Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum

Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/index.php)
-   Hunting Discussion (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Adapting VS. Evolving (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=192221)

*BigSexyHunter* 09-16-2013 09:42 AM

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?!

Venginator 09-16-2013 10:03 AM

Animals evolve in order to adapt to their surroundings better. So essentially they do both

Big Daddy Badger 09-16-2013 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BigSexyHunter* (Post 2118911)
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?!

Adapting is generally a conscious voluntary act...evolving is not.

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:

whammy 09-16-2013 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger (Post 2118934)
Adapting is generally a conscious voluntary act...evolving is not.

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:

Hahaha. Well put. :fighting0030:

*BigSexyHunter* 09-16-2013 11:12 AM

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:

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger (Post 2118934)
Adapting is generally a conscious
voluntary act...evolving is not.

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:


B00MER 09-16-2013 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BigSexyHunter* (Post 2118984)
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...

After many years of marriage, I can say that my wife has definitely evolved into another form of being. Ive heard there's something in wedding cake that triggers that.

rmk800 09-16-2013 11:37 AM

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......

Pudelpointer 09-16-2013 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BigSexyHunter* (Post 2118984)
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...

Educate yourself. The 'arguement' about evolution ended about 100 years ago. However, if you choose to believe otherwise, that is your choice.


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.

JRsMav 09-16-2013 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BigSexyHunter* (Post 2118911)
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?!

The funny thing is, its not about 'what you believe in'. Its about cold hard science. And evolution of species is proven science.

Sneeze 09-16-2013 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BigSexyHunter* (Post 2118984)
I just don't see how something can evolve into another form or being...

Get married.

You will evolve into something your 18 year old self could have never imagined.

Roughneck Country 09-16-2013 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BigSexyHunter* (Post 2118911)
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?!

I believe in what you are saying about adapting to the environment the species live in. ie animals grow larger the further north they are. The same as your wolf comment, At the end of the day a moose is still a moose, a wolf is still a wolf. Don't think I can buy into one species turning completly into a new species, but adapting or "evolving" to their environment makes sence, even if that adapting is due to natural selection (In your example wolves with shorter legs would have died out due to deep snow perhaps leaving only ones with longer legs)

Just my opinion

TakeEm123 09-16-2013 01:14 PM

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.

Big Daddy Badger 09-16-2013 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BigSexyHunter* (Post 2118984)
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...

And yet we can witness that happening all around us in to world.
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?

*BigSexyHunter* 09-16-2013 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country (Post 2119092)
I believe in what you are saying about adapting to the environment the species live in. ie animals grow larger the further north they are. The same as your wolf comment, At the end of the day a moose is still a moose, a wolf is still a wolf. Don't think I can buy into one species turning completly into a new species, but adapting or "evolving" to their environment makes sence, even if that adapting is due to natural selection (In your example wolves with shorter legs would have died out due to deep snow perhaps leaving only ones with longer legs)

Just my opinion

This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Thank you for explaining it better :)

*BigSexyHunter* 09-16-2013 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeEm123 (Post 2119095)
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.

That is actually how it started, got into an argument with a friend XD

Red Bullets 09-16-2013 11:36 PM

My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted. Steven Wright

migrant hunter 09-17-2013 07:30 AM

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.

Roughneck Country 09-17-2013 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by migrant hunter (Post 2120131)
If he published "origin of the species" today, the scientific community would laugh their asses off at him.

Agreed, if he had come out with this today it would never be published. The "research" he did at the time was more that of a naturalist and not based on hard "labratory" science.

rmk800 09-17-2013 07:51 AM

[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...

migrant hunter 09-17-2013 08:48 AM

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.

ramonmark 09-17-2013 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B00MER (Post 2118996)
After many years of marriage, I can say that my wife has definitely evolved into another form of being. Ive heard there's something in wedding cake that triggers that.

Good thing there was wedding cake at my wedding! I'll keep a close eye on the trophy wife over the next few full moons and keep you posted on her habitual and physical behaviour.

*BigSexyHunter* 09-17-2013 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by migrant hunter (Post 2120131)
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.

So what your saying is... Even though evolution is right in front of us and everybody sees it, some scientists still choose not to believe it? Religion set aside? Just trying to understand the point your trying to get across XD

*BigSexyHunter* 09-17-2013 09:09 AM

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:

rmk800 09-17-2013 09:44 AM

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!

rmk800 09-17-2013 09:52 AM

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.

Icatchfish 09-17-2013 10:43 AM

2 Attachment(s)
first pic is adapting.
second pic is evolution.

migrant hunter 09-17-2013 10:45 AM

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.

rmk800 09-17-2013 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by migrant hunter (Post 2120419)
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.

Ok I'll try to answer your questions:
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.

Big Daddy Badger 09-17-2013 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BigSexyHunter* (Post 2120286)
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:

\

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.

migrant hunter 09-17-2013 01:34 PM

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.