does evolution exsist

[Me-Ki-Gal]

The fossils of animals, including us, match the turned off, unused, so-called junk DNA of their modern day descendants, so evolution is true. The only debate is about the method, such as if there are more methods than natural selection (in which death 'chooses').

Thought . The will to adapt. The desire . You are what you think. The will to live is a force in it self. Self preservation. It is called instinct. It goes way beyond natural selection. The ability to see the future and then to make the necessary corrections to adapt to that future before it gets here. You could call it natural selection if you want , but I like to think of it as intelligent design
by instinct. Like how a deer knows how to run out of the forest when it is burning up in a fire storm, or how the migratory bird knows to change it's rout to new lands , Like the Pelican is doing now . Changing its Migration rout because of changing environments. Intelligent design and the animal human is subject to the same laws as the pelican. We just think we are different because we still believe we are the center of the universe. Stupid bags of water is what we really are . You to spidy. Get off my back you are way to heavy to carry around anymore

 

[Rav]

Like how a deer knows how to run out of the forest when it is burning up in a fire storm, or how the migratory bird knows to change it's rout to new lands

Instinct is selected for just like any other favourable trait. It's as much a part of evolution as anything else.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Instinct is selected for just like any other favourable trait. It's as much a part of evolution as anything else.

Intelligently selected I might add for only a fool would select the alternative. I will go with the native selection my self. Like the Yakima tribe or the Black Foot, Maybe the Nez Pierce, How bout the Flat Head, No No the Hopi or the Lakota. Yeah the Hopi they know what I am talking about. They touch nature and nature touches them. Come to the way the Great House of Mica thinks before it is to late . Time is at hand

 

[Rav]

Intelligently selected I might add for only a fool would select the alternative.

It's natural selection. The mechanism can not be described as "intelligent" or "foolish". Changes are either beneficial or they are not. Those that are tend to propagate.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

i ask everyone here,
doesn't it bother you at all that science has never demonstrated macro evolution?
i would be extremley leery of a data set that fits but cannot be proved despite our best efforts.

now i ask, who are the real scientists around here?

RAV,
aren't you going to denigrate iceaura for their inclusion of lifes origins in evolution?
aren't you going to accuse them of knowing nothing?
no, you won't. you seen what appears to be a creationist you got your panties all up the crack of your ass over it.

my last words on this topic:
science has never demonstrated that macro evolution has or even can happen.
i also believe science has made a discovery which proves could not have arisen naturally which why evolutionist are distancing themselves from it.

Leopold - first of all as you were caught blatantly posting lies in your previous post, do you not think a retraction and an apology would be an appropriate start to your next post?

Secondly the quotes you posted provide support and evidence in favour of macroevolution, so you can't have it both ways by using information that supports macro to attempt to refute evolution on the one hand but denying macroevolution on the other hand

 

[greenboy]

nope I am not ignorant about it

I refused to be brainwashed from the PHD program looking for grants in our Universities, and for the Atheist movement trying to see the Creation of the Earth without GOD.

I agree. It sounds exactly like a religion. If you work very hard at remaining ignorant about it.


Wrong again. You're at least keeping up your average (which, in fact, is decidedly below average). Evolution has evidence for it, and will change to accommodate more evidence as it comes along. Religion has neither evidence nor the ability/ willingness to change to accommodate facts.

 

[greenboy]

Natural Selection fails too

color blind monkeys are mores successful hunting for insect than regular monkeys but they are not the dominant form in their population. Read all about it... Natural Selection Fails


http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/01/09-02.html?ref=hp

It's natural selection. The mechanism can not be described as "intelligent" or "foolish". Changes are either beneficial or they are not. Those that are tend to propagate.

 

[NMSquirrel]

color blind monkeys are mores successful hunting for insect than regular monkeys but they are not the dominant form in their population. Read all about it... Natural Selection Fails


http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/01/09-02.html?ref=hp

um..natural selection fails?

 

[spidergoat]

color blind monkeys are mores successful hunting for insect than regular monkeys but they are not the dominant form in their population. Read all about it... Natural Selection Fails


http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/01/09-02.html?ref=hp

So please tell me why that is a failure?

 

[Rav]

color blind monkeys are mores successful hunting for insect than regular monkeys but they are not the dominant form in their population. Read all about it... Natural Selection Fails


http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/01/09-02.html?ref=hp

From Wikipedia:

"They are omnivores, eating not only fruits, nuts, seeds, and buds, but also insects, spiders, birds' eggs, and small vertebrates. Capuchins living near water will also eat crabs and shellfish by cracking their shells with stones."

From the article you linked to:

"insects account for about a quarter of the capuchin diet, and almost half are camouflaged."

In other words, camouflaged insects account for less than 1/8th of a Capuchin Monkey's diet. This means that there is no significant survival advantage to being colorblind.

Your argument is the only thing that has failed here.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I refused to be brainwashed from the PHD program looking for grants in our Universities, and for the Atheist movement trying to see the Creation of the Earth without GOD.

You mean you'd rather stick with the "brainwashing" you've already undergone.
Fine.
Just remember that tends to leave spectacularly unqualified to judge scientific assessments on a rational basis.

PS The "atheists movement" (whatever that is) doesn't "try to see the Creation of the Earth without GOD" - atheists tend not see god at all. No effort involved.

 

[Billy T]

color blind monkeys are mores successful hunting for insect than regular monkeys but they are not the dominant form in their population. Read all about it... Natural Selection Fails. ...

I cannot tell whether you are just a dishonest troll or only very dumb.

You posted about the color blind monkeys being slightly better at catching very hard to see insects sitting on limbs (i.e. effectively camouflaged bugs) in the thread about wisdom teeth supporting evolution and had it explained to your why that is to be expected and not evidence against evolution already here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2677257&postcount=54

I will assume you are just dense and did not understand that prior post and not a dishonest troll. Thus I will explain again with a simple example:

One legged men are better than two legged men at standing on one leg for long periods because they have adapted to their handicap. They have been forced to improve their sense of balance. They are not better at standing on one leg immediately after they have lost the other. It takes time to adapt / improve other skills or senses.

Likewise if a monkey with normal color vision is forced to wear color filtering lens, he will not be immediately better at catching bugs. Never does elimination of environmental information make you better immediately in interactions with the environment, but after some period of adaptation you may learn to better use the information you still have. It is amazing what a blind person can tell you about the street he is standing near and sensing – things you probably don’t notice if detected by his sense of smell, etc.

The bug sitting on the limb is slightly closer to the monkey than the limb is so if that color blind monkey has developed better depth perception than a monkey with normal sight has, he may be better at spotting the “protruding” bug. I am not stating this is why there could be other reasons. For example to compensate for his lack of color information, perhaps he has adapted / developed the ability to see smaller scale movements – and thus he, but not the normal sighted monkey notice the slight expansion and contraction of the bugs respiration (thru the skin pours – they don’t have lungs.)

To make a valid claim that the absence of color information is directly adding the bug catching efforts instead of merely leading to some adaptation of other senses to be better, more sensitive you need to but color filters on a normally sighted monkey and then observe that immediately it becomes a more efficient bug catcher.

 

[greenboy]

In a case of

In a case of color blind monkeys, they find and eat camouflaged insect more successful than regular monkeys, ergo they should be more adapted to the environmental, better fed, stronger and able to mate more successfully than a regular monkey if they were this way, the population sooner of later should be color blind but they are not. Making a Natural Selection a Natural failure.




Wikipedia:

"They are omnivores, eating not only fruits, nuts, seeds, and buds, but also insects, spiders, birds' eggs, and small vertebrates. Capuchins living near water will also eat crabs and shellfish by cracking their shells with stones."

From the article you linked to:

"insects account for about a quarter of the capuchin diet, and almost half are camouflaged."

In other words, camouflaged insects account for less than 1/8th of a Capuchin Monkey's diet. This means that there is no significant survival advantage to being colorblind.

Your argument is the only thing that has failed here.[/QUOTE]

 

[greenboy]

I know

I know you work really hard remaining ignorant about it.

I agree. It sounds exactly like a religion. If you work very hard at remaining ignorant about it.


Wrong again. You're at least keeping up your average (which, in fact, is decidedly below average). Evolution has evidence for it, and will change to accommodate more evidence as it comes along. Religion has neither evidence nor the ability/ willingness to change to accommodate facts.

 

[Rav]

In a case of color blind monkeys, they find and eat camouflaged insect more successful than regular monkeys, ergo they should be more adapted to the environmental, better fed, stronger and able to mate more successfully than a regular monkey if they were this way, the population sooner of later should be color blind but they are not. Making a Natural Selection a Natural failure.

Nonsense. If environmental factors resulted in all or at least most of the other abundant food sources disappearing, and camouflaged insects became a primary source of food, then the colorblind monkeys would indeed prevail. But camouflaged insects are currently an inconsequential factor. They're not necessary for survival. The colorblind monkeys aren't better fed, the normal sighted monkeys eat just as much. (So what if bananas and tomatoes aren't available at the supermarket when I shop. I eat something else instead.)

In actual fact the continued existence of colorblindness in the gene pool can be seen as evidence in favour of natural selection. How? Well if the aforementioned environment factors became a reality, the species wouldn't die out because there is sufficient genetic diversity to ensure that at least some will survive. At that point all the monkeys would be colorblind.

You're essentially trying to argue that the absence of factors that might force natural selection in this case is evidence that it can't happen. You're being completely ridiculous.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

In a case of color blind monkeys, they find and eat camouflaged insect more successful than regular monkeys, ergo they should be more adapted to the environmental, better fed, stronger and able to mate more successfully than a regular monkey if they were this way, the population sooner of later should be color blind but they are not. Making a Natural Selection a Natural failure.

If someone did a series of experiments which showed why it benefited these monkeys to be non colour blind, it wouldn't convince you of the scientific evidence for evolution, would it? For example, if it was a benefit in the choice of non-poisonous over poisonous berries which outweighed the detection of insects.

You'd just say God made it that way.

How can you be convinced of the validity of the theory if you just skip from difficult case to difficult case?

If it is impossible to convince you, it is pointless to argue with you.

 

[leopold]

Leopold - first of all as you were caught blatantly posting lies in your previous post, do you not think a retraction and an apology would be an appropriate start to your next post?

ok i will retract.
now YOU post the peer reviewed evidence of either of the following:
1. the offspring that is a different lifeform that its parents
or
2. the lifeform that was mutated into another lifeform.

macro evolution cannot proceed without one or both of the above.

 

[leopold]

There are hundreds of sources on the internet alone and even more examples that are examined in various books and magazines (google it and see for yourself). For now, I'll just give you one:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22942303/...-of-allopatric-speciation-in-Darwin-s-finches

For a more accessible summary of the above article, see: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

for some reason this appears in the 2009 edition of wired.
this study was conducted in 1992.

 

[drumbeat]

now YOU post the peer reviewed evidence of either of the following:
1. the offspring that is a different lifeform that its parents

Are you serious? :bugeye:

We are not clones of our parents.
Every single living thing that has been sexually reproduced will be the sum of, therefore different to the parents.
That means over 4 or 5 generations you will see a bigger change.
Over 1000 generations you may even have a different species.

If you don't even get that then no wonder you fail to grasp evolution.

I saw recently that there were earthworms living in arsenic-polluted soil, which would normally kill them. That means that a certain deficiency actually helped some worms survive and pretty much create a new species. It was only 170 years since the pollution began too. Not sure on the lifespan of earthworms, so no idea how many generations that is.

 

[Rav]

for some reason this appears in the 2009 edition of wired.
this study was conducted in 1992.

The paper was published in 2009 and references Galápagos Finch activity right up to 2008, so I don't know where you got 1992 from.