Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hasanhh

Your Favorite Laugh About Evolution

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

 

Reading iCambrian on another thread led me to start this thread.

 

Evolution, as we know, is a model that answered the early 19th Century question: From our observations on selectively breeding animals, does "Nature" have a similar method.?????

 

So, this is not a debate, but rather: Have you ever seen/read as supposed example of 'evolution at work' that you think is laughable, stupid, idiotic??????

 

 

So as an example, l'll start:

 

Supposedly, in the American Northeast, there was a water-borne animal that was under threat from a particularly vicious predatory fish. (How, from a geologic record someone can determine the intensity of predatory behavior is beyond me.)

So, in response to this threat, the animal evolved legs. :wacko: Then it could runaway on land.

 

Opine: Why not wings so it could fly away?

This example somehow sounds like  "a life form can make an evolutionary decision". Which is not how evolution-models work.

"Necessity is the Mother of Invention", but "Necessity is not the Mother of Evolutionary Change" --a characteristic with utility and modality that is 'adaptable' and 'favored' and able-to-survive is.

 

Think of a virus, which is essentially unable to alter its own mode of transmission. If a few-protein-virus about never does this, how could a more complicated organism 'evolve' fast enough to evade an aggressive predator in the confined space of inland waters?

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(BISMILLAH)

 

(Salam)

 

Your example is inaccurate. You argue that the animal is somehow 'choosing' to have legs, instead of wings, while evolutionists will tell you that evolution is the result of random mutations. It didn't choose either legs or wings, it didn't even choose to mutate. It just did, which is a natural thing, we all mutate over time. Also, your argument contains a lack of understanding of the causal chain of evolution, as evolutionists describe it. They don't say that a fish suddenly started attacking the animal and it evolved to survive the attacks from the fish. You make it sound like surviving the fish was the cause of evolution, while they argue it is, in fact, the effect. The cause is simply random mutation. As a result, however, the relation between this fish and the animal, which had been living in tandem for years - like lions and deer - one eating the other, changed. Let's name them first. The original animal is A and the new mutated version is B. The fish is...F. There were initially 1000 F living off a population of 10,000 A. Out of these, one turned into a B. As a result, it could just walk onto land whenever fish came to attack, leaving all the A's at danger, while it had no problems. Over the years, it gave birth to more of its kind and when the A's and B's would be eating together and the F's attacked, all the B's would survive while the A's were eaten. Over time, since there would be competition for food between A and B, and B's don't have the other pressure of predators eating them, they flourish and, as such, take a larger portion of G, the sustenance of A and B. As there is now less G, the A population starts becoming smaller due to starvation. The F population is also facing problems as there are less prey to eat. Over time, they also start dying. They eat the A's much faster and the A's don't have enough to eat, creating pressure from both sides. A's fall in numbers rapidly and F's lose their food and also go extinct. All this was not because the original B wanted legs but because it just got them. It led to the extinction of even the F population, without mutation. The survival of B was the effect, not the cause.

 

Your argument about something complex organisms mutating is much better than the first part, though it can also be answered to a relative degree of success.

 

Since I'm not sure what to make of evolution at this time, I won't get into that answer because I'm not very convinced of it myself and will let someone else deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't cover randomness in the example and this thread is about "stories".

 

2nd, you miss understood what I wrote. Re-reading it, I see how you came to that conclusion/observation. Sorry.

 

The story: animal-threat-evolves legs- escapes and survives.

 

Your last line: Paleontology: evolution is an integration between geologic and biological information. Evolution answers that 19th century question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You argue that the animal is somehow 'choosing' to have legs, instead of wings, while evolutionists will tell you that evolution is the result of random mutations

 

What happened to 'adaptation to environment' ?  animals go through genetic changes to adapt to its environment, right? so why would they say 'random mutations' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lemurs evolved from Ali-F. Or the other way around? #Philosophy Raptor Meme

 

Sad part I can see is how children today have to bear the brunt of the Darwinian insanity in the supposedly theirs children media and can't or don't ask or really tell why the Dinosaur is not among the other animals in the zoo. How low can they fall to convince the like minded dull ones among the newer generations by forcing fantasy upon them right from birth. Simply because all the ancient bones they found so far and many can be arranged together, they come up with and create ugly, imbalanced and unnatural fantastical creatures like the Tyrannosorus Rex or whatever its name is with its gigantic skull and tiny arms. It just doesn't look right and natural. And just imagine how ironic it would be if they found all bones (and the horn) of a fossilized unicorn. I bet the scientologists wouldn't even want to put it together in the same way. That would be just too hilarious. :P

 

Its also really sad to see their cousin chimps whom the magic wand of natural selection and evolution simply missed. They also look sad sitting in their filthy cages locked up in zoos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to 'adaptation to environment' ?  animals go through genetic changes to adapt to its environment, right? so why would they say 'random mutations' ?

 

Organisms go through genetic changes, even if their environment is stable. And these changes may not always benefit the organism or assist it with its adaptation. Which is why its often considered random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about rules of life. If evolution is right .. fine. Then how they made Rules ? or Rules too was having there own Evolution ... and when both Evolution match human got a system to live ? and why braincells are in head side instead of leg side ?

 

i guess i saw some non religious who have brain in legs, they are amazing species .. found mostly in West side of world. :D  sorry just joking.

 

Is this not so complicated or a planned complication spread so that Human remain busy in this all and left focus on main target ?

Edited by alirex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scientists have recently discovered that every single human on this planer has a gene that leads back to one person/couple , therefore we all originate from one person.This means that according to the theory of evolution only one person/couple could have evolved to become a "homo-sapien"(a human). The question is why did only one/ two primates evolve to become human? and how come we don't see animals that are in the process of evolving.

 

Also, this thing about the gene proves that prophet Adam existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"scientists have recently discovered that every single human on this planer has a gene that leads back to one person/couple , therefore we all originate from one person.This means that according to the theory of evolution only one person/couple could have evolved to become a "homo-sapien"(a human)."

 

If a berry grows from a single branch of a bush, this doesnt mean that there were no other branches.  Just the same, if we originate from a single individual, it doesnt mean that that individual was the only one of its kind.

 

"The question is why did only one/ two primates evolve to become human?"

 

This would be like asking, why did only one branch have a berry, but this isnt necessarily the case. And actually, scientifically speaking, evolution occurs in species, or communities of organisms, so scientifically speaking, there were other branches/humans.

 

"and how come we don't see animals that are in the process of evolving."

 

We do. You can google "observed instances of speciation" and you can find many examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since we have iCambrian in the thread illuminating things I had a question I needed an answer to. After the first living cell came into being, how did it decide if it wanted to have roots and leaves and become a plant, instead of becoming an animal? And why didn't it attempt to lay the foundation of more kingdoms other than those of the animals and plants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this is pretty interesting.

 

Life, and if have to do some googling to find the particular dates but...life is considered to have come about over a billion years prior to the appearance of complex multi-cellular organisms like plants and animals.  So, hypothetically, if you believe in what has been identified in the fossil record, you would have the appearance of single celled organisms, then a long long period of time before anything really complex and "large" appeared.

 

But, when more complex organisms did appear, i think this is interesting, some were almost like a cross between plants and animals. Like, porifera, ancient cnidarians, echinoderms.  These organisms are animals, but they are almost like living plants.

 

But for the question, "how did it decide if it wanted to have roots and leaves and become a plant"

 

if you look at fossils of say, the burgess shale, you will find a vast plethora of features in animals.  And everyone of course has varying beliefs, but generally there is the idea that organisms with a poor ability to survive, did not proliferate.  Ancient organisms that may have had varying body plans were destroyed.

 

Also, in some cases of the fossil record, you can find organisms evolving in what are believed to be random ways.  You may find an organisms that evolved a particular feature, like a cephalopod (squid) that may have evolved a particular feature with its shell, and then it evolves in the opposite direction that it initially appeared to change toward. Its called a "series of random walks". And this may occur to due constant changes in the environment and the planet.  The planet is constantly changing, temperature may have the planet covered in ice at once point in earth history, while at another point in history you have tropical environments near the poles.  So animals are believe to, in part, evolve in ways which allow them to survive on the ever changing planet.

 

So, why might an organism become an animal rather than a plant first and not vise versa? Well, there is no current way of knowing a specific answer, but it is believe to be in part random, while also in part a scenario in which the organisms environment is manipulating what it becomes.

 

Aside from all of this, um...events like the cambrian explosion and the appearance of the ediacara biota, are believed to be just this.  These events occurred just toward the end of a major ice age.  Organisms cannot thrive in ice, but with the warming of the planet, organisms began to proliferate, and much like russia and the US had their whole arms race and race to the moon, organisms 600 million years ago are believed to have had their own nuclear arms race...with the development of eyes and teeth and defensive shells etc.  Organisms and what they became, were manipulated both by the changing planet and their competition (predation)...manipulated  into the organisms of today. So perhaps having big teeth helped one animal survive, so it had big teeth. While other animals like sea sponges, which are almost plant like, didnt need teeth because they developed poisonous thorns.  So every group of animal just kind of did its own thing.

 

And for body plans that do not exist today, assuming they did come about, they would have been defeated and erased from history.

 

 

Burgess_Shale_Hallucigenia.jpg

AnoBakay560.jpeg

WiwaxiaBakay560.jpg


and ya know, people can believe what they want.  Personally though, i think it makes sense.  And people will always say...well science is always changing.  But i say, its changing in the sense that its always building on itself.  A child changes the way he or she rides a bike, but thats only because theyre becoming better at riding the bike and they dont ride it the same way because theyve improved.  The same goes with science.  It changes, but what is established i think is pretty impressive and i personally think the evidence is convincing (though it takes time to sit around reading and finding out and understanding exactly what evidence is out there, just like with any topic, it takes time and patience to look into).


And all of these physical changes take a really really really long time. the US and Russia made nuclear weapons (modern day arms race) in a matter of decades with our minds. But for something to physically change, on a genetic basis (morphological arms race) takes much much longer. Just as a child is ever so slightly different from their parent, imagine how many generations it would take before the child didnt look like the original parent. It would take a very very long time.


And, on a side note.  It makes sense to me that organisms basically had to evolve.  If we didnt evolve to survive on the changing earth or if we didnt evolve to keep up with competition of other evolving organisms, the earth would have changed and eaten us up. Or bacteria or parasites or...ya know, viruses etc.  These things would have destroyed us all. So, i see evolution as a necessity for our survival and if youre a believer, some believers believe that...it makes sense that God would have used evolution as a process that has allowed us to survive and allowed us to develop into what we are now, and who knows, maybe we may even go beyond what we are now...some day. Life has been changing on this planet for so long that its almost hard to even fathom a million years, a hundred million, 500 million, a billion years etc.  Mankind has only had written documents for what...less than 10,000? So, we are like the new kids on the block, still working to understand our origins and our history, as well as our future.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible. Thank you for sharing that. Those plant animal hybrids are interesting. A few exist even today right? Like some insect eating plant? However nature would have looked even more cheerful if our planet had other forms of life other than plants and animals. Or who knows perhaps it does and science isn't really aware of them yet. Like a fire elemental from a D&D role playing game. Who knows they might actually exist underground in some lava filled cavern? Or ghosts which the eyes can not see and the machines can not classify or identify yet?

 

Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also have a question, iCambrian. When the first forms of life came into being.. which law related visibility to sight, sound to hearing and tangibility to touch ? I mean, there were objects which could be seen, and then creatures gradually developed sight, there were sounds which could be heard and creatures gradually developed hearing. Same goes for all other senses found in animals. Even the varying body plans that turned out to be failure were mutating or did mutate towards developing senses. So what is it in the light particles or sound particles or particles in general which initiates sight, hearing and other senses in living beings ? Or is it also a random relation which was formed by chance, that creatures developed sight and they also had something to see ?

 

Complexity does not guarantee order, so why is it that when organisms mutated they generally mutated for the better, i.e. towards developing senses ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all about discussing science. I talk about things that are easily understandable. Why anything exists the way that it does, rather than nothing existing at all isn't something that I can give a clear answer for. If I had a clear answer, the world would be a different place than it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, refreshing to see some humility from iCambrian. I was expecting the last posts to be responded with something along the lines of 'maybe there were all sorts of variations, and the useful ones remained'. 

 

But there's some continuity, we can still enjoy the trademark grandiose statements "If I had a clear answer, the world would be a different place than it is now" hahahaa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all about discussing science. I talk about things that are easily understandable. Why anything exists the way that it does, rather than nothing existing at all isn't something that I can give a clear answer for. If I had a clear answer, the world would be a different place than it is now.

 

Are you saying the evolutionary biologists haven't said anything about it ? then certainly the evolutionary cosmologists are doing better than them, as they came up with the multiverse theory ;) (that there were/are all sorts of different universes besides our's)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×