| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2006 02:14:39 PM |
| Object: |
A Question on Evolution |
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 04:45:46 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..
.... you make a fool of yourself.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Actually, it isn't "exactly" the same, any more than you are "exactly"
the same as a neanderthal man. It is recognizably the closely
related. Specifically, the species is in the same family as that
found in an 11 million year old fossil.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0004626C-B176-1410-B17683414B7F0000
As to why it didn't change much - it had no reason to do so.
Presumably the wilds of Laos are not all that much different now than
they were 11 million years ago. On the other hand, because it didn't
change, it is still confined to this tiny niche of the world. Rodents
who changed were able to, and did, move to other places in the world.
Any members of this family that tried it either died out, possibly
after evolving into something more suited for their environment.
The cockroach hasn't changed all that much in a couple hundred million
years, but it still is quite viable.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 08:27:53 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..
... you make a fool of yourself.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Actually, it isn't "exactly" the same, any more than you are "exactly"
the same as a neanderthal man. It is recognizably the closely
related. Specifically, the species is in the same family as that
found in an 11 million year old fossil.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0004626C-B176-1410-B17683414B7F0000
As to why it didn't change much - it had no reason to do so.
Presumably the wilds of Laos are not all that much different now than
they were 11 million years ago. On the other hand, because it didn't
change, it is still confined to this tiny niche of the world. Rodents
who changed were able to, and did, move to other places in the world.
Any members of this family that tried it either died out, possibly
after evolving into something more suited for their environment.
The cockroach hasn't changed all that much in a couple hundred million
years, but it still is quite viable.
lojbab
It sounds like what it shows is that species don't change into others.
They stick around...right? For example, how do you know all of the
species were not there from the start? The assumption that they change
is BASED upon the fact that some die off and other mutated species
remain due to their mutation. Isn't that the basis of Darwin's work?
Well, if the original didn't die off, how do you know all the species
were not all there from the start?
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 10:49:58 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
It sounds like what it shows is that species don't change into others.
Sometimes.
They stick around...right?
Sometimes. I am as much a homo sapiens as Julius Caesar, so we are a
species that has stuck around for a little bit.
For example, how do you know all of the species were not there from the start?
Because there is no fossil record showing that they are there "at the
start". There were billions of years with no fossil remains of any
land species at all.
The assumption that they change
is BASED upon the fact that some die off and other mutated species
remain due to their mutation.
Oversimplification. A species may mutate and both forms may remain,
but in different ecological niches. But eventually yes, some species
die off which makes room for the mutated species.
Well, if the original didn't die off,
It did.
The current species is not the exact same species of 11 million years
ago. It is a member of the same family, and thus similar. But
remember that a lion and a tiger are in the same family as a housecat.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 11:35:55 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
It sounds like what it shows is that species don't change into others.
Sometimes.
They stick around...right?
Sometimes. I am as much a homo sapiens as Julius Caesar, so we are a
species that has stuck around for a little bit.
For example, how do you know all of the species were not there from the start?
Because there is no fossil record showing that they are there "at the
start". There were billions of years with no fossil remains of any
land species at all.
There was no fossils of this rat-squirrel creature for 11 million
years, but it was there. So, whether we have or have not found
evidence doesn't mean it was there....right?
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 01:02:55 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
It sounds like what it shows is that species don't change into others.
Sometimes.
They stick around...right?
Sometimes. I am as much a homo sapiens as Julius Caesar, so we are a
species that has stuck around for a little bit.
For example, how do you know all of the species were not there from the start?
Because there is no fossil record showing that they are there "at the
start". There were billions of years with no fossil remains of any
land species at all.
There was no fossils of this rat-squirrel creature for 11 million
years, but it was there. So, whether we have or have not found
evidence doesn't mean it was there....right?
Of course. But in Laos, we haven't been able to look for several
decades, so it is quite possible that we will find the "missing link".
But that doesn't mean that we expect to find human skulls mixed up
with dinosaur bones (unless our name is Ed Conrad or perhaps Ken
Clifton).
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
13 Mar 2006 10:22:18 AM |
|
|
In article <1142098555.806011.117580@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
It sounds like what it shows is that species don't change into others.
Sometimes.
They stick around...right?
Sometimes. I am as much a homo sapiens as Julius Caesar, so we are a
species that has stuck around for a little bit.
For example, how do you know all of the species were not there from the start?
Because there is no fossil record showing that they are there "at the
start". There were billions of years with no fossil remains of any
land species at all.
There was no fossils of this rat-squirrel creature for 11 million
years, but it was there. So, whether we have or have not found
evidence doesn't mean it was there....right?
It's not simply that no fossil remains of your particular animal
are found in the earliest Paleozoic, it's that there is nothing
remotely LIKE it. Not only are there no mammals, there are
no four-legged creatures, period. And not only are there
no four-legged creatures, there are no vertebrates whatsoever.
It's all "small shelly fauna", ammonites and trilobites and
sponges and other things which would not startle you if you saw them
on the bottom of an aquarium. But nothing remotely like
vertebrates, not yet.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 05:57:12 PM |
|
|
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 08:29:12 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 09:12:47 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142044152.004201.300240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?
Not according to the fossil record.
Please do a bit of reading.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 11:37:13 AM |
|
|
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142044152.004201.300240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?
Not according to the fossil record.
Please do a bit of reading.
There was no fossils of this creature for 11 million years, yet it was
there...right?
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 11:40:56 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142098633.346227.277690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142044152.004201.300240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
"Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I
get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a
question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like").
Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and
was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11
million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I
want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If
this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?
Not according to the fossil record.
Please do a bit of reading.
There was no fossils of this creature for 11 million years, yet it was
there...right?
You have some reference that this was the only fossil?
I know you want to get into some debate comparing the existence of god to
some missing fossils, but it won't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 11:43:50 AM |
|
|
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142098633.346227.277690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142044152.004201.300240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
"Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I
get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a
question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like").
Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and
was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11
million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I
want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If
this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?
Not according to the fossil record.
Please do a bit of reading.
There was no fossils of this creature for 11 million years, yet it was
there...right?
You have some reference that this was the only fossil?
I know you want to get into some debate comparing the existence of god to
some missing fossils, but it won't work.
They say it was extinct for 11 million years BECAUSE there was no
fossils found from the period in between...unless you are willing to
say carbon dating can be wrong.
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 01:00:17 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142099030.549905.30940@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142098633.346227.277690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142044152.004201.300240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
"Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I
do..I
get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a
question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like").
Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and
was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had
so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11
million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I
want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is
almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If
this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that
it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the
same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished
more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?
Not according to the fossil record.
Please do a bit of reading.
There was no fossils of this creature for 11 million years, yet it was
there...right?
You have some reference that this was the only fossil?
I know you want to get into some debate comparing the existence of god to
some missing fossils, but it won't work.
They say it was extinct for 11 million years BECAUSE there was no
fossils found from the period in between
You need to keep your lies a bit less complicated.
First you claimed it didn't evolve, now you say it was extinct.
Which is it, and provide a reference.
....unless you are willing to
say carbon dating can be wrong.
The conclusions you jump to are baffling.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
13 Mar 2006 10:23:58 AM |
|
|
In article <1142099030.549905.30940@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142098633.346227.277690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142044152.004201.300240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
"Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I
get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a
question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like").
Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and
was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11
million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I
want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If
this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?
Not according to the fossil record.
Please do a bit of reading.
There was no fossils of this creature for 11 million years, yet it was
there...right?
You have some reference that this was the only fossil?
I know you want to get into some debate comparing the existence of god to
some missing fossils, but it won't work.
They say it was extinct for 11 million years BECAUSE there was no
fossils found from the period in between...unless you are willing to
say carbon dating can be wrong.
I'm perfectly willing to say that in anyone carbon-dated this beastie
to 11 million years, not only are they wrong, they're side-splittingly,
can't-get-your-breath falling-over wrong.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
13 Mar 2006 10:13:14 AM |
|
|
In article <1142044152.004201.300240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?
I'm looking at a couple of trilobite fossils here on my desk as I write
this, one from the Devonian and one from the Silurian.
There are no trilobites today. Nothing else found in the quite extensive
fossil record from the early Paleozoic exists any longer either. All
have gone extinct.
And conversely, no fossils of animals living today are found in these
early rocks. They simply were not around at that time.
Which makes it very difficult to imagine that "all the kinds were there the whole
time and some flourished more at different times, due to their advantages".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 07:44:43 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
Nevertheless, evolution says that men are descedants of rats.
Sadly, men have evolved to the point of being completely duped by
demons..... just as the Bible predicted 2000 years ago.
1Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils"
This phenomenon could be better described as "de-volution". Abraham,
Joshua, Moses and King David would've laughed you into oblivion had
you suggested to them that the ancestors of men were rats.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 11:17:41 AM |
|
|
"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:o0d412deg0vac6fo01u7addhb86ht0j8al@4ax.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I
get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a
question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like").
Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and
was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11
million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I
want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If
this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?
It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.
Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.
So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"
And the answer is "Some did".
-- cary
Nevertheless, evolution says that men are descedants of rats.
No, it doesn't. Theories don't speak. And presuming they did, evolution
never "said" that. If you don't understand what "common ancestor" means,
saunter outside, have a look at a tree, and see if you can fathom any
difference between the leaves on it and the trunk.
It seems likely you'll have difficulty with this, but persevere. Try
pressing one of the leaves in your Bible; then try pressing the trunk in
it. See if comprehension dawns. Failing that, bang your head against the
leaf, and compare that with banging it on the trunk.
Sadly, men have evolved to the point of being completely duped by
demons..... just as the Bible predicted 2000 years ago.
1Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils"
This phenomenon could be better described as "de-volution". Abraham,
Joshua, Moses and King David would've laughed you into oblivion had
you suggested to them that the ancestors of men were rats.
Praise "Bob".
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dark Man" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 03:56:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
No, it is a simple question.
If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.
The crocodile is a perfect example.
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html
Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 04:37:30 PM |
|
|
Dark Man wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
No, it is a simple question.
If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.
The crocodile is a perfect example.
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html
Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
Let me try to get this straight. You are saying this find proves
evolution by it's non-evolving? The fact that it didn't evolve,
according to you, proves evolution? Tell you what, I'm going to prove
God exists by a non-proof. Will you buy it?
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 05:29:36 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142030250.741729.257150@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dark Man wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I
get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a
question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like").
Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and
was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had
so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11
million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I
want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If
this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
No, it is a simple question.
If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.
The crocodile is a perfect example.
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html
Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
Let me try to get this straight. You are saying this find proves
evolution by it's non-evolving? The fact that it didn't evolve,
according to you, proves evolution? Tell you what, I'm going to prove
God exists by a non-proof. Will you buy it?
Er... can you explain how you got your premise from what he said? For an
effort to get it straight, it seems a remarkably crooked path.
You've been given a couple of good examples of animals that haven't
changed their form much in millions of years so far in this thread. You
can add sharks to it, and plants like the ginko. Instances of lack of
change in form isn't much of an argument against the existence of
evolutionary pressure... it's an indication of a form that competes well
against it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 06:28:44 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142030250.741729.257150@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dark Man wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
No, it is a simple question.
If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.
The crocodile is a perfect example.
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html
Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
Let me try to get this straight. You are saying this find proves
evolution by it's non-evolving?
Well, it did evolve or change. It's not exactly like its ancestor. What it
did was adapt well to an ecosystem that didn't have the competition required
to force change. You either adapt or die out and it didn't have to do
either.
The fact that it didn't evolve,
according to you, proves evolution?
The fact that it did evolve to a slightly changing ecosystem is consistant
with evolution. Rapid change is not required for adaptation. You are
assuming this.
Tell you what, I'm going to prove
God exists by a non-proof. Will you buy it?
Let's try educating you with something quite the opposite of your squirrel
example.
Why did humans evolve so quickly compared to other apes?
This article is probably way over your head, but it says that our
comparatively rapid evolution compared to our chimp ancestors was partially
due to cooked food, which causes a more rapid change in certain genetic
structure compared to raw.
http://www.whatistheword.com/story/SciTech_725.html
Educate yourself at your own peril.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 08:24:31 PM |
|
|
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142030250.741729.257150@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dark Man wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
No, it is a simple question.
If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.
The crocodile is a perfect example.
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html
Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
Let me try to get this straight. You are saying this find proves
evolution by it's non-evolving?
Well, it did evolve or change. It's not exactly like its ancestor. What it
did was adapt well to an ecosystem that didn't have the competition required
to force change. You either adapt or die out and it didn't have to do
either.
You know that it isn't the same for a fact? The AP article was saying
that the Science mag article was going to say it IS just like the
original.
The fact that it didn't evolve,
according to you, proves evolution?
The fact that it did evolve to a slightly changing ecosystem is consistant
with evolution. Rapid change is not required for adaptation. You are
assuming this.
11 million years is rapid?
Tell you what, I'm going to prove
God exists by a non-proof. Will you buy it?
Let's try educating you with something quite the opposite of your squirrel
example.
Why did humans evolve so quickly compared to other apes?
This article is probably way over your head, but it says that our
comparatively rapid evolution compared to our chimp ancestors was partially
due to cooked food, which causes a more rapid change in certain genetic
structure compared to raw.
http://www.whatistheword.com/story/SciTech_725.html
Educate yourself at your own peril.
What you define is evolution within a species, not into another
species. Even ID says this kind of change within a species occurs...to
my knowlege. This find certainly doesn't prove changing into a new
species, since the original remained.
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 09:10:58 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142043871.380402.231190@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142030250.741729.257150@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dark Man wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I
get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a
question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like").
Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and
was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11
million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I
want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If
this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
No, it is a simple question.
If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.
The crocodile is a perfect example.
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html
Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
Let me try to get this straight. You are saying this find proves
evolution by it's non-evolving?
Well, it did evolve or change. It's not exactly like its ancestor. What
it
did was adapt well to an ecosystem that didn't have the competition
required
to force change. You either adapt or die out and it didn't have to do
either.
You know that it isn't the same for a fact? The AP article was saying
that the Science mag article was going to say it IS just like the
original.
News articles are generally slanted towards the lowest common denominator
(think you wrt science) and delete important details or generalize in such a
way as to be misleading to the under educated. For instance in a recent
article the article made the same kind of generalization about the Platypus
but in fact the animal has gotten smaller and lost teeth. When you want
details, don't rely on the newspaper.
The fact that it didn't evolve,
according to you, proves evolution?
The fact that it did evolve to a slightly changing ecosystem is
consistant
with evolution. Rapid change is not required for adaptation. You are
assuming this.
11 million years is rapid?
I said rapid change is not required. The squirrel didn't change rapidly, did
it?
Tell you what, I'm going to prove
God exists by a non-proof. Will you buy it?
Let's try educating you with something quite the opposite of your
squirrel
example.
Why did humans evolve so quickly compared to other apes?
This article is probably way over your head, but it says that our
comparatively rapid evolution compared to our chimp ancestors was
partially
due to cooked food, which causes a more rapid change in certain genetic
structure compared to raw.
http://www.whatistheword.com/story/SciTech_725.html
Educate yourself at your own peril.
What you define is evolution within a species, not into another
species.
Evolution is evolution. Change eventually produces new species, as it has
with humans.
Even ID says this kind of change within a species occurs...to
my knowlege. This find certainly doesn't prove changing into a new
species, since the original remained.
The original ancestor of humans and chimps does not remain. I feel like you
creationists just don't hear things so I'll repeat myself - Humans did not
descend from chimps, we descended from a common ancestor with chimps.
Please do yourself a favor and find out what evolution actually is. I'll bet
you're still insisting it means life from non life. Sheessssh.
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 10:40:05 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me try to get this straight. You are saying this find proves
evolution by it's non-evolving? The fact that it didn't evolve,
according to you, proves evolution? Tell you what, I'm going to prove
God exists by a non-proof. Will you buy it?
The theory of evolution predicts under which conditions evolution will
occur most drastically, and under which conditions the evolutionary
changes will amount to running in place. In an ecosystem that doesn't
change, that they are well-adatped to, creatures will evolve very
little. Most of the time, the ecosystem changes.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dark Man" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 08:46:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1142030250.741729.257150@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dark Man wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
No, it is a simple question.
If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.
The crocodile is a perfect example.
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html
Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
Let me try to get this straight. You are saying this find proves
evolution by it's non-evolving? The fact that it didn't evolve,
according to you, proves evolution? Tell you what, I'm going to prove
God exists by a non-proof. Will you buy it?
No. Do you want to learn or will you just stick to your christian guns?
Biologically, evolution does not mean things always change. If a genetic
mutation is beneficial to a species that mutation will dominate.
Genetic Non-drift is as much a part of evolution as genetic drift is.
And just because evolution is real does not mean that God is not.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
10 Mar 2006 05:39:35 PM |
|
|
On 3/10/2006 4:37 PM, Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
Dark Man wrote:
In article <1142021679.673386.316660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get
really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.
I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.
Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
Good question.
No, it is a simple question.
If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.
The crocodile is a perfect example.
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html
Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.
--
http://www.darkdaysarecoming.org/
Let me try to get this straight. You are saying this find proves
evolution by it's non-evolving? The fact that it didn't evolve,
according to you, proves evolution? Tell you what, I'm going to prove
God exists by a non-proof. Will you buy it?
Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html
Go take a logic class. Your reasoning is troubling.
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DZ" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question on Evolution |
11 Mar 2006 04:08:11 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"
It's not "the same creature". It looks the same as other rodents of
that family only to the extent of being classified to the same
family. For example, guinea pigs and porcupines are in the same family
of rodents, but they are hardly the same.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
