evolution

Originally posted by rusky
I'm curious about something.. I'll give the example of the first big killer whale-fish.. don't remember what it was called, what I do remember though is that it was the biggest predator of it's time, some 10000 years ago. My question is : How can such a creature have evolved from a sort of big dog, that aside, I can see why, but how could it have suddenly turned into the killer thing, for certainly, had it taken longer it would've surely been wiped out by the already strong predators, I don't see..
I always saw evolution as a long term, time consuming process.. 1000 of years like.. That's what puzzles me, how can anybody say it's adaptation, b/c most likely, u'd be dead before u adapt... unless the mutations occur very drastically, on a generation basis..

Hm...sorry if I don't make much sense..

Well yeah, obviously they had predators while they were evolving to that stage... But almost everything on the planet has predators, and most of it manages to not become extinct because of it.

yeah, but that's because of numbers, which u obviously don't have when u'r a fresh mutant 😄

well It starts small with minor advantages. The Killer Fish probably didnt evolve froma a dog but another fish-like thingy. But say one time, a fish was born with bigger fins. This fish is more effective and thrives and breeds more creating some offspring with big fins and some without. All the big finned fish survive and breed to create more and more untill all of the fish have big fins.
That happens over and over till you see the end product.

oy people... another thing:

mammals evolved from other animals....
but to feed their children they would have needed 2 concomitant evolutions:
one to bear the younglings and one to feed them, you know what i mean?

thats quite improbable!

They didn't have to evolve them both at the same time, silly... Mammals aren't the only animals that have live birth, y'know.

Agent Elrond> Oh, the imaginary unit? Okay, and what were we talking about again?

umm, I think i was giving you a mathematical 'proof' God exists, though it looks more like quantum physics and the string theory and multiple dimensions (10, I think)
Has anybody seen the Simpson episode where Homer become a genius and proves God doesn't exist. That was funny.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
They didn't have to evolve them both at the same time, silly... Mammals aren't the only animals that have live birth, y'know.

ahha... and how do they feed theyr younglings?

Most of them don't, they leave their young to fend for themselves. What I'm saying is that they didn't have to evolve at the same time. Additionally, there are mammals that lay eggs, if only a few.

Originally posted by Agent Elrond
umm, I think i was giving you a mathematical 'proof' God exists, though it looks more like quantum physics and the string theory and multiple dimensions (10, I think)
Has anybody seen the Simpson episode where Homer become a genius and proves God doesn't exist. That was funny.

On point of fact he only had his IQ increased by "fifty points" to ... fifty? 😕

Originally posted by Peloquin
Well the question was really asking do you think 'evolution' is now a personal choice for us?

You're addressing two different types of evolution

Originally posted by rusky
My question is : How can such a creature have evolved from a sort of big dog, that aside, I can see why, but how could it have suddenly turned into the killer thing, for certainly, had it taken longer it would've surely been wiped out by the already strong predators, I don't see..
I always saw evolution as a long term, time consuming process.. 1000 of years like.. That's what puzzles me, how can anybody say it's adaptation, b/c most likely, u'd be dead before u adapt... unless the mutations occur very drastically, on a generation basis..

Evolution does not occur on an individual basis. It's true that one organism could mutate, and that mutation might help it, but if it gets killed, then something else has to mutate if the species is to evolve. This takes more than "1000 of years like." Also, the mutation may not even help the animal at all. Most creationists seem to want evolution to happen in such little time~ like whoever said about the flies, "The flies were bred for a whole year, and nothing evolved..." Well, duh! Evolution does not occur in a year. Read what people wrote about the Romans.

To me, creationists seem to be hypocrites... they want tangible proof of evolution to believe it-- like saying "evolution is wrong because the flies didn't evolve, and they had a WHOLE YEAR..." If you want proof of evolution, you have to accept certain facets of science. (Like ALL of it. Which most creationists don't seem to do.) And yet, they believe in God and the bible with absolutely NO proof whatsoever. Hmm... anyone noticing a contradiction here?

I would've posted more, mainly about The Force's "answers," but I'm just too lazy to slog through all that. 😄

Rusky> How could a giant killer evolve from a sort of big dog? Do you mean how did whales evolve from something which went up on land, and then returned to the ocean? They didn’t do that 10.000 years ago.

Eezy45> Have a look at kangaroos.

Oh, and… You’re not dealing with the replies I’m giving you. Have you even bothered to read any of the links I’ve supplied you with? Then have the courtesy of taking the information into consideration, or you’re wasting my time.

JekillHyde> Oh, we HAVE noticed the contradiction around here. Another problem for Creationists, which The Force has demonstrated to full extend, is, that they cannot prove Creationism, but try to do so by attacking evolution – and failing MISERABLY I may add.
Claims of flaws in evolution, which Eezy45 is supplying, can be refuted in two minutes.

well.. i was watching this on discovery the other day... they didn't begin evolving 10000 years ago, that's when it was complete..

Rusky> The ancestors of the whales went back into the ocean 50 million years ago.
But what animal exactly are you talking about?
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html

ok Omega..checked that out.. very nice, thanks..
As for the animal... well...it wasn't exactl the other day u see... can't remember 😮, but I think they said something about it being an early horse that scavanged and ate meat like a hyena..

Rusky> Hm. Well, I can't answer your questions if you can't tell me what we're talking about. Anyways, no "big dog" or "early horse" went into the oceans 10.000 years ago and became a whale.

as I said earlier... 10000 years ago the process ended..it did not begin then, I have no idea when it went into the seas.

Originally posted by The Omega
Claims of flaws in evolution, which Eezy45 is supplying, can be refuted in two minutes.

actually, claims in flaws in creation also.
its just what you believe, isnt it?

Where are those junction forms between all the species'?

I occupied with the creation thingy again.
Actually, couldnt it be that god created one species like 200 million years ago, and the next one 65 million years ago?
why not?

ok, because you dont want to believe in god, i see. atheists.

**** it, the education isn't strict enough today (ok thats off topic 🤪 )

and if kangaroos are your only example, i have to say: kangaroos live in australia, and many mammals "evolved" in Africa or America and so on, where i don't see animals with only one of those evolutions.

i think your incontrovertibleness is a result of todays brainwashing,
not enough biologists have doubts of evolution
(In fact, i met some evolution specialists and they or some said the more the scientists know about evolution the less they believe it... okay you wont believe me that, will you)

Eezy, it's been far longer than two minutes, and you still haven't convinced me that the carbon decay rate has changed, which would explain that the world is conceivably as young as 12000 years. Or that a gas planet can be formed in under a century.

Why would God bother waiting a couple hundred million years between species? That's a waste of time. God is perfect, or so most Christians would claim. He wouldn't dawdle around doing nothing for hundreds of millions of years. And oh yeah, I thought the planet was only a few thousand years old?

Education isn't strict enough today? Just because we don't have to pray and learn about God in school, education isn't strict enough? That's a load of bullshit if I ever saw one.

As for the kangaroos, do you know the story about how there used to be one supercontinent, and it gradually broke up and the pieces drifted away? Australia was one of the first pieces to break off and float away. Hence their seemingly "out of date" reproductive systems. While mammals were evolving from reptiles, a lot of kangaroos moved over to one part of the big continent, and it broke off, and they were stranded in the middle of the ocean, and all the kangaroos everywhere else died off. Simple. Or, you could believe the aborigine (sp?) myth about why kangaroos are so funny looking...

"i think your incontrovertibleness is a result of todays brainwashing,
not enough biologists have doubts of evolution
(In fact, i met some evolution specialists and they or some said the more the scientists know about evolution the less they believe it... okay you wont believe me that, will you)"

Oh, I get it. I refuse to believe in a six thousand year old storybook just because Reverend Gary told me to, and I'm the one who's brainwashed? Do you realize how hippocritical that sounds? I believe in evolution because there is solid proof backing it up, not because I'm brainwashed. I have researched both. Don't believe me, look earlier in the thread, around page 10 I think. I emailed a Creation "scientist" with a bunch of questions about Creation, including the big one, what proof is there of Creation. He wrote back to me with a bunch of bull about how I was wrong about who first came up with the scientific method. (which I mentioned VERY briefly in my email) You can still read it, if you want, but it only further proves my point about how there is no proof of Creation--which is why Creationists tend to sidetrack, and try to prove that evolution is false rather than Creation is true.

Eezy45> Well, why don’t you read ALL the replies I’ve given you and try to refute them? I’ve supplied you with a lot of reading, and you go as SILENT as The Force (Which is NOT a good thing, ya know?)

It’s not a matter of belief. It’s a matter of what science tells me, and – take a look around you – science works.
“Where are those junction forms between all the species'?” You haven’t read the entire thread, have you?

”Actually, couldnt it be that god created one species like 200 million years ago, and the next one 65 million years ago?” It doesn’t say so in the Bible, and the Bible is supposed to be Gods’ words, right?

”and if kangaroos are your only example.” AN example. Which you haven’t refuted.

”i think your incontrovertibleness is a result of todays brainwashing,” 😆 Oh, so us who see science works (look at your computer for example), and accept that the scientific method is the best way to achieve knowledge have been brainwashed. Have I been brainwashed into believing that penicillin works? That the space-shuttle works? That Hubble works? That gene-therapy works? That cars work? That evolution works?

”(In fact, i met some evolution specialists and they or some said the more the scientists know about evolution the less they believe it... okay you wont believe me that, will you)”
No. ”Some evolution specialist” is who? Who said that? Where did you meet him/her? What was his/her credentials? I think you made that up. Creationists are known to do that.

Proove that God created the Earth and everything on it, will ya?