Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
... add pilchards, olives and lottsa garlic please.
Chef Boy-R-Dee & Ragu Thick-N-chunkyTM led me astray.
"I will not eat Green eggs and Ham!"
"There would be a statistical trend toward adaptation."
Not if the object were to get to where we are now, the way we got here.
Remind yourself to have some coffee in the morning.
His name is already on the list! Reveal the others!
Not me. I used to be a martial artist;I had to quit because I couldn't heal quickly enough. I'm also tired of having to crazy glue my hair back on every time I use a hair brush.
I didn't want to go there. ;->
Well, I figured out our eyesight gets worse the older we get so we can't see the wrinkles as well! LOL
Well I am fortunate. Not fat yet, still have all my hair and it is jet black (ummm welcome to dye). :-)
And you're still very smart! :)
awwwwww.... :-)
Equisearch.com fundamentally disagrees with your assertion that Shetland Ponies came to be as a result of a shipwreck, but then again you didn't cite your source, so who really cares? After all nobody's gonna think to look this stuff up anyway and call you on it, right?
Science has demonstrated that isolated populations tend to inbreed. As has been seen with isolated human populations (e.g. Aborigines) inbreeding results in smaller and often genetically inferior offspring. Poor nutrition also leads to genetic abnormalities, and does not translate into what any credible scientist would claim to be an advancement in subject's "fitness" as you carelessly assert. In fact, the example you provide is more an example of outcomes borne of the devolution of a germ line as opposed to an evolution to advance the germ line.
Such challenged subjects in fact barely survive, because the number of possible adaptations a subject can make are typically few; no evidence exists to substantiate that genetically challenge-driven compensatory adaptations are made at the will of the animal, any more than a human being can by his own thought power will into existence his own genetic expressions to favor his physical advancement and well-being.
Of course, most clear thinking scientists already know this. Evolutionist "scientists" just need to let their premise catch up with what is already known. It's actually rather funny to hear them all speak of "natural selection" in the first place. Implicit with the term "selection" is a force or mind with some innate modicum of intelligence to do all this preferential, and ostensively "favorable" selecting.
Compensating for nutrition deficits poses serious risks to the integrity of the germ line, and such compensations are always only next best options as compared to the original, intact germ line. It is a compensating adaptive mechanism you site, not a evidence of modern day "evolution". Shetlands have largely overcome nutritional deficits by way of interventions: most notably human care and intelligently directed breeding to become what are today well-fed, tough little 42 inch hauling pack animals.
They are still horses, of course. Genetically speaking they may breed with a 17-hand horse with about as much ease as a dachshund breeds with a Newfoundland -- not a pretty sight -- but also not an impossibility either. Assuming your nutritionally driven evolution premise is true -- which I don't, since you think they evolved so quickly (~200 years) and nutritional neediness was the reason they decided to evolve at all, is there any reason you can think of to give why they just didn't evolve into a Pegasus-like creature, sprout wings and fly off the island to locate a richer food source?
Birds migrate by air to richer food sources all the time. Shrinking in size due to the inherent genetic consequences presented by inbreeding hardly seems to be a favored genetic selection for promoting advancement of the germ line. It's kinda the same logic that informs you against your trying to breed with your mother or your sister, should you indeed have one. And yes, of course we all assumed you were so informed.
Now that Shetland ponies are a breed, many of which are now surely well fed, why do they not now show on their own any visible signs or tendencies toward increasing in size to their ancestor's statures and girth? By way of your observations, what are Shetlands supposedly evolving into now? By way of current evo-think, some dinosaurs allegedly decided to sprout wings, and became birds. Were "primitive" dinosaurs just more informed and more clever than presumably (by your reckoning) better genetically "advantaged" horses are from a mere 200 years ago? Your premise cuts both ways, and dices your fundamental argument in the process.
No one is overly surprised to see how a materialist such as yourself peddles uniformed speculative pap as evolutionary "science" and particularly without a whole lot of credible science to base your statements upon in the first place. Like most evo's, your demonstrably pedestrian research skills clearly require considerably more evidence of intellectual accomplishment with regard to these topics.
"Genetics is required for a biology degree. A class on evolution is not, for example."
This isn't necessarily true. For example, at Arizona state schools and some private schools, genetics is an upper division course offered to biology and biochemistry majors which must be taken in sequence following general biology courses.
In general biology much discussion is on evolution before even touching advanced mendelian genetics topics.
I know how you feel. I have two degrees (one is in Computer Science) and I am 'supposed' to be working on my Masters, but...
I'm too busy working, I don't have time, it costs too much... aw, heck,...I'm just too lazy.
Get rid of the onions and add some sage.
1. Now that Shetland ponies are a breed, many of which are now surely well fed, why do they not now show on their own any visible signs or tendencies toward increasing in size to their ancestor's statures and girth?
Because, as domestic animals, there is no evolutionary pressure for them to do so. This would change, if someone or something (say preditors) killed off the small ones before they had babies. In that situation, the breed would get bigger.
2. By way of your observations, what are Shetlands supposedly evolving into now?
The concept of "evolving into" is not part of Darwin's theory. That's Star Trek and bad reporting. Again, they have no "pressure" (polite way of saying tendancy of being killed) keeping them from having babies just as they are. As there is no pressure, there is no change.
If a pressure is introduced, the line would change. Or die out.
3. By way of current evo-think, some dinosaurs allegedly decided to sprout wings, and became birds.
I think you are are referring to the idea that has been floated that present day birds may be in the genetic line of dinosaurs --- a hotly debated and disputed theory, which I have no opinion.
That said, I am unaware of any serious scientist making a claim that dinosaurs "decided" to do anything, anymore than normal bacteria "decided" to evolve become antibiotic resistent.
To use that common and simple example of evolution, humans introduced anti-biotics. This killed most, but not all, bacteria. The bacteria that lived has had baby bacteria that is resistent like the parents. Repeat frequently (a bacteria has a new generation in what -- 6 hours?) and eventually anti-biotics rapidly become useless.
No bacteria "decided" to do anything. Bacteria evolved simply by the most fit (in this case, resisitent to anti-biotics) living to have babies.
4. Were "primitive" dinosaurs just more informed and more clever than presumably (by your reckoning) better genetically "advantaged" horses are from a mere 200 years ago?
This question does not make sense. Dinosaurs were apparently a great fit for the environment at the time. That environment changed, for whatever reason, so most or all of the dinosaurs died before they had babies.
5. Your premise cuts both ways, and dices your fundamental argument in the process.
No, you just misunderstand it and/or misstated Darwin's argument. (It's not mine.)
6. "Implicit with the term "selection" is a force or mind with some innate modicum of intelligence to do all this preferential, and ostensively "favorable" selecting."
Quite possibly. I have little doubt that the God of Abraham, Issac, and David changed and guided the environment at just the right time to get the result He desired (e.g., a comet at just the right time to kill dinosaurs, for example).
Where we differ is that I recognize that God made the rules of physics and chemestry and, as a result, (it appears) evolution. It makes little sense for God not to play by the rules He created.
Wow. Didja bother to read post 48? Oh wait a minute... YOU posted it!
I guess strange things can happen in an hour and a half...
Thankfully I have very few wrinkles which of course leads people to assume I'm a few years younger than I am. That doesn't help the energy level though. I'm still trying to get past running 2 miles in 20 minutes; I may have to resort to using a skate board.
I've gained 25 lbs in the last couple of years, but I still have all my hair too, just not on my head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.