Ah right. Because that happens all the time in the real world, doesn't it?
Since he would be better-fed (less moving about for food) and less susceptible to predation then he'd have more time and energy for reproduction.
does evolution exsist
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
- Status
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
So the super frog would have more sex, simply because it has more free time and more energy? Are you sure? Like I said before, the other frogs are already perfectly suited to their environment- they have sex as much as their sex drives demand. Don't humanize these frogs; they don't work a nine to five. I'm sure they would have plenty of energy and time for sex. And do frogs take sex when ever they want it, or is their some sort of mutual ritual involved? If it takes two to tango, would this super frog really be having any more sex than the others?
Besides more time and energy for sex, any other ideas which would cause this super frog to reproduce more than the others?
Last edited:
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
The reason I gave this hypothetical super frog the power of diversified appetite and all-food assimilation is so that it would never run out of food sources. I wanted to show that these super powers I gave him are actually extraneous, not advantageous(in a scenario where the normal frogs are already perfectly adapted).
I didn't intend for this super frog to eat the other frogs. So for the purpose of keeping on point, lets just say that instinct prevents this super frog from eating his own kind. Even with this single dietary restriction, I think I was pretty generous with all the powers I endowed him with.
Edit: Although I will admit without hesitation that any animal which suddenly evolves the will and ability to kill a lesser version of it's species would certainly become the prevailing part of the gene pool of that species.
Last edited:
And you don't think that a larger range in diet helps spread a species?
Yes, I realised that. One more example of your duplicity/ superficiality.
You won't accept things as they are* because it would spoil your hypothetical scenario.
I'm done with you.
* See my previous comment on this:
Ah right. Because that happens all the time in the real world, doesn't it?
okay, but i have a surprise for you james.
yes, i disagree, with all of it
yes indeed i do want an honest conversation.
the fossil record does not support a gradual change from , say, a cat to a dog.
according to the record periods of stasis is punctuated by gaps which in turn show a completely new fully formed specimen followed by another period of stasis.
after burning up many hours on the net i think i have discovered the reason for this.
regulatory genes.
these genes have the ability to "flip" certain other genes on or off thereby creating a completely new phenotype.
this explains what is found in the record.
the next real question is what activates these genes and for that i have no answer.
so to recap:
microevolution does not lead to macroevlution.
at least i do not feel or appear stupid for ever supporting such a notion.
Last edited:
ask hercules rockefeller.
don't nail me to the wall on this because it is coming from memory.
apparently the sherpas have developed increased lung function along with increased oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.
they have possibly developed increased membrane transfer between blood and cells.
the real problem for me is chirality.
once this is solved a natural explanation becomes feasible.
yes, i will agree.
define "god"
it is irrelevant because i do not deny microevolution, never have.
uh, yes, i guess. i probably won't word it exactly that way though.
no, am not trolling. no, i'm not "dumb"
i was looking for answers to macroevolution and an explanation for what the fossil record shows.
your sample fulfilled neither of those.
I beleive it was YOUR retraction not mine
So after 20-odd pages of evasion you FINALLY find the testicular fortitude to come out and tell us what you really think- and there are few points there that arent completely idiotic - I'm surprised and even moderately impressed.
Growing a pair doesnt hurt as nearly much as you though it might does it?
The first point wasn't so clever though.
Taking it from the top - PE has been explained to you on several occasions - it is a GENERALISATION - some fossil sequences support gradualism in very great detail - some support more jerky transitions - ALL support evolution.
For example transitions recorded in the fossil record between reptiles and mammals, and between ungulate-like land mammals and ceteans are so detailed, and palaentologists have so much fine-scale data, that all they can do is resort to arguing over where point is that they have a reptile-like mammal or a mammal-like reptile / whale-like ungulate or ungulate-like whale - the records are that good!
The next - and the first intelligent point you have made to date - relates to what you call regulatory genes - presumably you mean what I call Hox genes - genes that basically control how and where things go during development (its (obviously) a bit more complex than that's probably good enough for this discussion).
You are bang on the money in thinking that a small mutation in a hox gene can potentially result in a fairly major change in an organism, and that could well be - at least in part - responsible for some of the rapid (remember we are still talking a long time geologically speaking) changes we see in the fossil record......
.......BUT.......
Any changes in an organism - big or small - are STILL subject to to the fundamental mechanics of evolution: SELECTION. So evolution as a process is unchallenged by this idea.
Think about it - a 6 legged arthropod undergoes a mutation to give it 2 extra legs; if there's no survival advatage it makes no difference if the transition is gradual or immediate - it is subject to natural selection regardless.
So "classical" microevolution does lead to macroevolution and has been shown in both the lab an in the fossil record to do so - but there are other proceses too that can cause speciation to occur that remain within evolutionary theory and do not challenge it.
Last edited:
matthew809:
No living thing is ever "perfectly suited". If you were designing the perfect frog from the ground up, you could improve on the currently existing real frogs. Frogs aren't perfectly suited to their environments. They are good enough to get by, and that's all that matters.
No living thing is ever "perfectly suited". If you were designing the perfect frog from the ground up, you could improve on the currently existing real frogs. Frogs aren't perfectly suited to their environments. They are good enough to get by, and that's all that matters.
leopold99:
You haven't said where my answers are wrong or why. In fact, you haven't even discussed post #225. Instead, you've tried to divert the conversation onto a tangent.
I'd really like to see some honesty from you sometime soon, leo.
You didn't read the link I gave you on transitional fossils, did you?
Honesty, leo. Honesty. You should start by being honest with yourself. Then you can work on being honest with other people, too.
Yes. And some of those specimens are transitional fossils.
You'd never expect to find half-formed specimens. A half-formed animal won't survive long enough to grow to maturity and fossilise.
What do you mean by "completely new". Please give me a few examples.
Biologists think that they respond to environmental influences.
So explain what is wrong with the answers I so generously provided to help your befuddled brain, in respect of post #225.
What was the mechanism of those changes?
Do you claim that individuals during their lifetimes developed those changes? If so, how were they passed to their children? If not, how did the changes come about, exactly?
You keep avoiding the question. Honesty, leo. Honesty.
Whatever. That's just another useless attempt at diversion on your part, so I'll ignore it.
---
I expect you to explain exactly, step by step, why you "disagree with all of it", regarding post #225 and my helpful explanation of it to you.
Moreover, I note that you ignored my entire post on your "goatsbeard" fail.
I want some honesty from you leo, and I want it sooner rather than later.
You haven't said where my answers are wrong or why. In fact, you haven't even discussed post #225. Instead, you've tried to divert the conversation onto a tangent.
I'd really like to see some honesty from you sometime soon, leo.
You didn't read the link I gave you on transitional fossils, did you?
Honesty, leo. Honesty. You should start by being honest with yourself. Then you can work on being honest with other people, too.
Yes. And some of those specimens are transitional fossils.
You'd never expect to find half-formed specimens. A half-formed animal won't survive long enough to grow to maturity and fossilise.
What do you mean by "completely new". Please give me a few examples.
Biologists think that they respond to environmental influences.
So explain what is wrong with the answers I so generously provided to help your befuddled brain, in respect of post #225.
What was the mechanism of those changes?
Do you claim that individuals during their lifetimes developed those changes? If so, how were they passed to their children? If not, how did the changes come about, exactly?
You keep avoiding the question. Honesty, leo. Honesty.
Whatever. That's just another useless attempt at diversion on your part, so I'll ignore it.
---
I expect you to explain exactly, step by step, why you "disagree with all of it", regarding post #225 and my helpful explanation of it to you.
Moreover, I note that you ignored my entire post on your "goatsbeard" fail.
I want some honesty from you leo, and I want it sooner rather than later.
Hey guys read this.
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html
This article is complete bullshit - and like most muslim propaganda it ranges from several decades to over 100 years out of date.
They've dressed it up and tried to make it sound intellectual, but as the saying goes: you can't polish a turd
If the extremists who wrote it really wanted to cast doubt on the fossil's authenticity, then the way to do it is staring them right in the face - create their own fake, fool the experts, then reveal it.
The reason why they don't is they know that the science really works and they'd never be able to get a fake accepted.
because i have never bought into "one lifeform into another" and the fossil record doesn't support it.
the "29 evidences for "whatever"" from talk origins?
no, because according to "science" there apparently aren't any.
'
i do not have any examples. i was looking for an explanation for what the fossil record shows and i posted what i believe to be the cause.
if it's wrong it's wrong.
living at high altitudes.
good question. people become partially acclimated to such things over the course of several weeks. whether they can completely over a lifetime i do not know.
the way other things are passed between parents and offspring.
no, it isn't useless james because the handedness of every single amino acid for the formation of life except one is the same. all carbohydrates are the opposite hand.
how this came about natural is the major problem for me.
would you like for me to press you on an answer like you so adamantly press me on things?
because the fossil record doesn't support a gradual change of one organism into another.
i do not deny microevolution, never have.
Is it correct to conclude form this that you believe each "life form" was created separately?
If so, were they all made at essentially the same time? Or, for example, birds millions of years after the dinosaurs and the preá no more than 8000 years ago?
Also to help me understand different "lifeform" is that the same as different specie?
it's what the fossil record shows. this cannot be waved away like it doesn't exist.
the cambrian explosion would be a typical example.
like a dog into a man or a frog into a bird, that sort of thing.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Given a stable environment with plenty of flies to eat, the super frog would not be any better off than the others. Would you agree?
Theoretically though, the super frog could eat the offspring of regular frogs, thereby increasing his own chances of spreading his genes better. Do you think mutation-induced cannibalism is a major mechanism of evolution?
As usually, you are not answering the questions asked.
For example. I asked if it was true that you believed each "lifeform" was created separately?
That can be answered in a word (yes or no)
Instead of answer, you replied by giving your false opinion: "it's what the fossil record shows."
I guess I can take that as an indirect answer of "yes” but please directly answer question, instead of comment, from which we can try to guess your answer. Your reply is especially confusing as it is only your false opinion, not actually a fact. I.e. In some cases the fossil record is nearly complete in showing the intermediates of the transitions and growing more complete each year as “missing links” like the coelacanth are found.
Or another example of evolution’s predicted missing links being found: Dinosaurs into birds. I.e. fossils with basically still the bone structure of earlier dinosaurs but with beaks and feathers like birds have been found in China, mainly, during the last two decades.
But whales, which evolved from four legged land animals not too long ago by evolutionary time scales, have left a complete set of fossil remains of all their transition steps to creatures that can only live in the oceans. Sciforums only allows three image inserts, so I can not show every tiny step of the transition but these three show:
First the stage with large and strong hind legs more important for swimming than the tail. Probably an amphibian, which could still walk on land;
Then more recent fossils of evolving whales have greatly reduced leg bones, but they are still an attached part of the main skeleton;
And finally just tiny useless calcium bone deposits (of the modern whale) that are just loosely floating inside the flesh, which is still red meat of its land animal ancestor, not fish-like flesh.
Come back in some what more than 10,000 years and these tiny useless calcium deposits will be gone, if whales have not become extinct.
Evolution is a still continuing and continuous process.* - Each generation is very much like the parents, but not exactly like the parents.
Read more details at link from which the figures were taken at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Your reply is so false for one who claims some understanding of evolution’s claims that one can only try to guess which it true: (a) you are incredibly ignorant or mis-informed by false creation advocates fabricated sources or (b) know the facts and just are very dishonest by stating the opposite to fact is true. (c) Both (a) & (b) are true.
In any case you deserve a perma ban. Normally one would not be banned just for "incredible ignorance" if they are sincerely trying to change that condition, with the aid of others posting here. You however are not so inclined to learn and several time have directly lied to support you false beliefs. Once to me by fabricating that fish Thor thought to be extinct had jumped onto the KonTiki and then tried to cover up that lie by claiming that was from the original edition of the book (which I read, shortly after it came out in Norway) but removed in later editions. - That is typical - the first lie often necessitates a second, etc.
----------
*But it is not correct to state the evolution proceeds only by chance genetic variation followed by "environmental selection" of the "fittest." Everyone recognizes that man has selected for the high milk production cow, etc. but less recognized is that totally useless vestigial features, which cost energy to make, such as the vestigial traces of the whales leg bones (the tiny "floating calcium deposits” of the third figure above) will be selected against by the evolving creature its self, not by the environment, and eventually disappear.
Last edited by a moderator:
it doesn't matter what i believe, it's what the evidence points to.
i'm sorry if you have a problem with that.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Could you explain in greater detail how the whale might loose this calcium deposit?
- Status