Evolution...are there any rules?

reply to post by r2d246




being stupid is one thing, but being studipd again this, is, well, bloody thick...

Originally posted by totallackey
The story is the creatures migrated to land and started producing hard shelled eggs. The question is why?

Because they proved to be better suited for that environment. Keep in mind that when you say "migrated to land and started producing", we're talking small changes over thousands of generations. Maybe it's good to once again also remind that we're not talking about a conscious decision to start producing different kind of eggs, but natural selection in action.


Also, r2d246

Originally posted by r2d246

1) There are no transitional species. As my good friend Kirk showed us. There is no such thing as a crocoduck!

You mean fossils?

A transitional fossil is simply a fossil which shows traits intermediate between two other fossils. Transitional fossils show likely relationships clearly, and they sometimes show details of how particular features arose. For example, the transitional fossils from reptiles to mammals show how the inner ear bones developed. Such patterns are shown whether the fossils are connected by direct ancestry or by another close relationship. And since we expect extinct side lineages to be common, we would have evidence against evolution if most transitional fossils were not from extinct side lineages

talkorigins.org...

2) Man is master over all creatures of the earth. Evolution does not explain why we are the only creation with advanced skills and intelligence. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

It actually does. Natural selection.

3) Evolution does not hold all the cards. It does not have all the answers... that makes it wrong in my book! Evolution is full of holes that cannot be explained while it's followers blindly ignore this simple truth and continue to support it.

Are you trying to be funny or are you serious? Evolution isn't supposed to "have all the answers", evolution explains characteristics of biological populations over time. Evolution has a hell of a lot of evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to get technical, there is zero evidence of god so that means you're without a doubt right now a blind follower.

4) Evolution would require vast amounts of time that just do not fit into reality. We know the world is only 6000 years young. There is time for small changes from dog to dog and cat to cat but the time needed for cat to dog is just illogically immense! I mean... for little changes to add up to BIG changes the world would have to be a lot older than 6000 years and that is just silly!

This is not funny, its very embarrassing to actually think this is true. Have you heard of radiometric dating?

Also, evolution can happen very fast.

Rapid Evolution

5) If evolution were true then what does God look like? A monkey! I think not! (see 2)

Again, evolution does not explain things like this. According to the religious side, he can be
any form correct? According to some religions, nobody knows what he looks like,
everybody knows what he looks like, he's all around us, and he's within us. Evolution
isn't looking for something thats impossible to look for.

6) Mutation does not support evolution. Changing one sequence by complete accident cannot add information and produce a more complex animal. According to evolution the first creature ever created by lightning hitting mud would have had to have all the genes necessary to mutate into intelligent human life. There can be no other explanation!

Mutations can add to a genome, and take away from it. Lighting hitting mud and creating life is not that simple. Different energies and amino-acids, along with many other factors having to do with Earth and space would have to be taken into account.

7) Statistically evolution just could not happen! Do the math yourself. 1 + 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = it ain't gonna happen!

This is not a statistic. This is a simple math problem. I have a feeling you've never researched evolution, you just don't like it because it conflicts with your beliefs of god and a 6000 year old Earth.

8) Rules or morality. Evolution cannot explain good behavior. Survival of the fittest and morality just do not mix! All athiests are evil!

All atheists are evil? I thought this was about evolution. Humans are social animals, and natural selection explains very well why we have rules and morality, as we benefit from social interaction.

Nice generalization of an entire group too.

9) Sexual reproduction. Evolutionists would have you believe that not just one life was created completely by chance but TWO! Both male and female. No evolutionist can explain how such a mutation like the different sexes could possibly just happen by chance! Again, there can be no other explanation!

Evolutionists wouldn't have you believe anything. They would give you evidence.

Click here to learn why your wrong.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Do you truly understand? What I see as contradictory in the process is this:

1) Evolutionary process is dictated by NATURAL SELECTION.
2) If the soft shelled eggs are fitting the bill and the biology is satisfactory (and it was and still is by the way), then why migrate to a new environment at all?

This is contradictory according to natural selection.

Originally posted by r2d246


1) There are no transitional species. As my good friend Kirk showed us. There is no such thing as a crocoduck!

Ok, I think I see the problem here.What you think you know about evolution comes from creationists. The crocoduck (and the banana) was one of your good friend Kirk's funnier moments. Stupid, but funny. He doesn't know anything about evolution. If you want to poke holes in it, you really need to learn what it is first. See what the people that actually work in this field have to say about it, not some creationist farce version.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Do you truly understand? What I see as contradictory in the process is this:

1) Evolutionary process is dictated by NATURAL SELECTION.
2) If the soft shelled eggs are fitting the bill and the biology is satisfactory (and it was and still is by the way), then why migrate to a new environment at all?

This is contradictory according to natural selection.

Or maybe it was the environment that was changing.

reply to post by totallackey


"Fitting the bill" is an opinion.

Are you trying to say the egg was perfect? Thats impossible.

You know the environment changes right?
You know other animals exist right?
You know things around the egg change right?
You know mutations can be random right?

Its nothing contradictory about it.

Something will cause the egg to change.

Aplogies for my previous phone post!

Watch this....

reply to post by Pauligirl


In a specific area only? We have creatures still existing in many different environments that still bear soft shelled eggs, correct? Why did they not change? Why are they still here?

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

In a specific area only? We have creatures still existing in many different environments that still bear soft shelled eggs, correct? Why did they not change? Why are they still here?

You answered your own question with "many different environments."
Maybe the ones that didn't change had no environmental pressure to change.

reply to post by Pauligirl


Okay...

I do not think I answered my question. Since we have many different types of creatures bearing soft-shelled eggs in many different types of environments, I would think it would be necessary to establish what types of environmental changes would be occurring to prompt:

A) Migration to a new environment; and,
B) A subsequent change from soft shelled eggs, which are already and presently observed to work in many different types of environments, to hard shelled eggs when it has been shown to not be necessary.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Okay...

I do not think I answered my question. Since we have many different types of creatures bearing soft-shelled eggs in many different types of environments, I would think it would be necessary to establish what types of environmental changes would be occurring to prompt:

A) Migration to a new environment; and,
B) A subsequent change from soft shelled eggs, which are already and presently observed to work in many different types of environments, to hard shelled eggs when it has been shown to not be necessary.

Consider, for example, a drying inland ocean shrinking slowly but steadily..

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Okay...

I do not think I answered my question. Since we have many different types of creatures bearing soft-shelled eggs in many different types of environments, I would think it would be necessary to establish what types of environmental changes would be occurring to prompt:

A) Migration to a new environment; and,
B) A subsequent change from soft shelled eggs, which are already and presently observed to work in many different types of environments, to hard shelled eggs when it has been shown to not be necessary.

what rhinoceros said or some kind of disease/parasite that only attacked the softer shelled eggs

reply to post by rhinoceros


Are there not currently creatures that lay soft shelled eggs in the very type of environment you are describing? There are many areas where areas of water expand and contract. The creatures inhabiting these areas have been there for many, many years and have still borne soft shelled eggs with no discernible changes.

reply to post by totallackey

Many who believe in evolution are self-deluded.

They deceive themselves that if the theory of evolution was explained clearly and simply enough, with recourse to the myriad examples from zoology, palaeontology, molecular biology and even genealogy that explain, illustrate and, yes, prove the reality of evolution, then creationists would be obliged to see the error of their ways and embrace the truth.

Ah, but you and I know different, don't we? Poor, purblind fools!

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm confused. Sarcasm?

To address the title alone, this thread I just started might be of interest.

Butterfly - The Secret Life Of Chaos, The Laws of Nature and the Power of Evolution

Evolution does not seem to be just for biology or life, it's more a fundamental law of nature deeply embedded in the coding of reality.

Whatever does not become extinct.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Are there not currently creatures that lay soft shelled eggs in the very type of environment you are describing? There are many areas where areas of water expand and contract. The creatures inhabiting these areas have been there for many, many years and have still borne soft shelled eggs with no discernible changes.

Different species, different behavior, different ecological niche, different challenges. If I were you, I'd look into how speciation occurs. Why? Your question indicates, that somehow every single species should be adopting to their environment in the exact same way, which makes no sense at all..

Originally posted by Astyanax
Many who believe in evolution are self-deluded.

They deceive themselves that if the theory of evolution was explained clearly and simply enough, with recourse to the myriad examples from zoology, palaeontology, molecular biology and even genealogy that explain, illustrate and, yes, prove the reality of evolution, then creationists would be obliged to see the error of their ways and embrace the truth.

It's not a fair debate. Science is falsifiable, whereas the bible, according to young earth creationists(YEC) is not. Therefore there is no conceivable amount of evidence which can be presented which would sway the beliefs of a devout YEC follower that the earth is more than 6000-10000 years old, and when they argue that's not enough time for much evolution to take place, in that one argument, they have a point.