Posted on 02/09/2003 5:57:17 PM PST by liberallarry
On a rocky slope in the Santa Ynez Mountains, Cristina Sandoval grabs a branch and beats it like a punching bag. "Aha!" she cries as a few wriggling insects spill into her lap. "Aren't they adorable?" The squat, beady-eyed bugs may have faces only a biologist could love, but researchers say they are offering a rare glimpse into the mystery of evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Yup. And they seem to do quite well there, they seem to be happy there, they are well accustomed to it - so what need was there for them to grow legs and transform themselves into totally different creatures?
Note: Any which way you answer you are refuting your excuse for evolution.
The answer is in a three letter word which to evolutionists is even filthier than any four letter word out there.
Hint: it starts with 'g' and should be capitalized.
There are some fascinating computer programs that model evolution using software 'creatures'. They tend to find, or create ecological niches within their environment. Some even develop cooperative or parasitic strategies.
I'm not sure if any of them realize they are the treacherous spawn of malign demonic intent, though.
On at least half a dozen other threads I've seen people provide you with great loads of the evidence that you claim doesn't exist at all.
I've also seen you make false claims about what science has found, and when you've been challenged to support those claims or retract them (MULTIPLE TIMES), you fail to respond or you dodge.
It's one thing to disagree about the issues, but it's another thing entirely for you to lie so baldly about them.
Is there any particular reason you're "forgetting" to consider the many evolutionists who believe in God who have responded to you in various threads?
Oh well: "A closed mind gathers no thought". If that's what it takes for you to feel comfortable, may it bring you some peace.
Welcome to GoreLand, where the fun never stops, because the riders just sit in the roller coaster after the park closes and pretend it's still moving...
Great handle, BTW ;)
Because there were open ecological niches on land which had less competition for resources than back in the water.
Plus, fish living in areas of unreliable resources or environment (e.g., shallows where they could often be trapped in tidal pools which had a chance of drying up) would have strong selective pressures to develop methods to survive longer and longer periods out of the water (to, say, abandon a shrinking pool to locate another or flop to a lake or the sea).
This is all Biology 101, were you sleeping through class?
Note: Any which way you answer you are refuting your excuse for evolution.
*snort*. Dream on.
Your son is mistaken. Among other things, one of the reasons is that if all life were "the same thing", then there would be open ecological niches which would becon some subpopulations to split off from the main population and start taking advantage of the unused food source / resources / etc.
For one example, if everything was a carnivore, some subpopulation would have an uncontested bounty if they developed a taste for eating plants.
why would some creatures remain fish, dogs, cats, trees, bugs..... everything would have evolved!
Everything has evolved. Everything is still evolving. Five hundred million years hence, the descendants of cats will be something else, if they haven't gone extinct. Two hundred million years ago, there were no cats of any sort. Life on Earth has changed, and continues to change. It only looks "frozen" today because we're looking at it at a snapshot of time. Even all of recorded human history is an eyeblink compared to the total history of life on Earth, although it's interesting to note that in that short period of time it's possible to turn wolves into dachshunds. And dachshunds are no longer wolves, in case you hadn't noticed.
From then on I realized that evolution was only another trick, a lie, from satan.
Let me get this straight -- you're saying that evolution is a trick of satan because your son doesn't understand it?
And this metaphor refutes the evidence how? Oh, right, it doesn't.
Thanks. One of these days on a crevo thread I'm going to ask the creationists what sort of twisted god would create something as cruel as the life cycle of the ichneumon wasp (and a hundred other examples).
Because there were open ecological niches on land which had less competition for resources than back in the water.
Well, your answer is nice, however it shows the evolutionist contortionism needed to justify the theory. My statement was in response to the following:
For one thing, "we" would not all have evolved into the same thing because we don't all live in the same environment.
So explain how if fish are adapted to this nice watery environment they need to go through the trouble of growing legs and all the other changes necessary to become earth inhabiting creatures. Seems to me there would be a lot better (and easier ways) of becoming more dominant in the environment they already knew.
Also, if they lived in the sea and could not walk and stuff, how did they know there was an 'empty niche' on land? Who told them? Does natural selection have esp??????????????
Ridiculous. Sorry, I don't mean to beat up on gore3000, but he's fighting a fight that's not even happening. Why do the creationists act like they're being confronted by those that subscribe to evolution when the evolutionists simply dismiss creationism as junk science based in religion and really not even worth the time and trouble to address?
A great bearded one in the sky said," this is no fun, here I am this ALL powerful being, who should be worshipped, I know what I'll do..." and poof, the rest is history.
Or so the creationists claim.
To this day the United States President takes an oath of office on the only truely binding document in existance. Please do not align yourself with those who do not respect that binding document.
Jesus Christ is God. He chose to become a man who lived a perfect life and still suffered at the hands of wicked men. He was tortured and died as a perfect and innocent man. He makes a plea to you, and ransomed His life so that you could live eternally without evil.
The crazy thing is we have a free will that allows us to choose to align ourselves with His perfection or we can choose to align with the evil that this world has to offer. Look around at what the world has to offer. Do your answers only come from what you can observe and prove?
The world and its answers have no ability to provide the joy of life that God intended. Only intimately knowing Jesus Christ provides this.
The United States, which I believe is still a Christian nation, is the first in history to have a far superior military than all competition, and still hasn't used it to try to conquer the world. Why? Because as Abraham said I look not for a city created by man, but I look for a city created by God.
Reread Bush's speech to the University he spoke to in China. A Christian man sharing the freedom that Christ provides to individuals who can live righteously side-by-side. Our freedom loving constitution is worthless without citizens who accept individual accountability.
True goodness in a man only comes from our intimate relationship with Christ. As we turn from Him as a society, so goes our goodness. Look at history.
Do not limit yourself to observing only what scientists dish up. Look also at history, then consider who has had the single largest impact on history. Then thoroughly investigate Him personally. There is much there that we can assure you that you have not yet considered.
Oooookay...
Hope this helps with the other hundred examples as well.
No it doesn't, but thanks for trying. The next time God commissions you to answer my questions, I hope he tries to stay more on topic.
Well, your answer is nice, however it shows the evolutionist contortionism needed to justify the theory.
No, it's a direct answer to your question, based on well-known and universally accepted biological principles. If it seems contorted to you, let me know which parts you're having trouble with and I'll explain them in more detail for you.
So explain how if fish are adapted to this nice watery environment they need to go through the trouble of growing legs and all the other changes necessary to become earth inhabiting creatures.
Your phrase "go through the trouble" shows a great misunderstanding of how evolution works. Would you like me to point you towards some good introductory material?
But in partial answer to your question, see my post #27. The development of amphibious capabilities may have first been in response to other sorts of survival pressures, and only later put to use to expand into unoccupied land-based ecological niches.
Furthermore, there is good evidence that legs and lungs at least got their starts because they were useful in some entirely underwater circumstances. Leg-like structures are used by some bottom-dwelling fish to help them "run" along the sea floor efficiently, and primitive lungs are used by some species of fish which live in brackish water, where there is not always a good amount of oxygen dissolved in the water itself. Such fish would have a head-start to take advantage of opportunities on the land near the water's edge.
Seems to me there would be a lot better (and easier ways) of becoming more dominant in the environment they already knew.
"Easy" is not a consideration for evolution. It doesn't "look ahead" and "decide" what would be the path of least resistance.
And you should ponder how "easy" it is to remain in the water somewhere down near the bottom of a predatory food chain, versus moving into a niche where there would be (at least at the start) no predation and no food competition.
Also, if they lived in the sea and could not walk and stuff, how did they know there was an 'empty niche' on land? Who told them? Does natural selection have esp??????????????
If that's a serious question, you need to try harder. If that's a faceitious question, you need to try to think up some serious ones.
The early amphibians most likely started just skipping from pond to pond to look for greener pastures when their current pond couldn't properly support them. From there, they were in a good position to begin to spend more time on land (to avoid predation in the water) and to begin to take advantage of whatever food was appropriate for them (i.e. insects, vegetation, etc.) as they made their overland travels. Over time they'd become better adapated to longer stretches on land, taking more and more advantage of the resources there.
It's similar to, but the reverse of, how some families of mammals (which were at one time 100% land-based) began migrating towards spending more time in the water. Whales ended up living full-time in the water, whereas walruses, sea lions, and hippos are clearly very adapted for water life, but still reside some of the time on land.
No, single cell life forms have had the longest time to evolve, but there are still single cell life forms because they continue to survive, even as they mutate into other single cell life forms. Some of the single cell life forms evolved -- through many steps -- into sea animals. And so on.
Evolution isn't goal-oriented, except for the abstract goal of survival for generation after generation. The long sequence of mutations that finally resulted in human beings -- after millions and millions of generations -- had the fortuitous result of generating intelligence that could participate in a forum like this. It could have turned out many other ways. For example, if an asteroid hadn't landed in the Gulf of Mexico 65 million years ago, dinosaurs might still be dominant over whatever our little furry ancestors would have evolved into.
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.