Hey GTS, you see "Squidbillies" the other night? lol
So, what other species did the lions evolve into? I'm not getting your point. Seems to me more like adaptation.
What a great read! Thanks GTS. Nature never stops amazing me.
Machiavelli Wrote:What a great read! Thanks GTS. Nature never stops amazing me.
If you think nature is amazing, what do you think about nature's creator?
And this article proves adaptation, not evolution.
RebelKev Wrote:Seems to me more like adaptation.
The argument is that "adaptation" is a mechanism of evolution.
While interesting, I don't think this is going to be the nail in the coffin of evolution doubters.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:Seems to me more like adaptation.
The argument is that "adaptation" is a mechanism of evolution.
While interesting, I don't think this is going to be the nail in the coffin of evolution doubters.
You're right. To call this "evolution" is to demonstrate that the word gets lots of play, but no evolutionary theory holds up to scrutiny.
Every interesting event in nature is not "evolution". That the supporters are so desparate to use this word, speaks volumes.
The females are now as big as the males. That's not adaptation ... and natural selection will strongly favor larger lions in this instance since their only prey is the giant buffalo.
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:The females are now as big as the males. That's not adaptation ... and natural selection will strongly favor larger lions in this instance since their only prey is the giant buffalo.
How is that not adaptation? So, are we to assume that evolution has something to do with growth now? Well hell, that kinda covers everything, doesn't it?
I was always under the impression that adaption was a mechanism for evolution.
Fanatical Wrote:I was always under the impression that adaption was a mechanism for evolution.
LeMark disproved that.
Evolution has to occur at the genetic level first...then be a positive, or at best neutral, mutation. Otherwise you die.
Then you need fertile, and find someone to breed with.
And if you can breed w/ your non-mutated friends...are you really a new species?
And if you're not a new species, then where does the "origin of species" part fit in?
DrTorch Wrote:Fanatical Wrote:I was always under the impression that adaption was a mechanism for evolution.
LeMark disproved that.
Evolution has to occur at the genetic level first...then be a positive, or at best neutral, mutation. Otherwise you die.
Then you need fertile, and find someone to breed with.
And if you can breed w/ your non-mutated friends...are you really a new species?
And if you're not a new species, then where does the "origin of species" part fit in?
This is a confusing thread, somewhat because of semantics. As Fanatical points out, "adaptation" refers to a process/structure/trait that has evolved over time as a result of natural selection. Adaptation doesn't necessarily result in new species.
Dr. Torch, do you mean Lamarck? I'm not trying to be the spelling police, I'm just unfamiliar with what he disproved (and wonder if there is a LeMark I haven't heard of). In fact, Lamarck's most compelling theories have been discounted because they conflict with genetics.
RebelKev Wrote:georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:The females are now as big as the males. That's not adaptation ... and natural selection will strongly favor larger lions in this instance since their only prey is the giant buffalo.
How is that not adaptation? So, are we to assume that evolution has something to do with growth now? Well hell, that kinda covers everything, doesn't it?
The larger females are clearly being picked for survival. The smaller ones if they tried to hunt giant buffalo would be killed. Now according to the article, all the females are now virtually the size of males. That's clearly a marked change forced by survival of the fittest. Now if you don't think that's evolution, so be it. But then you'd also be calling Darwin's finches, who had marked changes in their beaks due to the differing food on their islands, not a product of evolution.
Brookes Owl Wrote:DrTorch Wrote:Fanatical Wrote:I was always under the impression that adaption was a mechanism for evolution.
LeMark disproved that.
Evolution has to occur at the genetic level first...then be a positive, or at best neutral, mutation. Otherwise you die.
Then you need fertile, and find someone to breed with.
And if you can breed w/ your non-mutated friends...are you really a new species?
And if you're not a new species, then where does the "origin of species" part fit in?
This is a confusing thread, somewhat because of semantics. As Fanatical points out, "adaptation" refers to a process/structure/trait that has evolved over time as a result of natural selection. Adaptation doesn't necessarily result in new species.
Dr. Torch, do you mean Lamarck? I'm not trying to be the spelling police, I'm just unfamiliar with what he disproved (and wonder if there is a LeMark I haven't heard of). In fact, Lamarck's most compelling theories have been discounted because they conflict with genetics.
The guy w/ the mice tails.
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:But then you'd also be calling Darwin's finches, who had marked changes in their beaks due to the differing food on their islands, not a product of evolution.
*Bing bing bing*
Darwin's finches, and these lions, show a change in population distribution. That's not evolution. It doesn't account for speciation. In fact, it was only a mildly novel observation.
DrTorch Wrote:Brookes Owl Wrote:DrTorch Wrote:Fanatical Wrote:I was always under the impression that adaption was a mechanism for evolution.
LeMark disproved that.
Evolution has to occur at the genetic level first...then be a positive, or at best neutral, mutation. Otherwise you die.
Then you need fertile, and find someone to breed with.
And if you can breed w/ your non-mutated friends...are you really a new species?
And if you're not a new species, then where does the "origin of species" part fit in?
This is a confusing thread, somewhat because of semantics. As Fanatical points out, "adaptation" refers to a process/structure/trait that has evolved over time as a result of natural selection. Adaptation doesn't necessarily result in new species.
Dr. Torch, do you mean Lamarck? I'm not trying to be the spelling police, I'm just unfamiliar with what he disproved (and wonder if there is a LeMark I haven't heard of). In fact, Lamarck's most compelling theories have been discounted because they conflict with genetics.
The guy w/ the mice tails.
Because Lamarck didn't understand heredity and genetics, adaptation
isn't a mechanism for evolution? That can't be your point.
Obviously we need blood samples.
Brookes Owl Wrote:Because Lamarck didn't understand heredity and genetics, adaptation isn't a mechanism for evolution? That can't be your point.
My point is that Lamarck has experimental evidence. His experiments show that macroscopic effects, like mice losing their tails, don't drive genetics.
To question that is to question science. Sure, it doesn't fit w/ the theories that are proposed, but scientists don't ignore the evidence to suit their theory.
So, when a textbook says that fish lose their sight b/c they live in deep water...that just shows that the textbook writer is a dumb***.
And when someone says that lions have "evolved" b/c water buffalo are the best prey...that shows a lack of understanding of genetics too.
Are female lions bigger? Probably (don't discount that biologists make alot of mistakes in the observables, and still call it evolution). So what? So they have to work harder to get food. If I work out, I'm bigger and more muscular too.
Maybe it's a population shift. The strong female lions survive to adulthood and breed. So what? That's not evolution. They are still the same species of lion as before.
But, to hype this like it's important? Proves that the evolution crowd is DESPARATE for evidence to justify their theory and the resources they waste pursuing it.
I'd rather see some real science done. Maybe transmutation or finding the elixir of life. Those have better scientific evidene than evolution. lmfao
DrTorch Wrote:I'd rather see some real science done. Maybe transmutation or finding the elixir of life. Those have better scientific evidene than evolution. lmfao
Nope, we're laughing at you.
DrTorch Wrote:Brookes Owl Wrote:Because Lamarck didn't understand heredity and genetics, adaptation isn't a mechanism for evolution? That can't be your point.
My point is that Lamarck has experimental evidence. His experiments show that macroscopic effects, like mice losing their tails, don't drive genetics.
To question that is to question science. Sure, it doesn't fit w/ the theories that are proposed, but scientists don't ignore the evidence to suit their theory.
So, when a textbook says that fish lose their sight b/c they live in deep water...that just shows that the textbook writer is a dumb***.
And when someone says that lions have "evolved" b/c water buffalo are the best prey...that shows a lack of understanding of genetics too.
Are female lions bigger? Probably (don't discount that biologists make alot of mistakes in the observables, and still call it evolution). So what? So they have to work harder to get food. If I work out, I'm bigger and more muscular too.
Maybe it's a population shift. The strong female lions survive to adulthood and breed. So what? That's not evolution. They are still the same species of lion as before.
But, to hype this like it's important? Proves that the evolution crowd is DESPARATE for evidence to justify their theory and the resources they waste pursuing it.
I'd rather see some real science done. Maybe transmutation or finding the elixir of life. Those have better scientific evidene than evolution. lmfao
Not surprisingly, we can't agree and we're heading to the same old arguments (Groundhog Day anyone?). Bourgeois_Rage has made the points and given the links many times so I won't bother. But just so we're in the ballpark with our facts: Lamarck believed that characteristics *acquired* by parents could be passed to their offspring. Weismann cut the tails off mice to disprove it. Demonstrating that amputations aren't hereditary is not supportive of your point.
DrTorch Wrote:Brookes Owl Wrote:Because Lamarck didn't understand heredity and genetics, adaptation isn't a mechanism for evolution? That can't be your point.
My point is that Lamarck has experimental evidence. His experiments show that macroscopic effects, like mice losing their tails, don't drive genetics.
To question that is to question science. Sure, it doesn't fit w/ the theories that are proposed, but scientists don't ignore the evidence to suit their theory.
So, when a textbook says that fish lose their sight b/c they live in deep water...that just shows that the textbook writer is a dumb***.
And when someone says that lions have "evolved" b/c water buffalo are the best prey...that shows a lack of understanding of genetics too.
Are female lions bigger? Probably (don't discount that biologists make alot of mistakes in the observables, and still call it evolution). So what? So they have to work harder to get food. If I work out, I'm bigger and more muscular too.
Maybe it's a population shift. The strong female lions survive to adulthood and breed. So what? That's not evolution. They are still the same species of lion as before.
But, to hype this like it's important? Proves that the evolution crowd is DESPARATE for evidence to justify their theory and the resources they waste pursuing it.
I'd rather see some real science done. Maybe transmutation or finding the elixir of life. Those have better scientific evidene than evolution. lmfao
i'm going to regret this, and i've not paid attention to earlier threads, but i'll ask: how long do you believe the earth has existed? do you believe that every life form on the planet was created as new and different from any other life form which previously appeared? has any life form adapted by virtue of a change in the genetic structure; like, say, flightless birds? if so, how did it happen and why? where did mammals come from? i've got a thousand others, but i'll start with these.
and to put my questions in context, count me amongst the folks with a meaningful religious background who cannot comprehend the anti-evolution mindset.
this debate isn't about validity; it's about facts and science. and idiocy.
do x-rays work?
evolution in my mind takes thousands+ years.
but it must start somewhere, normally through selective breeding and natural selection, as demonstrated in this article.
Sooooo, there IS a way to get rid of liberals. Just selectively breed'em out. lmfao
RebelKev Wrote:Sooooo, there IS a way to get rid of liberals. Just selectively breed'em out. lmfao
Uh oh, here come the Darwin = Hitler Eugenics non-arguments. ;-)
RebelKev Wrote:Sooooo, there IS a way to get rid of liberals. Just selectively breed'em out. lmfao
They are the ones passing out the condoms....
Fanatical Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:Sooooo, there IS a way to get rid of liberals. Just selectively breed'em out. lmfao
They are the ones passing out the condoms....
and supporting abortions .... at this rate Liberals are set to go the way of the dodo