of certain species (including mankind) long before Darwin theorized that such species could come into existence by way of evolution. At the same time, there are significant gaps (or dramatic changes) between species with no forensic evidence of an intermediate step--that is, physical evidence that one species progressively evolved into another, let alone considering the date and geographic location that such intermediate organisms should be found. Add to it discovered evidence of life and conditions for life on other planets, and Darwin's 'Origin of Species' unravels quickly. And that's just looking at things from the perspective of physical science.

Trying to use evolutionary biology to explain the development of the human mind, of human language and culture, of philosophy, of literature, of art and music, and of science itself is also problematic.
 
Catchall said:
Here's my take and what I understand about evolution:

Individual species do show a capability and proclivity to adapt to their surroundings, and an argument can be made that they "evolve" over time. However, as advanced geneticists will tell you, there is a genetic boundary between one species and another. That is, there is a physical limit to the degree that a species can change, over time or via direct hybridization experiments.

So while Darwin's thesis that species will adapt to improve their survivability is valid, there is genetic evidence within and between defined species that belie the claim that one species can transform itself into another altogether. Hence, the hypothesis that 'evolution' can account for the origin of multifarious species through transmutation--a single-celled organism ultimately becoming a monkey, then a human--is not supported by modern biology and genetics research.
Click to expand...

Can definitely have a conversation about the concepts of evolution if you wish, since you don't seem to refuse to understand the 2+2=4 parts of evolution and using that to try to argue the non-existence of the quantum physics part of evolution.

To accurately define things like natural selection, you have to accurately define evolution. The definition is very simple. Evolution is the change in gene frequencies in a population over time. What does that mean exactly? Well, a change is simply a percentage. 30% of this allele to 70% of that allele, to make it simplistic goes to 35-65% over the course of, say, five generations. And take note, this includes the entire genotype, and not just the phenotype. Genotype is the entire genetic code, while phenotype is just the physical, observational traits. A population is a group of organisms willing and able to reproduce. So if that population changes, either with the addition of a separate, compatible population, or a separation of one population into two, through environmental or social causes, the population has changed, and thus the gene frequencies will have changed.

Natural selection is the most talked about element of evolution, and it is the most common driver of evolution. It's also one of the most obvious logical statements when you actually look at it. Basically, natural selection states that the genes in organisms that reproduce tend to last longer than genes in organisms that don't reproduce. Natural selection doesn't really affect genes that aren't part of the phenotype, since the concept is about how organisms over time are influenced by the environment, physically and behaviorally.

As far as speciation goes, and then moving into wide reaching evolutionary process, the definitions start getting a bit hairy since there's no good way to define species. From a simplistic standpoint, speciation is when two previously compatible populations no longer are able to produce viable offspring able to reproduce, when one species becomes two, given the latter part of the definition is a common way to define species. This is easy enough when dealing with tremendously complex organisms. Humans and chimps can't reproduce, thus are different species. Labradors and German Shepherds can reproduce, so they're the same species. The problem is multi-fold. First, mankind has a need to compartmentalize. This is different from that. This is not as different from that as that over there, etc. The idea of species and classification of them was started at the top, most complex side, and the definition of species and similar terms that work with complex organisms do not work as well, or not much at all when dealing with asexual prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

In any event, populations that branch and lose contact with other populations of the same species, can and will, over time, due to a wide range of evolutionary factors, become diverse and distinct enough to share a vast amount of genetic data but have that "genetic boundary" you mentioned when comparing the two populations synchronically after the two populations have evolved past the point of being the same species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top