Adapting VS. Evolving
This should be a good one! :argue2:
I believe in things Adapting, EX. Wolves growing longer legs in a long period of time to help trek through deep snow. (Just a dumb example off the top of my head to get my point across) I do not believe in things evolving. In the wolf example above the wolf did change but it is still a wolf!! I did not come from a monkey! :snapoutofit: Just wanted some other opinions and thoughts on what other people think, Do you believe in full-on evolution or just adaptation, or neither?! |
Animals evolve in order to adapt to their surroundings better. So essentially they do both
|
Quote:
You example describes evolving. Adapting would include... for instance... wolves beginning to use snow shoes... or migrating south to escape deep snow. So... I guess that means you believe in evolution but have adapted a argument based upon incorrect definitions of adaptation and evolution to support it. Adaptive denial... Next....:bad_boys_20: |
Quote:
|
Very good point... But are you seeing the point I am trying to get across?? I just don't see how something can evolve into another form or being...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
we didn't evolve from monkeys which exist today.....we and all monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.....that's the difference. Its not like a snap of a finger and a human was born from a monkey mother.
so in areas of deep snow, obviously the wolves which happened to randomly grow longer legs (random mutations) would be more successful at surviving in this area.....they would be more likely to live to pass on their long leg genes...and after a long enough time all wolves in this area would have this similar trait.....fast forward 100s of thousands of years and this selection between isolated populations causes enough variation to create a new species. Humans share more common genes with chimpanzees than African elephants do with Asian elephants...... |
Quote:
As others have already identified, your suggestion that growing longer legs is an "adaptation" is incorrect; longer legs ARE an example of evolution. Eating different available foods, becoming nocturnal to avoid predation, utilizing empty habitats, etc. are examples of "adaptation". Changing colour of feathers or fur, changing body shape, developing the ability to digest specific foods, developing bigger eyes/ears in response to a nocturnal lifestyle are all examples of evolution. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You will evolve into something your 18 year old self could have never imagined. |
Quote:
Just my opinion |
Check out the YouTube video in the Never seen this before Thread. A three legged black bear walking straight up is a good example of adaptation.
|
Quote:
Caterpillars to moths... selective breeding in animals... cross breeding etc etc. If one can change not just the nature but the physical characteristics of wild foxes... making them like lap dogs...in one lifetime and several generations of foxes... why is it so hard to accept that over the course of millennia... nature can influence change to the point that a species might evolve to such and extent that it no longer much resembles its ancestors? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted. Steven Wright
|
Darwin observed adaptation in birds and called it evolution(he just popularized an old idea). If he published "origin of the species" today, the scientific community would laugh their asses off at him.
No adaptation or mutation has ever created DNA information, mutation is always a loss of information. There are a huge number of scientists, not necessarily holding any particular faith based view, who do not believe in evolution. They'd just better keep their ideas to themselves as questioning this very flawed religious belief (evolution) is not tolerated. Adaptation, sure we see that every day. |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE= No adaptation or mutation has ever created DNA information, mutation is always a loss of information.[/QUOTE]
I think you are mistaken. An adaptation causes no change in DNA sequence....a mutation absolutely makes a change in the DNA sequence (the DNA information is changed or rearranged). This happens randomly and without it no new species could occur...(we would still be amino acids in a puddle somewhere without it)...and if this mutated DNA is carried by Sperm or Egg, then it is hereditary and will be passed onto offspring. simple mendelian genetics guys... |
Ok, so where did the amino acids come from?
Did they come from the Miller experiment where a scientist passed a current through a mixture of gases and claimed to have created simple amino acids? The same guy who admitted later that he filtered out the oxygen created as it would have destroyed the amino acids as they formed? Same experiment is still claimed as the origins of simple proteins even though it did"nt work and an amino acid is still a long way from a protein. I just don"t buy it and I wish real debate was allowed on it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I now understand the difference between Adaptation and Evolution. :sHa_shakeshout: So going back to my wolf example... A litter of pups is born, 3 have long legs and 4 have short ones, the wolves with short legs die off and the wolves with long legs live, the "short leg" genes are now out of the ecosystem and the only ones that breed the population are the "long leg" genes... Correct me if im wrong XD
But still a wolf always will be a wolf! I did not come from a monkey ape chimpanzee elephant fish lizard chicken... Need I go on! So we are close in DNA, maybe even related! But no human was ever a chimpanzee :snapoutofit: |
Yes big sexy the wolf is still a wolf....but if that population with longer legs is isolated from other populations for long enough they may become genetically different enough to become a new species...this takes millennia.
And you are right that you weren't a chimpanzee...but just like my wolf example two groups of the same apr species were separated and developed different traits over millennia and one became chimps and one became humans etc. We share a COMMON ANCESTOR! |
In terms if amino acids there are many theories on how they can be created....I will give it to you that they are all theories....and I won't argue about their initial creation whether it is from abiogenesis or seeded from an asteroid or put there buy god etc....the point is that they genetated and existed and we can all be traced back to that origin.
|
2 Attachment(s)
first pic is adapting.
second pic is evolution. |
How come every single fossil discovered is a fully formed
species, with not a single transitional fossil ever being found showing a route for evolution? How about "irreduceable complexity" for systems like the eye where we can"t show how it developed little by little but always appears fully formed? How come the "complexity" of organs is all mixed up in the fossil layers? It is not as cut and dried as the natural history shows would have us believe. |
Quote:
1) every fossil is from its own species or perhaps sub species. The example is sub species of moose (Alaskan, Canadian, shiras). These are sub species with distinguishable characteristics and DNA but are still moose. Given more time the shiras variety while still the same genus and species may come to a point where the difference is great enought to be considered a new species. 2) all you have to do is read about irreduceable complexity and you will find that there is no science behind It. Peer reviewed papers on the subject punch holes in the theory and it is not widely regarded as credible by most scientists. The complexity of the eye has evolved separately and independently many times. This is why squid have very human like eyes even though we are not very closely related. 3) the complexity of organs is still mixed up today. Single called organisms, invertebrates, vertebrates, plants, bacteria all exist during the same periods of history and end up in the same strata of the fossil record. Just because a vertebrates organs are more complex than those of an invertebrate or bacteria does not mean they are more "evolved".......all living things have had the same evolutionary time frame. The less complex organs are simply suitable for the environments those animals are a part of. If there is no selection favouring a change in complexity then there is no selection for the more complex trait. |
Quote:
But...through selective breeding we can breed wolves with other wolves to the point where they become...dogs. Like the Russians did with foxes. And nobody credible ever claimed that humans were ever chimps. That has long been the claim of those who oppose evolutionary theory but it is nothing more than a claim laced with bias to ensure maximum impact. The claim is that chimps are our closest biological relatives and that we shared a closely related ancestory. The idea being that we are descendants of a similar ape species that evolved to what we are today.... not that one group of chimps evolved while another did not. Similarly nobody is claiming that your house cat is descendant from a group of African Lions that evolved independant of its biologically identical wild relatives. Rather house cats are the product of certain wild cat species that evolved in a different direction than other species and then were further influenced by selective breeding. |
I"m with you up to the common ancestor. I have no problem
with an Elk like ancestor for Red deer, Sika deer and Elk all acrosd the world being able to interbreed and producec fertile hybrids, but I don't see how all these cervids started out as someting else. You can breed dogs together to weed out certain features, but they're still dogs. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.