Adapting VS. Evolving

[moosehunter3-0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzSX37C5J4

[58thecat]

I choose to adapt and overcome but have evolved to this ability...

[rmk800]

Originally Posted by migrant hunter

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.

How could they interbreed and produce fertile offspring if they didn't share enough genetic DNA to suggest they were related? How can you be related enough to another species or subspecies to interbreed without a common ancestor? Just coincidence? The common ancestor no longer exists....the different species have branched out and differentiated separately.

If you had a million years and could selectively breed and isolate your group of dogs then yes, it would be possible to create a new species which is no longer a "dog".

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by migrant hunter

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.

Don't you have work to do?!?!


Lol. In regards to your point above: yes they are still dogs, to a point. At some point they may become something else (after thousands / hundreds of thousands / millions of years).

Then they may become a related species (such as wolves and coyotes - both Genus Canis) or related Genera, such as foxes and wolves (Genus Vulpes vs Canis). Eventually they may become a related family, such as bears (Ursidae) and dogs (Canidae), both of the Order Carnivora and Suborder Caniformia (along with Mustelidae [weasel family] and a bunch of others).

How did life begin? Good question. How has life evolved? Question has been well researched and described.

[rmk800]

Thank you puddle pointer


Pretty standard stuff from Bio20...no real argument anymore


Now I'm going back to work before I get sucked into a creationist vortex any further

[migrant hunter]

I'm at work, but I have evolved to the point on the food
chain where I can arse about on the internet without getting
fired!

[migrant hunter]

Hey PP, how many million years would it take for your
dogs to become labradors?

[*BigSexyHunter*]

Originally Posted by moosehunter3-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzSX37C5J4

X2, Not supporting my initial argument, but how I feel sometimes ! Thanks MooseHunter

[goldscud]

The amount of crap and lies that has been published in "peer reviewed" journals has to make one wonder about things. The "wisdom" of men is so eternal.....until next year when we find the REAL answer

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by goldscud

The amount of crap and lies that has been published in "peer reviewed" journals has to make one wonder about things. The "wisdom" of men is so eternal.....until next year when we find the REAL answer

Which, is an evolutionary process in and of itself.

[Stonegoat]

The arguments of creationists are always the same. I don't "believe" in something. Fine, don't believe, that's a choice.

I am a scientist, and the argument of whether evolution has occured or not has long since been resolved in the scientific community. The details of evolution are not fully understood, but science will eventually fill in all the pieces of the puzzle.

The best way to understand natural selection and the origin of species is to read scientific literature, and not "faith-based" rabble.

[Roughneck Country]

[QUOTE=Stonegoat;2120766]
I am a scientist, and the argument of whether evolution has occured or not has long since been resolved in the scientific community. The details of evolution are not fully understood, but science will eventually fill in all the pieces of the puzzle.

QUOTE]

This makes no sence, how can something be resolved but the details not understood with pieces of the puzzle to be filled in. Sounds to me like this is inconclusive or there are people trying to prove their own point but don't have conclusive evidence to support it.

Long story short I don't personally accept that life as we know it could have "evolved" from an amino acid soup that miraculously just happened to turn us into humans and other species into other species. Brings it back to how did anything begin in the first place , and back to the real question what does this discussion have to do with hunting??? O ya the long legged wolf thread officially derailed!

[migrant hunter]

I was enjoying an amicable debate about origin of species.
I did'nt see any mention of creation.

[stuckincity]

Originally Posted by Icatchfish

first pic is adapting.
second pic is evolution.

The last step in the second pic is wrong.

[Stonegoat]

[QUOTE=Roughneck Country;2120795]

Originally Posted by Stonegoat

I am a scientist, and the argument of whether evolution has occured or not has long since been resolved in the scientific community. The details of evolution are not fully understood, but science will eventually fill in all the pieces of the puzzle.

QUOTE]

This makes no sence, how can something be resolved but the details not understood with pieces of the puzzle to be filled in. Sounds to me like this is inconclusive or there are people trying to prove their own point but don't have conclusive evidence to support it.

Long story short I don't personally accept that life as we know it could have "evolved" from an amino acid soup that miraculously just happened to turn us into humans and other species into other species. Brings it back to how did anything begin in the first place , and back to the real question what does this discussion have to do with hunting??? O ya the long legged wolf thread officially derailed!

Really!??!

You don't see how it's possible for something to be known to be true, without all the details of its proccess fully described (yet)??

I suppose you don't "believe" in gravity either, as there are still a lot of unanswered questions about it.

In reality, there is no way there will ever be enough evidence for natural selection for creationists such as yourself.

Go ahead and believe whatever mythology you choose.

[Roughneck Country]

[QUOTE=Stonegoat;2120807]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

Really!??!

You don't see how it's possible for something to be known to be true, without all the details of its proccess fully described (yet)??

I suppose you don't "believe" in gravity either, as there are still a lot of unanswered questions about it.

In reality, there is no way there will ever be enough evidence for natural selection for creationists such as yourself.

Go ahead and believe whatever mythology you choose.

I believe what has been conclusivly proved too many holes for me in the theory. something can not be made from nothing natural selection like the wolf example makes sense evolution doesn't pass the sniff test to me but its an easy cop out for scientists that don't have the answers.

[Stonegoat]

[QUOTE=Roughneck Country;2120818]

Originally Posted by Stonegoat

I believe what has been conclusivly proved too many holes for me in the theory. something can not be made from nothing natural selection like the wolf example makes sense evolution doesn't pass the sniff test to me but its an easy cop out for scientists that don't have the answers.

FYI, science doesn't prove anything, it only disproves.

[Kawibunga]

Stonegoat

The Gravity analogy is very good, and the quick editing of your post was well done as your first try was definitely belittling a bit. One can put forward a counter point without calling another down. A good scientist should know that

As for the original poster, do some reading of proper peer reviewed info and decide for yourself as that's all that matters. But the science speaks for itself in my opinion on Evolution. There's some crazy reading on Time and The Universe that you can find that's dumbed down for us no Astrophysicists. Makes you really wonder and really appreciate what they (the science comunity) DOESN"T know.

Cheers,

[Stonegoat]

Originally Posted by Kawibunga

Stonegoat

The Gravity analogy is very good, and the quick editing of your post was well done as your first try was definitely belittling a bit. One can put forward a counter point without calling another down. A good scientist should know that

As for the original poster, do some reading of proper peer reviewed info and decide for yourself as that's all that matters. But the science speaks for itself in my opinion on Evolution. There's some crazy reading on Time and The Universe that you can find that's dumbed down for us no Astrophysicists. Makes you really wonder and really appreciate what they (the science comunity) DOESN"T know.

Cheers,

True. My editing was quick, as I realized I was letting my frustration influence my post.

The problem with science as perceived by non-scientists, is that it has no real dogma (unlike theists). Science is simply a tool used to try and understand the world around us. As we enter subatomic physics, things get freaky, and our simpler notions no longer apply. Simply put, we begin to alter out theories, and in some cases scrap them altogether, as new evidence further illuminates our understanding. That is the dynamic beauty of science, and it's weakness in the eyes of creationists, et al.

As an aside, I once dated a girl who was very religious. She believed the earth was only about 5000 years old. I asked her to explain the aquatic fossils I had seen atop mountians in northern BC. Her reply was simple, and one I could not counter: they were placed there by the devil to trick mankind.
....good thing she was hot

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by migrant hunter

Hey PP, how many million years would it take for your
dogs to become labradors?

Evolution doesn't work backwards.... that would be "de-evolution" and counter productive.

[Unregistered user]

The whole thing is explained in "Idiocracy".

[Icatchfish]

Originally Posted by stuckincity

The last step in the second pic is wrong.

lol, thats pretty good

[burbotman]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

\

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.

Well said BDB. Minute advantageous variations coupled with time, lots of time and generations.

[Red Bullets]

Some say that Einstein himself is still evolving and learning how to adapt to the modern world. Even though he is dead.

Here's proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbkdt8Wg1EQ

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by stuckincity

The last step in the second pic is wrong.

Huhh? Monkey see monkey dooooo, sorry family tree has no limbs so no evolution for some animals & mammals? Are we all equal and this is all an illusion?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by migrant hunter

I was enjoying an amicable debate about origin of species.
I did'nt see any mention of creation.

The creation is the fun part

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by Stonegoat

The problem with science as perceived by non-scientists, is that it has no real dogma (unlike theists). Science is simply a tool used to try and understand the world around us. As we enter subatomic physics, things get freaky, and our simpler notions no longer apply. Simply put, we begin to alter out theories, and in some cases scrap them altogether, as new evidence further illuminates our understanding. That is the dynamic beauty of science, and it's weakness in the eyes of creationists, et al.

The real problem with science is exactly the same as the root of all evil "the love of money".

Scientics are under pressure to come up with answers to recieve funding. The answers that are "what the funder wants to hear" will recieve more and continued support.

The medical industry is the best (or worst) example of this with the petrolum industry not far behind.

Artifically produced vitamins and minerals are now under the microscope as studies have now determined that naturally produced products can not be reproduced and still mantain balance in a body.

The science behind Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" is another example of science gone wrong.

There are many theories that have gone full circle in my lifetime and I expect many more.

When scientists use the term "missing pieces" and "yet to be determined" they are asking people to have faith no different than the religious extremist view point. AND yes there is money involved in keeping religious organizations in business that taint their dogma as well.

There are many parts of both theories that are unproven and many parts of both theories that have been disproven, leaving faith in one's understanding the common factor.

I have been around long enough to know that many among us are confused by facts and that blind faith in the scientific community is no different than those that sacrifice themselves in the name of religion.

Back to the OP. The White-tail deer is one of the masters of evolution. The Virgina White-tail as compared to our northern giants as compared to the Florida Key White-tail is an example of the different direction evolution can take and it is not a stretch to think that over the next 1,000,000 years they may become unrecognizable to each other.

The lowly Western Coyote is the master of adaptation extending his range throughout North America. He can survive in the big city or harshest wilderness with little more than pondering the task at hand.

[migrant hunter]

Is that why people used to be able to kill deer with a .30-30
but now we need at least a .300 wsm?

[Icatchfish]

Originally Posted by migrant hunter

Is that why people used to be able to kill deer with a .30-30
but now we need at least a .300 wsm?

bit off topic don't you think??

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by migrant hunter

Is that why people used to be able to kill deer with a .30-30
but now we need at least a .300 wsm?

Haha. No, that is neither evolution or adaptation; it is the end stage of a horrible disease called Magnumitis. Very sad, very sad indeed.