Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
blueboy

Evolution

54 posts in this topic

Lets face it, Macro- evolution is a load of hogwash. There's no mechanism that can be recognised for an organism to want to shift from it's comfortable 'self' into something it probably doesn't want to be. Now Micro-evolution, what a fantastic concept; allow your creations to flow with the tide, as long as the improvements are beneficial. As for the weakest, allow intelect to evolve(in the micro sense of course)so it can have an exiting existence looking at ways to improve and put right those who are weak.

We're all too frightened to ackowledge it, but I think it's about time we grew up and realised Darwin should have stayed on his Beagle and invented another theory. Give it a few years and unlike the geological strata, links will be made making Macro evolution the Norse god of yesteryear. Brilliant concept , but totally flawed. If you get in touch Richard, I'm not a creationist, in the derogatory sense you'll no doubt put it, but just some one who thinks evolution is todays opium for the masses, limiting their total existence to three score and ten. I don't personally know whats what, but if my mrs had a genetic mutation Im sure I wouldn't want to share it with her,(even if I could)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh you have totally convinced me ! and without any evidence or alternate theory........... truly amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my gosh you have totally convinced me ! and without any evidence or alternate theory........... truly amazing.

Blueboy-- The pleasure was all mine. Nice to see you can recognise, like me, that you have been fed a load of garbage for the last few decades or so, gosh, you are clever. P.S.- Pray tell me, do the geological layers show the transformation of species then. It must do, judging from your 'well informed' acidic reply'. By the way, old prince Charlie might come out with the odd 'gosh' but he is, like evolution, a product of the imagination, and not real. Please don't patronise the English, very few go around saying 'gosh.'

Ok , bud :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, I do. :P

There's no mechanism that can be recognised for an organism to want to shift from it's comfortable 'self' into something it probably doesn't want to be.

So what does microevolution do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, if Evolution is wrong, are we here then?

You can't just say a theory is wrong without providing evidence of an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Blueboy-- The pleasure was all mine. Nice to see you can recognise, like me, that you have been fed a load of garbage for the last few decades or so, gosh, you are clever. P.S.- Pray tell me, do the geological layers show the transformation of species then. It must do, judging from your 'well informed' acidic reply'. By the way, old prince Charlie might come out with the odd 'gosh' but he is, like evolution, a product of the imagination, and not real. Please don't patronise the English, very few go around saying 'gosh.'

Ok , bud :angry:

Absolutely :)

It's called Fossil Succession, and to my knowledge has never been upturned or found to be invalid.

In a nutshell, it states that as you go backward through the geologic layers (and time), the fossils contained in those layers become simpler in form and the younger more complex forms dissappear from the record.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html

also:

[by the 1830s, fossil succession had been studied to an increasing degree, such that the broad history of life on Earth was well understood, regardless of the debate over the names applied to portions of it, and where exactly to make the divisions. All paleontologists recognized unmistakable trends in morphology through time in the succession of fossil organisms. This observation led to attempts to explain the fossil succession by various mechanisms. Perhaps the best known example is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Note that chronologically, fossil succession was well and independently established long before Darwin's evolutionary theory was proposed in 1859. Fossil succession and the geologic time scale are constrained by the observed order of the stratigraphy -- basically geometry -- not by evolutionary theory.1

http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb/1/fos_measuring.html

Edited by Shaftsbury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if macro evolution doesnt happen what allows for new species to come about on earth? You do realize all macro evolution is, is micro evolution in a longer period of time right?

And the only thing you will get to see in your lifetime is more and more and more evidence of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gosh, I do. :P

So what does microevolution do?

blueboy--micro, isn't evolving, (ultimately into another form, unlike the macro 'gosh' miracle) it's adjusting through the intrinsic homeostatic necessity of the cells and organs to adjust, according to nutritional input and the extrinsic environment. Darwin's tortoise didn't become longer necked on one island because of an inner urge to develop into another creature,(maybe a coincidence seeing that he was a tortoise many millions of years ago)his need for nutrition kicked off the intrinsic system. to build more elasticated cells (collegen) in the neck. You might think that two micros make a macro, but the changes are micro in order to preserve the species as it is, albeit with a little touch here and a little touch there. Just I suppose, like your crocodiles and the good old celeocanth, ( bless that hand forming creature) Don't tell me they peaked because they had found their perfect environment. Over hundreds of millions of years, even these gold standards must have suffered from a little bit of wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why, if Evolution is wrong, are we here then?

You can't just say a theory is wrong without providing evidence of an alternative.

Evolution is a religion, just like the other religions of the world. whereas the others need faith to believe in them, evolution needs just that little bit more, and the ability to stand being slapped around the head by the latest 'fact' every five minutes, only to find 'on reflection' many moons later, that maybe, just maybe, there may be a flaw in that particular theory. (when the excitement has died down of course) I can't show you an alternative to your theory (don't forget its only a theory) but I can bet that even Mr Dawkins has experienced, like most of us, a moment or an episode when he had to stop and wonder 'what was that? and inside klnowing it wasn't of this earth or time. I think that the answer is not meant to be found. And that just adds to the spice of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blueboy--micro, isn't evolving, (ultimately into another form, unlike the macro 'gosh' miracle) it's adjusting through the intrinsic homeostatic necessity of the cells and organs to adjust, according to nutritional input and the extrinsic environment. Darwin's tortoise didn't become longer necked on one island because of an inner urge to develop into another creature,(maybe a coincidence seeing that he was a tortoise many millions of years ago)his need for nutrition kicked off the intrinsic system. to build more elasticated cells (collegen) in the neck. You might think that two micros make a macro, but the changes are micro in order to preserve the species as it is, albeit with a little touch here and a little touch there. Just I suppose, like your crocodiles and the good old celeocanth, ( bless that hand forming creature) Don't tell me they peaked because they had found their perfect environment. Over hundreds of millions of years, even these gold standards must have suffered from a little bit of wind.

So if you have one species, that becomes physically seperated in to two different groups, and they both microevolve to suit their own, now different needs, how can they possibly both remain the same species?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if you have one species, that becomes physically seperated in to two different groups, and they both microevolve to suit their own, now different needs, how can they possibly both remain the same species?

heh thats the beauty of evolution they cant remain the same species, this blue boy is throwing in big words thinking he knows what hes talking about with no evidence to back up his claims, hes just trying to get a rise out of us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution is a religion, just like the other religions of the world. whereas the others need faith to believe in them, evolution needs just that little bit more, and the ability to stand being slapped around the head by the latest 'fact' every five minutes, only to find 'on reflection' many moons later, that maybe, just maybe, there may be a flaw in that particular theory. (when the excitement has died down of course) I can't show you an alternative to your theory (don't forget its only a theory) but I can bet that even Mr Dawkins has experienced, like most of us, a moment or an episode when he had to stop and wonder 'what was that? and inside klnowing it wasn't of this earth or time. I think that the answer is not meant to be found. And that just adds to the spice of life.

how an can evolution be a religion? its a scientific fact proven over and over again

go to the Spirituality vs Skepticism forum this has been argued about over and over again, you will see all the evidence that stacks up on side of evolution. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird, i think i agree with Blueboy actually, micro evolution makes sense...well it fits in with some stuff i've read, you know Desmond Morris, the Naked Ape Richard Dawkin, the selfish gene etc.

Blueboy, is what you mean basically that our evolution is based on change through our gradual adaptation to our environments? for the purpose of survival.

If this is the case then thats what i thought evolution was anyway :lol: , and if it wasnt, then i totally disagree with the "usual" evolution theories because evolution in terms of adaptation to environment makes perfect sense to me! :yes:

I dont know if i am grasping this discussion properly, but thats how i view it :blush:

What did Darwin mean by "inner urge" as you put it Blueboy? How do you know he was not simply refering to the same thing as you except with an older language? :huh:

hmmm, i'm going to go off and revise for this one, seems it could be interesting :tu:

NICE ONE :tsu:

nn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think that the answer is not meant to be found.

Thats your view, and if you think a god created us why would it give us such powerful brains capable of great feats of logic and critical thinking? Of course, you havent given a single shred of evidence against Evolution, which, if you open your eyes, you'll find there is mountains of evidence for, and you accuse evolution of being a religion itself?

You're free to believe whatever you want but if you're going to argue about it provide good evidence.

Edited by Cradle of Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the single most profound example of macro and micro evolution is the Hyiod bone.

While it is very useful today in practicaly every animal species, as that it provides an ancor for the base of the tongue, it is a reminent of when organisms were forming in the warm seas some billions of years ago. It's just never left us.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comment...ion_of_the_jaw/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blueboy--micro, isn't evolving, (ultimately into another form, unlike the macro 'gosh' miracle) it's adjusting through the intrinsic homeostatic necessity of the cells and organs to adjust, according to nutritional input and the extrinsic environment. Darwin's tortoise didn't become longer necked on one island because of an inner urge to develop into another creature,(maybe a coincidence seeing that he was a tortoise many millions of years ago)his need for nutrition kicked off the intrinsic system. to build more elasticated cells (collegen) in the neck. You might think that two micros make a macro, but the changes are micro in order to preserve the species as it is, albeit with a little touch here and a little touch there. Just I suppose, like your crocodiles and the good old celeocanth, ( bless that hand forming creature) Don't tell me they peaked because they had found their perfect environment. Over hundreds of millions of years, even these gold standards must have suffered from a little bit of wind.

Wow you dont even understand evolution. The turtles need for nutrition didnt kick off an intirnsic system to build more elasticated cells in the neck. Those that had the longer cells had an evolutionary advantage over those that didnt. Evolution selected those with naturally occuring longer necks to survive, breed and pass on those genes to their offsrping. Its that simple.

Once again you are completely clueless as to what evolutionary theory states. Those characteristics that enhance an animals survival in his environment are passed on to his offspring.

And you cant even begin to fathom the amount of time it takes for speciation to really occur from say ancestral land dwelling mammal to its current whale and dolphin descendants. Think MILLIONS of years. At every step along the way micro evolution is occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

awww that read a bit harsh ;)

When looking at what Blueboy is saying, i think its possibly the same thing. The nature of natural selection is that the best suited for survival survives and this happens via long term adaptive changes to environment being passed genetically. I think he possibly has a problem with the frilly terms that get used like "evolution selected" and this is the part where i agree.

To say "evolution selected" is innacurate and unscientific and implys a certain personification of evolution which can understandibly move the term into religious realms. In saying that, i do feel that although Blueboy has a point about the catagorisation of natural selection, he should perhaps of looked into what he was saying a bit more to provide a better argument for his point, and then he might not have been faced with this quite acceptable entourage of critique.

Blueboy, where did you get your information about the micro and macro perspectives of evolution?....i believe that they actually are part of the same thing, and perhaps not in as much conflict with each other as your topic implys.

NICE ONE!! :tu:

nn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if you have one species, that becomes physically seperated in to two different groups, and they both microevolve to suit their own, now different needs, how can they possibly both remain the same species?

Can't an eskimo shack up with an african? While we're at this point, if (according to macro evolution) change involves an unlikely beneficial genetic mutation, does this mutation happen to one of the sexes, or are we led to believe that it happens simutainiously, to both?(now that would take some swallowing). if it is the former, can the unmutated partners genes accept what would be 'soiled goods'? Eskimo's and africans can mix, but I think the genetic code is a bit more particular who it shares it's bed with. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weird, i think i agree with Blueboy actually, micro evolution makes sense...well it fits in with some stuff i've read, you know Desmond Morris, the Naked Ape Richard Dawkin, the selfish gene etc.

Blueboy, is what you mean basically that our evolution is based on change through our gradual adaptation to our environments? for the purpose of survival.

If this is the case then thats what i thought evolution was anyway :lol: , and if it wasnt, then i totally disagree with the "usual" evolution theories because evolution in terms of adaptation to environment makes perfect sense to me! :yes:

I dont know if i am grasping this discussion properly, but thats how i view it :blush:

What did Darwin mean by "inner urge" as you put it Blueboy? How do you know he was not simply refering to the same thing as you except with an older language? :huh:

hmmm, i'm going to go off and revise for this one, seems it could be interesting :tu:

NICE ONE :tsu:

nn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blueboy, does the macro/usual evolution theory not agree then that its adaptation to environment being passed through the generations? Does that idea not incorporate the mutation of genes due to environmental adaption?

Regards :)

nn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't an eskimo shack up with an african? While we're at this point, if (according to macro evolution) change involves an unlikely beneficial genetic mutation, does this mutation happen to one of the sexes, or are we led to believe that it happens simutainiously, to both?(now that would take some swallowing). if it is the former, can the unmutated partners genes accept what would be 'soiled goods'? Eskimo's and africans can mix, but I think the genetic code is a bit more particular who it shares it's bed with. :D

Mutations occur to individuals, which are then able to be passed on to offspring. Whether it occurs in the mother or the father is irrelevant, and no, it doesn't need to occur in both. Mutated genes can be accepted, that doesn't mean that they're going to work.

Humans only split recently, and different nationalities have in fact evolved slight differences. Had they been completely isolated for a longer period of time, speciation could occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't an eskimo shack up with an african? While we're at this point, if (according to macro evolution) change involves an unlikely beneficial genetic mutation, does this mutation happen to one of the sexes, or are we led to believe that it happens simutainiously, to both?(now that would take some swallowing). if it is the former, can the unmutated partners genes accept what would be 'soiled goods'? Eskimo's and africans can mix, but I think the genetic code is a bit more particular who it shares it's bed with. :D

One genetic mutation might be beneficial in one environment and and not so in another environment.

In regards to the mutation happening simultaneously in both sexes, thats not how evolution works. We will take the turtle example again. One turtle has a neck that reaches .2mm, yes just .2mm its miniscule, further then all the rest of its species. Now this just so happens to allow this particular turtle to reach those fruits and berries that none of its species can. It has an evolutionary advantage over the rest. Those turtles with shorter neck mutations cant eat as much, even though most of their necks are just .5mm shorter on average. They cant eat as much and therefore arent as able to survive their environment, especially in times of trouble, droughts, floods etc. Now what happens is that that turtle with a .2mm longer neck passes his genetic material on to his offspring. He also is able to have more offspring because he has enough energy to mate with more females then the average turtle.

In the next generation 1/100th of his offspring has the same genetic mutation for a longer neck, 2 females and one male. So out of 300 hundred babies he fathered only 3 have the same genetic mutation that confers an added benefit to their survival probability. But thats 2 more then the previous generation.

Now multiply these small changes over the course of millions of years and I really dont see how you cant see small changes adding up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good, that fits with my understanding of evolution. And how is this arguing with what Blueboy is saying? Does anyone actually know what their arguing against? Maybe this discussion would take a little more direction if people asked a few more questions in order to understand what it is actually that Blueboy disagrees with.

Blueboy, the above stated a very good definition of my understanding and perhaps many others understanding of evolution theory, i think it even employed some of your points which is what confuses me about this topic somewhat. What part of what is stated above bothers you about the theory, or is it something else that relates to the theory that bothers you?

If something seperate from what is stated above bothers you about the theory, what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blueboy, does the macro/usual evolution theory not agree then that its adaptation to environment being passed through the generations? Does that idea not incorporate the mutation of genes due to environmental adaption?

Regards :)

nn23

r

I had a quick look at your profile nn, or should I call you 23? If your a girl, you look quite nice, if your a bloke, forget I said that. Listen, I kicked this off simply because , on a personal level, I just think macro-evo doesn't ring true. For a theory to work, it needs to account to everything it is supposed to affect. Eg, gravity pulls, not some objects,but 'all' objects. (Now why it does , and what is its power source? is another thread away) In evolution, it appears that the arguement is a progression of species, onwardly going into the future. But what is the purpose? Is it satisfying some unwritten necessity or law? What the bloody hell are we doing with species that have totally ignored evolution? (dragonflies, crocodiles, etc). Anyway I don't think we'll ever have an answer, so do you want to talk about the Beatles or some other group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One genetic mutation might be beneficial in one environment and and not so in another environment.

In regards to the mutation happening simultaneously in both sexes, thats not how evolution works. We will take the turtle example again. One turtle has a neck that reaches .2mm, yes just .2mm its miniscule, further then all the rest of its species. Now this just so happens to allow this particular turtle to reach those fruits and berries that none of its species can. It has an evolutionary advantage over the rest. Those turtles with shorter neck mutations cant eat as much, even though most of their necks are just .5mm shorter on average. They cant eat as much and therefore arent as able to survive their environment, especially in times of trouble, droughts, floods etc. Now what happens is that that turtle with a .2mm longer neck passes his genetic material on to his offspring. He also is able to have more offspring because he has enough energy to mate with more females then the average turtle.

In the next generation 1/100th of his offspring has the same genetic mutation for a longer neck, 2 females and one male. So out of 300 hundred babies he fathered only 3 have the same genetic mutation that confers an added benefit to their survival probability. But thats 2 more then the previous generation.

Now multiply these small changes over the course of millions of years and I really dont see how you cant see small changes adding up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.