New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61
  1. Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17,316
    #31
    I was 14 when the concept of evolution was discussed in detail back in high school, yet my classmates and I were able to get it into our heads. So I'm surprised that things like natural selection are still being argued about by adults - it's not an equal debate where both sides could be true. There is a multitude of evidence explaining natural selection - to say that it doesn't exist (for both micro and macroevolution) is to undermine the efforts of thousands of scientists over the past several hundred years.

    Natural selection is one process (though not the only process) that facilitates evolution. It has already been discussed in this thread how it leads to the proliferation of better-adapted individuals (like Niky's low-maintenance but prolific bunnies) over poorly-adapted individuals (like the super strong but high-maintenance and un-horny bunnies). Over time this changes the traits of that particular species. By time, this could mean several million years. This is microevolution in a nutshell.

    Macroevolution, or the emergence of a new species, follows the same concept but on a larger scale (in terms of both morphology and time). Over hundreds of millions of years, the environment changes, and animals adapt to these changes.

    Because the Earth has moved away from its primordial soup origins and has allowed life on land possible, water-borne species slowly evolved and land-based species emerged. It's not to say that the species thriving in the aquatic environment died out - they continued to exist as long as they were suited to the environment. But again, over millions of years, the Earth's progression shifted and the species that were no longer suited (and have not adapted) slowly died out.

    Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

  2. Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,531
    #32
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaNker View Post
    Bay JM hiram ko sa banat nimo.

    Nigga please.



    want me to spoon feed you some cereal

  3. Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,650
    #33
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    Species don't destroy old species when they bud off. Both subspecies survive until one doesn't. That's why "fittest" is a misunderstanding. If your super-bunnies due to a lack of food to support their energy-intensive lifestyle... from climate-change induced famine... or overgrazing... then you're left with regular bunnies.

    Also, there is no magic point at which a species is first one thing and then another. It happens very, very gradually at times... in spurts at others. Hundreds of millions of years equals millions upon millions of breeding generations and millions upon millions of tiny mutations and gradual change.
    You still end up with a bunny.

    Black and brown moth is still a moth, stickleback back fish is still a stickleback back, Galapagos finches is still a finch.

    stickleback back fish grows faster and loses the scale when in fresh water and once in salt water they grow their scales back.

    The same story for the Galapagos finches.


  4. Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,531
    #34
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaNker View Post
    You still end up with a bunny.

    Black and brown moth is still a moth, stickleback back fish is still a stickleback back, Galapagos finches is still a finch.

    stickleback back fish grows faster and loses the scale when in fresh water and once in salt water they grow their scales back.

    The same story for the Galapagos finches.



    ohhhh... so no evolution eh? so you're saying all species popped up at the same time? all 5 BILLION species right there at the beginning

    we'd all like to hear what clunker's theory of non-evolution is

  5. Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    56,675
    #35
    MODERATOR'S WARNING: Vodka I have warned you several times on your behaviour towards members that disagree with your opinion. If you do not tone yourself down I will suspend you account. This is your last warning.

    Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by _Cathy_; February 26th, 2016 at 10:55 PM.

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #36
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaNker View Post
    You still end up with a bunny.

    Black and brown moth is still a moth, stickleback back fish is still a stickleback back, Galapagos finches is still a finch.

    stickleback back fish grows faster and loses the scale when in fresh water and once in salt water they grow their scales back.

    The same story for the Galapagos finches.

    Cute. Misleading but cute.

    -

    Already told you there is no magic point at which a species becomes another species.

    It takes millions of years for speciation to get to the point where two subspecies become mutually exclusive. And even then, they can still, in some instances, interbreed.

    Which is why many equines can interbreed... horses and zebras, for example, and horses and donkeys.

    Which is why tigers and lions can interbreed, as well as several completely different species of large cats... and why several species of small wild cats can interbreed with housecats.

    -

    As proof that this isn't a case of one species simply having two different names and appearances, some of these hybrids are infertile, some have limited fertility, some are fully fertile... and many are morphologically distinct enough to be counted as a separate species... see the Wholphin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholphin)...

    In other cases, the genetics are so vastly different, that interbreeding is almost impossible, as it is with African and Asian Elephants. (note the clarifier: Almost: meaning it has been done, just once... and the offspring was not viable).

    -

    So, no, like does not always beget like, either.

    -

    And then there's the question of Neandertal DNA in modern humans...
    Last edited by niky; February 26th, 2016 at 11:22 PM.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  7. Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,650
    #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Vodka View Post
    ohhhh... so no evolution eh? so you're saying all species popped up at the same time? all 5 BILLION species right there at the beginning

    we'd all like to hear what clunker's theory of non-evolution is
    That is your response to my post? Which part of the "I believe in evolution" you do not understand for the nth time?

    Physics laws and theories can be experimented on and observe upon and the result will always be the same.

    You can't do that with Natural Selection or Random Mutation. Stop arguing about specie variation or adaptation. A dog no matter how you breed them will always be dog. Black moth when the condition is not ideal will become brown moth, and the list goes on, but there in no evidence that this leads to the creation of an entirely different specie.

    We haven't even discussed human cognitive ability. Human and Chimps share 98.8 of their DNA, the oldest evidence of human civilization dates back 20,000 years or so but look at where we are now, look how far we have evolved but the chimps remained the same.

  8. Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,650
    #38
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    Cute. Misleading but cute.

    -

    Already told you there is no magic point at which a species becomes another species.

    It takes millions of years for speciation to get to the point where two subspecies become mutually exclusive. And even then, they can still, in some instances, interbreed.

    Which is why many equines can interbreed... horses and zebras, for example, and horses and donkeys.

    Which is why tigers and lions can interbreed, as well as several completely different species of large cats... and why several species of small wild cats can interbreed with housecats.

    -

    As proof that this isn't a case of one species simply having two different names and appearances, some of these hybrids are infertile, some have limited fertility, some are fully fertile... and many are morphologically distinct enough to be counted as a separate species... see the Wholphin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholphin)...

    In other cases, the genetics are so vastly different, that interbreeding is almost impossible, as it is with African and Asian Elephants. (note the clarifier: Almost: meaning it has been done, just once... and the offspring was not viable).

    -

    So, no, like does not always beget like, either.

    -

    And then there's the question of Neandertal DNA in modern humans...
    Interbreeding. Again you still end up with cats, horses, and humans.

    You said so yourself that genetics can be so vastly different that interbreeding is impossible. Therefore a specie can only interbreed with it's own kind thus simply producing a variation of that specie. We are essentially going in circle here. Dog will dogs, cats will be cats, so on and so forth.

    Neanderthal our fellow ancient human being. Where's the proverbial sons and daughters of human and chimpanzee then? None, because you can only interbreed with your own kind.

    Where is your evidence that leads to the creation of a new specie? Fish became a mammal, reptile became a bird, mammal became a whale.

  9. Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,650
    #39
    Before we go another circle on interbreeding or specie variation let's think about this two important questions.

    1. How the first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instruction?

    2. Do the amino acids have the ability to order themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences?

  10. Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17,316
    #40
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaNker View Post
    Interbreeding. Again you still end up with cats, horses, and humans.

    You said so yourself that genetics can be so vastly different that interbreeding is impossible. Therefore a specie can only interbreed with it's own kind thus simply producing a variation of that specie. We are essentially going in circle here. Dog will dogs, cats will be cats, so on and so forth.

    Neanderthal our fellow ancient human being. Where's the proverbial sons and daughters of human and chimpanzee then? None, because you can only interbreed with your own kind.

    Where is your evidence that leads to the creation of a new specie? Fish became a mammal, reptile became a bird, mammal became a whale.
    First of all, "specie" is not a word. "Species" can be both singular and plural.

    Back to the topic though, the most common example of natural selection in macroevolution is the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, theropods to be specific. Theropods were fast, bipedal, carnivorous dinosaurs (think Velociraptors).

    Over millions of years, through millions of generations and countless mutations, these large dinosaurs evolved to be able to better adapt to the Earth's changing ecology. It started with the dinosaurs evolving to be able to climb trees. Afterwards, they learned to glide. And then, sustained flight.

    The need to move from the ground to the treetops to avoid predators and increase their range of food sources meant that evolution favored the individuals that were able to mutate to have the aforementioned abilities. This is natural selection.

    After 200 million years, you have not just a new species, but a completely new class (Aves), paving the way for today's birds.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

TV Patrol feature on human evolution slammed for not recognizing Adam and Eve