The Dinosaurs and evolution

[inspector]

"I'm still waiting for a reply inspector.
Why is it that you seem to avoid responding to any of my posts?"
----------------------------------


This is an evolutionary strawman. You are confusing "allele changes" with "changing of alleles". Mutations provide changes to alleles in individuals of populations. The combination of different alleles of the population constitute what is called the gene pool. Genetic variation is the frequency of different alleles in that gene pool. Within the populations reproduction, natural selection would favor some alleles (including those with favorable mutations) which would be passed on. Natural selection would not favor other alleles (most of which would have unfavorable mutations), which eventually be eliminated from the gene pool.

><>

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
You are confusing "allele changes" with "changing of alleles".

I assure you, I am not confused. Nor is this a straw man argument.

Mutations provide changes to alleles in individuals of populations...

The assertion remains. A series of small changes over time become categorical differences. Unless there is a mechanism that "corrects" or limits such changes they will continue until you have a new species or genus.

Thus a "lungfish" may continue to develop features until it qualifies as a categorical change and "becomes" an amphibian. The modern day as well as fossil evidence of such creatures is plainly evident. The evolution of a lung the changes of the fins to support locomotion on land. Since you acknowledge that mutation and natural selection do occur we can predict that further mutations will continue to adapt this fish to land as long as natural pressures continue to support the selection of such. Once/if the "fish" becomes completely adapted to land it will no longer be a fish. What's to prevent such a change?

~Raithere

 

[inspector]

Evolution suffers from the problem that many putative sequences, which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics, suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. The lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.

><>

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
blah blah blah...

Yes, I'm also familiar with the opinion that "intermediate" species are not actually "interemediate" species.

However, once again, you are addressing a side-topic... an example or analogy I have provided rather than arguing my actual point.

I'm still waiting.

~Raithere

 

[Xelios]

So let me get this straight inspector. Since you believe in creation you believe that all dinosaurs suddenly vanished and were replaced, by God, with all the species we see today? And this happened in a very short time?

And you are wrong in saying macro evolution does not occur. It may very well occur, we just haven't documented it yet. Which is not surprising, considering the timescales involved.

 

[ThatJerk]

whatsupyall

Thatjerk, your delusional and brainwashed, your not about to let go of that "evolution proves there is no God", you are ignorant and you r ranked along those bible christians that take every parables literally..Your no better than them...

When did I say "Evolution disproves God?" Unless you can provide a direct quote of mine that says such a thing, I declare you a liar of the worst kind.

I agree with evolution because it contains evidence. I have faith in it, though it is just a theory. BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT OK CHILDREN...

Do you question the existence of gravity since it is merely a theory, child? Do you question the fact that the world is round because you cannot directly observe it's curve from where you stand, child? Do you question relativity because light seems to travel instantaneously when you observe it with your weak human senses, child?

I'd like to take this chance to propose a counter-theory to evolution. Rather than evolving, humans are DE-volving; their brains are becoming less and less useful. I predict, using my theory, that fools like whatsupyall are in fact less capable of using their brains than our cave-dwelling ancestors 30 000 years ago. I await empirical confirmation of my theory in the form of his next idiotic reply.

Xelios

And you are wrong in saying macro evolution does not occur. It may very well occur, we just haven't documented it yet. Which is not surprising, considering the timescales involved.

Partially correct. We cannot directly observe macroevolution, given the timescales involved, but using fossils from the last couple of billion years we can observe it in action with only a very few gaps in the record. In fact, archaeologists now say, given the overwhelming evidence for evolution sitting in museum storerooms, that if biologists hadn't come up with evolution that they would have had to do it themselves.