Evolution is behind?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If it's not a race then those species that lay thousands millions of eggs or even just 12 eggs per pregnancy are wasting precious time.

a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Well until proven otherwise, all life IS wasting time since there has yet to be determined if there is even a point to life. The only reasons I can think of for a lifeform to exist is to 1) reproduce and 2) stave off death for as long as possible.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

A recursive process works best when it ISN'T guided by intelligent hand and you seemed to suggest that evolution was guided by an intelligent hand in your OP.

So you say there is no blueprint in the dna of an organism that already has engineered it's entire makeup and function?

You suggest that there is no center nucleus that guides the organism throughout it's life.

So with no blue print or pineal gland how exactly are we here. And if there is no intelligent consciousness from above and below.

How do we have an environment to manipulate?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Well until proven otherwise, all life IS wasting time since there has yet to be determined if there is even a point to life.

Raise children and die!

For homosexuals it's Tool & Dye.

a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Tool & Dye.

Yeah since they dont' have children to raise or anything like that. use your life up in manufacturing and other industrial services because ultimately your not needed at the house anyway.

originally posted by: 9ArchaBallet9

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

A recursive process works best when it ISN'T guided by intelligent hand and you seemed to suggest that evolution was guided by an intelligent hand in your OP.

So you say there is no blueprint in the dna of an organism that already has engineered it's entire makeup and function?

This is confusing since DNA IS a blueprint of an organism. Are you asking if I don't believe in DNA or something? Because I certainly do believe in DNA.

You suggest that there is no center nucleus that guides the organism throughout it's life.

Can you prove that there is one?

So with no blue print or pineal gland how exactly are we here. And if there is no intelligent consciousness from above and below.

Well all life has DNA, therefore a blueprint, but not a pineal gland. Humans DO have a pineal gland, but I am hesitant to say that it can do all the things that physics and spiritualists say it can do.

How do we have an environment to manipulate?

Because the universe exists and we have the appropriate senses and motor functions to interpret and manipulate it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

TY for proving that cutting down a paragraph and answering anything with a rhetorical answer just makes it look like a waste of time.

I know it's a tactic used by the members of old to intimidate and confuse the targeted user into bowing out or rallying them up in a stuper to cause even more confusion and idiocracy on there part.

If you don't understand this. instead of being so hasty with the reply button read every word.

Good day!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Because the universe exists and we have the appropriate senses and motor functions to interpret and manipulate it.

I don't know if the universe exists or not. Our existence is pretty confusing about like that dna there.

a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Hm? Do you have a problem with how I respond to posts? Because that is how I always respond. I break a response down paragraph by paragraph to make sure I address each of the posters' points. Instead of you know, skipping points, which many posters on these forums tend to do. If you have a point that requires a long explanation, maybe don't break it up into multiple paragraphs. Paragraphs are designed to encompass one point not half a point.

Also, if you have such thin skin, maybe don't post on an internet forum. I'm not even being passive aggressive right now, let alone insulting. If you can't take my neutral tone, I'd hate to see if I actually got passive aggressive on you. Just because I don't agree with you, is no reason to get in a huff and storm off. If it looks like I misunderstood you, it behooves you to try to reexplain yourself so that you can be better understood.

originally posted by: metalholic

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Because the universe exists and we have the appropriate senses and motor functions to interpret and manipulate it.

I don't know if the universe exists or not. Our existence is pretty confusing about like that dna there.

The universe definitely exists. What isn't so well confirmed is if it is exactly what we think of it. The universe could be the fleeting dream of some toddler in another dimension, but that doesn't make it less real to us.

a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Regardless of if there is some unknown guide that has determined the evolution of life or not your bug hypothesis isn't supported by any evidence. Giant insects emerged during the paleozoic era and they had disappeared before the triassic era when the first dinosaurs appeared.



As already pointed out insects were not the size of man.
What Is the Largest Insect That Ever Lived?

The Permian extinction almost wiped out all life on earth any land animals much bigger than a meerkat went extinct because the Siberian Traps event altering the atmosphere you know the volcanic event that lasted a million years spewing gigatons of so2 and co2. As you should already know life during the permian era was closer to mammalian than that of dinosaurs I think that is where metalholic was confused and asking about hair. The largest animals of that era were about the size of grizzly bears no where near what came about during the jurassic era.

So the the problem with your bug hypothesis determining the size of dinosaurs is giant bugs disappeared before the dinosaurs appeared that and the bugs were not as big as you thought to begin with.

If you don't feel like reading about those things here is another video so between this one and the link to the other show you should be better prepared to form a better hypothesis.

a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

ITT : Yet another ATSer with no understanding of evolution offering his/her pseudo-scientific take on it.

We'd all be a lot better off if people would plant their feet squarely on the ground, stop believing in fairies, angels, numerology, crystal energies and similar nonsense and actually read a serious reference book or two on the subject.

Sorry, but it just gets old after the thousandth time..

originally posted by: 9ArchaBallet9
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yeah infact mammals didn't exist until amphibians became reptile and started evolving a 4th chamber.

But if insects didn't they come out of the water huge? Why did it take being preyed upon by larger insect species to grow into dinosaurs?

Evolution is the will to survive and that is the only way they was surviving by increasing mass. Therefore it was written they had to be larger then the insect. Otherwise they'd stayed small or shrank to be smaller then them today.

Infact this theory can't be beat.

It seems you have some misunderstandings about evolution. Creatures don't change genetically because they want to or feel like they should be different. If that were the case humans would be able to fly. Evolution is something that affects an entire population over hundreds if not thousands of generations. They don't just think, "hey I'm too big, I need to be smaller" and then magically the genes change. Gene mutations are often random.

Natural selection is the greater factor, and while it can favor certain organisms over others, it isn't about what the creature wants. It's about why the creature survives while the others die. It's about defense mechanisms and ability to efficiently gather food. It's about sexual selection.

The genetic mutations are random, but the better adapted species for the environment survive. Evolution isn't the will to survive, because it takes numerous generations, not a single individual's lifetime. Evolution is having the means to survive an environmental change.

Also, there is no evidence at all of human size insects in the entire fossil record, so you can throw that idea out the w1ndow.

Raise children and die!

For homosexuals it's Tool & Dye.

Ahhh, your true intentions emerge. I don't even get why you'd say something like that in a thread about evolution that has nothing to do with social issues.

It does make you wonder, though. If there really was an intelligence behind the genetic mutations that guide evolution, why would they choose to make homosexual creatures throughout the entire animal kingdom? Why would there be so many babies born disfigured or mutated in bad ways that cause mental illness and other disorders? Sorry but intelligent guidance of evolution doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong, it would just mean the intelligence is not even intelligent at all or enjoys watching suffering and death.

In all likelihood, insects got smaller because it increased their chance to survive as it was easier to hide from the bigger predators, and many predators wouldn't waste the effort because they are too small to offer proper sustenance. It wasn't because they wanted to be smaller, it was because the bigger ones died out.

Evolution cannot be behind because it doesn't follow any set time table. Random mutations happen over multiple generations, then the environment changes and one group survives over another based on which mutations give them an advantage over the other. It is completely dependent on the environment. Sometimes an environment can be conducive to a creature's survival for hundreds of millions of years (ie white shark / crocodile). But any given day an asteroid or comet could hit the earth and change everything.

Sorry about the long post, I felt it would be good to fully address this topic.

Well at least some sanity returned on this last page.

Just a quick question about insect size. I was under the impression that due to the method of "breathing" that insects employ, it was only the increased level of oxygen that allowed them to grow so big...BUT, also that the structural limitations of of a chitinous exoskeleton prevent them from growing to large. And that while now, insects are nowhere near as large as there skeletons could cope with, its the lack of oxygen that is limiting factor.

I think I also remember reading that the mega fauna of pre-history was pretty close to its structural limits.