Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Culex isn't a species it's a genus. The evolution of heavy metal insecticide resistance is documented in the Montpellier region of southern France.
Once again, the mosquito remains mosquito in the end
OR
Culex remains Culex in the end.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
These are evolution in action.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It has been "dectected". A thing called "Adaptation" again rings bells.Once again, the mosquito remains mosquito in the end
OR
Culex remains Culex in the end.
You are confusing "Evolution" with "Adaptations".
As he said, Its evolution in action. Its how evolution starts off. You dont get a new species pooping out just like that. it happens gradually.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDIt's part of the process of evolution, dolt. The resistance corresponds to a gene duplication event resulting in overexpressed (insecticide-degrading) esterase phenotype; those with this trait are more likely to survive, reproduce and thus it increases.
It has been "dectected". A thing called "Adaptation" again rings bells.The mosquito remains mosquito in the end or Culex remains Culex in the end.
You are confusing "Evolution" with "Adaptations".
"Life is static." is bullshit, and derives solely from a book written thousands of years ago, or similar, by people lacking current knowledge, where humankind has the same origin as Wonder Woman.
Accumulation of genomic changes leads to reproductive isolation of a population, ergo a separate species. An H. erectus pair didn't suddenly give birth to an H. sapiens.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's part of the process of evolution, dolt. The resistance corresponds to a gene duplication event resulting in overexpressed (insecticide-degrading) esterase phenotype; those with this trait are more likely to survive, reproduce and thus it increases.
Now I will tell you what Theory of Evolution is about. It is an assumed process according to which a new life-form is born from an old life-form due to adaptations coupled with genetic mutations.
Now where is the ****ing evidence of the adaptations or even genetic mutations leading to creation of more advanced Life-forms? Where?
Just on papers? Or comments like that it take millions of years to happen naturally?
And I have said before that micro-organisms remain micro-organisms even after the adaptations. They do not evolve in to more complex life-forms.
Also tell me that after a mass extinction event, from where all the large number of new Life-forms and Animals pop out? (Millions of years - my @ss)
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Life is static." is bullshit, and derives solely from a book written thousands of years ago, or similar, by people lacking current knowledge, where humankind has the same origin as Wonder Woman.
And when have you seen an animal changing in to a more advanced animal? No! You have read this in books.
Let me give you a new example: Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?
Do you think that a Shark mated with a Whale to form this thing?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Accumulation of genomic changes leads to reproductive isolation of a population, ergo a separate species.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
An H. erectus pair didn't suddenly give birth to an H. sapiens.
Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
As he said, Its evolution in action. Its how evolution starts off. You dont get a new species pooping out just like that. it happens gradually.
We have yet to see an evidence of "beneficial mutations" occuring in existing animals that lead to creation of more advanced animals or new species. Now I know that the excuse is that this process takes millions of years.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDA whale shark is not half-whale half-shark. You're an idiot and a waste of time. Whales are mammals you moronic moron among morons.
And when have you seen an animal changing in to a more advanced animal? No! You have read this in books.[b]Let me give you a new example:
Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?Do you think that a Shark mated with a Whale to form this thing?[/B]
Addendum: I had to add the quote for posterity, so that when they one day open the Museum of ****tarded, it can be added.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Since we are mainly inbreeding these dogs, so are they responsible for the changes occuring in them?Also, inbreeding causes several defects in the new born cubs as well. You should keep this fact in mind.
And Evolution says that life forms themselves can evolve in to new and better life forms. We have yet to see a live example of this.
#1. humans take no part in the breeding, creation of new life. The animals choose whether too breed and produce offspring or not. Humans are not manually stimulating a dog's penis, lubricating a *****'s vagina, holding the penis in while manually masturbating the dog to ejaculation. The same animals choose to breed......whether in a breeder's back yard or 10,000 years ago on an open savanah.
#2. what are you referring to as a defect? A defect by definition is a hinderence. Imbreeding producing traits not held by the population of a species at large are not a defect unless they hinder the animal. Many times the help the animal survive.....whether making them larger hunters able to kill larger prey, needing less kills to survive or by producing a thicker coat which would allow them to remain more active hunters in a colder climate.....resulting in more kills, more food....survival.
see.....this is called natural selection. Those imbred traits that are defects, hinder the animal, make it harder for that particular animal to survive and pass his/her genes onto the next generation.......see Neanderthal Man. Those traits that make the animal better hunters, requiring the animal to expend less energy or making them better at evading predators allow that animal to survive to pass his genes along to the next generation.
I think a lot of this guy's idiotic rhetoric comes from the fact that he does not even know what evolution is nor how it works. By his logic, if a human parent has a child that is different from the rest of us.....say 6 fingers on each hand......all other humans must immediately drop dead. He keeps saying shit like, "If humans evolved from the same ancestors as apes, why are there still apes?". This guy thinks that when the first ape born with a larger skull allowing for a larger brain pan and inevidably a larger brain was born, all other apes were somehow magically supposed to drop dead. He somehow seems to not understand that this ape with a larger brain could carry on living side by side with those other apes with smaller brains.....both passing their genes on to later generations resulting thousands of generations later with ancestors from apes with small brains existing (chimps) and ancestors from the ape with a larger brain existing (humans). Oh well....he doesn't need to understand anything on this subject. As long as he knows how to properly fry a hamburger patty, he should do well in life.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
I think a lot of this guy's idiotic rhetoric comes from the fact that he does not even know what evolution is nor how it works.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
By his logic, if a human parent has a child that is different from the rest of us.....say 6 fingers on each hand......all other humans must immediately drop dead.
That human will still remain a human, though with deformed figure. He will not be declared to be a new species because his DNA will be same as that of his parents but with a defect in them.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
He keeps saying shit like, "If humans evolved from the same ancestors as apes, why are there still apes?".
Originally posted by Evil Dead
This guy thinks that when the first ape born with a larger skull allowing for a larger brain pan and inevidably a larger brain was born, all other apes were somehow magically supposed to drop dead.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
He somehow seems to not understand that this ape with a larger brain could carry on living side by side with those other apes with smaller brains.....
Originally posted by Evil Dead
both passing their genes on to later generations resulting thousands of generations later with ancestors from apes with small brains existing (chimps) and ancestors from the ape with a larger brain existing (humans).
Yeah right? Skeletal remains of a dead species of an ape! 🙄
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Oh well....he doesn't need to understand anything on this subject. As long as he knows how to properly fry a hamburger patty, he should do well in life.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
#1. humans take no part in the breeding, creation of new life. The animals choose whether too breed and produce offspring or not. Humans are not manually stimulating a dog's penis, lubricating a *****'s vagina, holding the penis in while manually masturbating the dog to ejaculation. The same animals choose to breed......whether in a breeder's back yard or 10,000 years ago on an open savanah.
Now can you show me a recent and documented evidence of a new dog species coming in to existance from existing canines?
Originally posted by Evil Dead
what are you referring to as a defect? A defect by definition is a hinderence. Imbreeding producing traits not held by the population of a species at large are not a defect unless they hinder the animal. Many times the help the animal survive.....whether making them larger hunters able to kill larger prey, needing less kills to survive or by producing a thicker coat which would allow them to remain more active hunters in a colder climate.....resulting in more kills, more food....survival.
- Reduced fertility.
- Increased genetic disorders.
- Fluctuating facial asymmetry.
- Lower birth rate.
- Higher infant mortality.
- Slower growth rate.
- Smaller adult size.
- Loss of immune system function.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDYes I did fail to understand the logic behind it because it is flawed and based on incorrect assumptions. The Polar Bear is a direct descendent of the Kodiak so it already has adapted/evolved to the new environment. Not all species will die to a new environment, some will even thrive such as the Kodiak compared to the Grizzly and Brown bear and others will not. It all depends on the changes to the environment and the traits of that species if it can survive such as the dinosaurs and mammals.
You understood the basics of my point but failed to understand the logic behind it.A Kodiak Bear is a mammal. It can tolerate changes in environment to a certain extent but this does not means that it can evolve to adopt to an entirely different environment. And despite being warm blooded, it will die in that new environment which is not suitable for it. This clearly goes against Evolution, which tends to say that a species can evolve to adopt to major changes in environment or a new environment, which is not true. No species can evolve to adopt to a different environment. It will simply die in a different environment, if it cannot tolerate it.
Some species haven't evolved over millions of years simply because they didn't need to because they are perfectly suited to that environment and most are also on the top of the food chain.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
see.....this is called natural selection. Those imbred traits that are defects, hinder the animal, make it harder for that particular animal to survive and pass his/her genes onto the next generation.......see Neanderthal Man.
The species with defects become extinct. This supports my case because I am saying that species with defects are mainly result of inbreeding and they do not survive for long.
Also, if Neanderthals were result of inbreeds, they died.
But I will still do some research on Neanderthals. Thanks for pointing out.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Those traits that make the animal better hunters, requiring the animal to expend less energy or making them better at evading predators allow that animal to survive to pass his genes along to the next generation.
Animals that are results of inbreeding are bound to fail due to certain defects that develop in them. This is not a good example of Evolution because it refers to failures.
The animals that are born perfect remain perfect through-out their life spans on the Earth.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Here is a an example:Evolutionists claim that a shark called Isurus Hastalis has evolved in to the modern Great White Shark, which is the more advanced shark according to them.
The teeth of Isurus Hastalis does not have serrations but they are of almost same shape as that of GWS. The teeth of GWS however have serrations.
Now common sense dictates that Isurus Hastalis and GWS have different behavioral and habitual niches as this can be judged from the teeth. Isurus most likely [b]chomped
it's prey, while the GWS would tear it's prey apart by slicing it, in which the serrations will help.So this is a major issue with Evolutionists. They make silly claims that an animal has evolved in to a better animal using fossil remains as an example (that can deceive us) and fail to consider other aspects of things. [/B]
Not really. I can tell that your knowledge of Evolution is based on TV. You should take some classes in college.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
The others are making even more silly claims that we cannot observe in our lives.One claim is that through Genetic Heredity, Evolution can occur and this has yet to be seen. The problem is that for thousands of years, millions of generations of man have arrived and still we have not evolved yet.
Common sence dictates that Genetic Herdity is about inheritance of some traits of parents that can influence the [b]behavior
of an offspring. The change in inherited traits can never occur unless genes are purely changed. However mutations in genes can lead to bad results and life-forms can suffer from physical deformations or abnormalities. So this is not a good example of Evolution. [/B]
With enough time (hundreds of millions of years) species can change from what appears to us to be one species to another. However, there is no point at where one species changes to another. The fact that you don’t know this small piece of information tells me that your education in this matter is incomplete.
Originally posted by ThePittman
[Yes I did fail to understand the logic behind it because it is flawed and based on incorrect assumptions. The Polar Bear is a direct descendent of the Kodiak so it already has adapted/evolved to the new environment.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Not all species will die to a new environment, some will even thrive such as the Kodiak compared to the Grizzly and Brown bear and others will not.
For example: Killer Whales can tolerate both COLD and WARM Waters. They have got the natural tendency to do so right from the begining.
Originally posted by ThePittman
It all depends on the changes to the environment and the traits of that species if it can survive such as the dinosaurs and mammals.
However where did the early mammals came from? Not from the micro-organisms.
Same is the case with Dinosaurs.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Some species haven't evolved over millions of years simply because they didn't need to because they are perfectly suited to that environment and most are also on the top of the food chain.
And like I said before, Theory of Evolution have many holes and flaws. It does not fits to all the animals.
Creationism however deals with all the animals.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDThrough genetic similarities, migration patterns and direct observation, you can find tons of studies, reports and what ever else you want to know simply by reading. Simply by looking at the Kodiaks, Brown, Polar and Grizzlies that live in Alaska you can see the changes that are present.
How do you know for sure that the Polar Bear is a direct descedent of the Kodiak?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Those species that will not die in a new environment actually have the natural tendency to tolerate that new environment. That natural tendency is present in them from the begining, which helps them to easily adapt to the new environment.For example: Killer Whales can tolerate both COLD and WARM Waters. They have got the natural tendency to do so right from the begining.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDEvolution is not something that is debatable because it has been proven time and time again, the only part that IS in question is the beginning of life. You want to find holes in the process of animals adapting to environment which you can not, you want to debate about single cell evolving into complex organisms that is something completely different.
Mammals can adapt to changes in the environment more easily because they are warm blooded animals. This is a matter of common sense.However where did the early mammals came from? Not from the micro-organisms.
Same is the case with Dinosaurs.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDCreationism is so flawed and full of holes that it couldn't hold mud. As for Great Whites the are at the top of the food chain and have very few predators. Even from the early species of Great White they have changed over the generations to their current form but relatively stayed the same because they are perfectly suited to their environment.
The Great White Shark have faced several environmental changes and yet it is still alive and is the same damn thing. They are not even the apex predators.And like I said before, Theory of Evolution have many holes and flaws. It does not fits to all the animals.
Creationism however deals with all the animals.