Darwin

[Bonam]

You don't see adaptation in a matter of a couple of generations, Betsy. It can take years with insects, centuries with mammals. Drastic changes with higher lifeforms might need thousands of years.

More like millions actually. And the kind of changes that were mentioned in this thread ("why didn't the mammoths grow gills and swim in the ocean" or whatever) would take hundreds of millions of years, if they were even possible at all.

[Saipan]

More like millions actually.

Look at the difference between Chihuahua and St. Bernard.

And the kind of changes that were mentioned in this thread ("why didn't the mammoths grow gills and swim in the ocean" or whatever) would take hundreds of millions of years, if they were even possible at all.

So was it cold or warm weather that killed mammoths?

[g_bambino]

Look at the difference between Chihuahua and St. Bernard.

Fascinating.

[Saipan]

Scientifically?

[g_bambino]

Scientifically?

Sure.

[Saipan]

Then we got 'consensus'

[jbg]

More like millions actually. And the kind of changes that were mentioned in this thread ("why didn't the mammoths grow gills and swim in the ocean" or whatever) would take hundreds of millions of years, if they were even possible at all.

Ask whales that question.

As far as the thread, I thought it would be about Darwin, Australia or the Darwin Awards.

[Bonam]

Look at the difference between Chihuahua and St. Bernard.

That's not natural selection, dog breeds are a result of artificial selection guided by humans, which drastically speeds the process.

So was it cold or warm weather that killed mammoths?

What killed the mammoths? While changes in climate may have been a factor, hunting by humans was what caused the mammoths to go extinct. Mammoths had survived through many variations in temperature, both warming and cooling, over the millions of years that they existed. The fact that mammoths survived longest in the location most remote from human habitation (Wrangel Island) is an obvious indicator that it was human hunting that caused their extinction. Mammoths on the island (and the species as a whole) went extinct in 1650 BC. First archaeological evidence of humans present on the island is 1700 BC. A causal link is all but certain.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

To add to Bonam's point, it's also patently false that hunter-gatherer tribes had some sort of harmonious relationship with the earth. Proof? Head Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Alberta. Many tribes drove animals over cliffs or into traps with absolutely no concern for sustainability.

[betsy]

Your cat may like to eat veggies but there's no way it can live on a veggie only diet. I had nearly 20 years with my last cat. Let us know how many years YOUR cat lives living exclusively on veggies! You strike me as rather cruel, killing your pet for a silly point.

Take note that I said, there are meat in her diet. She is given regular cat food! It's available anytime she wants it.

But she'd kill for your veggies when she sees you eating them! Especially peas, corn, broccoli and green beans! This cat also begs for a drop of Extra-virgin olive oil - first, cold pressed! She knows the bottle so well...she even has a brand preference (Saporito). Put a drop of olive oil next to her milk, and she'd go for the olive oil first!

She's a regular tabby, already 13, and still slender and kittenish, wheras the tabbies her age in the neighborhood are all obese! I sometimes think she knows what's best for her.

[Saipan]

That's not natural selection, dog breeds are a result of artificial selection guided by humans, which drastically speeds the process.

Doesn't The Itself or Mother Nature have more power?

What killed the mammoths? .....hunting by humans was what caused the mammoths to go extinct.

So that is what happen if you give natives the free reign over hunting?

Shouldn't elephant be hunted to extinction with wooden sticks the same way?

Was sabretooth tiger easy to hunt of too delicious to leave alone?

How about the dire wolf?

Shortface bear?

But the caribou or moose are still here and LOT of them.

[Saipan]

To add to Bonam's point, it's also patently false that hunter-gatherer tribes had some sort of harmonious relationship with the earth. Proof? Head Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Alberta. Many tribes drove animals over cliffs or into traps with absolutely no concern for sustainability.

So why they were not hunted to extinction?

Considering how easy and relatively risk free it was.

[jbg]

So why they were not hunted to extinction?

Considering how easy and relatively risk free it was.

They almost were. They were reduced to under 100 animals in Yellowstone Park at one time. I don't know if there was then a separate Canadian population.

[Bonam]

Doesn't The Itself or Mother Nature have more power?

Nope. Humans reign supreme.

So that is what happen if you give natives the free reign over hunting?

Yes, many species have been hunted to extinction or near extinction by humans.

[Saipan]

They almost were. They were reduced to under 100 animals

Not using wooden stick or stones available thousands of years ago.

And why would the natives risk their life hunting say short face bear. Much bigger than grizzly or Kodiak bear?

[Bonam]

Not using wooden stick or stones available thousands of years ago.

And why would the natives risk their life hunting say short face bear. Much bigger than grizzly or Kodiak bear?

Hunting dangerous prey was often a demonstration of skill, a sign of strength and power, a test of manhood, or served other cultural significance in various primitive societies. Some primitive cultures believed that eating from a certain animal gave you aspects of its strength or courage, or had other magical properties.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Bonam

[Saipan]

Hunting dangerous prey was often a demonstration of skill, a sign of strength and power, a test of manhood, or served other cultural significance in various primitive societies. Some primitive cultures believed that eating from a certain animal gave you aspects of its strength or courage, or had other magical properties.

Not a shred of evidence of that.

WHOLE skeletons of mammoths are found, even whole mammoths with undigested vegetation in their stomachs. No signs of being hunted.

[betsy]

SYMBIOSIS.

How Symbiosis Defies Darwin

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

[kimmy]

Just because somebody made a Youtube video doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. I watched 48 seconds of this and realized it's complete crap.

Some guy talking out of his ass. "DURRRR survival of the fittest means organisms should be competing, not cooperating!"

"Fittest" means best suited to survive, not an all out creature-fight. And "survival" means exist long enough to reproduce a new generation of offspring.

If a symbiotic relationship gives an organism a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, that organism has a higher chance of reproducing than a competing organism that does not have the advantages of the symbiotic relationship. Natural selection will favor the symbiotic relationship.

For example, clownfish and anenomes. A small fish that lives among anenomes eats small creatures that feed on the anenomes. The anenomes' poisonous branches protect the small fish from larger predators. Over time, the fish that live among anenomes has a better chance of surviving than fish that are out in the open, and living among anenomes becomes a trait that is bred into this species of fish.

Creatures adapting to their environment by forming symbiotic relationships is actually a great example of natural selection in action. Evolution wins again.

-k

[cybercoma]

Symbiosis is survival of the fittest. what the hell is that video on about?

[cybercoma]

Derp. Kimmy's on it.

[betsy]

Just because somebody made a Youtube video doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. I watched 48 seconds of this and realized it's complete crap.

Some guy talking out of his ass. "DURRRR survival of the fittest means organisms should be competing, not cooperating!"

"Fittest" means best suited to survive, not an all out creature-fight. And "survival" means exist long enough to reproduce a new generation of offspring.

If a symbiotic relationship gives an organism a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, that organism has a higher chance of reproducing than a competing organism that does not have the advantages of the symbiotic relationship. Natural selection will favor the symbiotic relationship.

For example, clownfish and anenomes. A small fish that lives among anenomes eats small creatures that feed on the anenomes. The anenomes' poisonous branches protect the small fish from larger predators. Over time, the fish that live among anenomes has a better chance of surviving than fish that are out in the open, and living among anenomes becomes a trait that is bred into this species of fish.

Creatures adapting to their environment by forming symbiotic relationships is actually a great example of natural selection in action. Evolution wins again.

-k

I'm not talking about co-adaptation or "cooperation" between two creatures to increase chances of survival. That's another thing that evolutionists have got to come up with a plausible explanation of how such an arrangement - or "cooperation" - between two creatures could've evolved in stages.

I'm talking about symbiosis that a creature has with another for its very existence!

]Symbiosis – What is it?[/b]

The term symbiosis relates to close interactions between different biological organisms and the interdependent relationships between living things, in which completely different forms of life depend upon each other for existence. One example of beneficial symbiosis (or mutualism) is found between algae and the fungus of lichens. While fungi provide vital protection and moisture to algae, the algae nourish the fungi with photosynthetic nutrients that keep them alive.

Another example of mutual symbiosis is the relationship which exists between the ocellaris clownfish that dwells among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones. The territorial fish protects the anemone from carnivorous fish, and in turn the stinging tentacles of the anemone protect the clownfish from its predators. A special mucus on the clownfish protects it from the stinging tentacles.

Plants that are pollinated by insects have highly specialized flowers modified to promote pollination by a specific pollinator that is also correspondingly adapted. Many herbivores have mutualistic gut fauna that aid them in the digestion of plant matter. Coral reefs are the result of mutualistic symbiotic relationships existing between coral organisms and various types of algae that live inside them. Most land plants and land ecosystems rely on mutualisms between the plants which fix carbon from the air, and fungi which help in extracting minerals from the ground.

Symbiosis – A challenge to evolution?

Darwin’s theory of biological change was based upon competition among the individuals making up a species. In The Origin, Darwin concedes that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

How can plants that require certain animals to survive have existed before those animals appeared in the first place? Moreover, how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without their partners arriving at the exact same moment?

http://www.allabouts...g/symbiosis.htm

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

[Guest]

Because they evolve at the very same time to be beneficial to one another.

[Sleipnir]

But how can two species evolve to support each other?

Because they can?

[betsy]

]Symbiosis among lower forms of life[/b]

One example of beneficial symbiosis (called mutualism) is that found between algae and the fungus of lichens. While fungi provide vital protection and moisture to algae, the algae nourish the fungi with photosynthetic nutrients that keep them alive. As a biology textbook puts it: "Neither population could exist without the other, and hence the size of each is determined by that of the other" (Mary Clark, Contemporary Biology, 1973, p. 519).

So which came first, the alga or the fungus? Since neither could exist without the other, according to evolution for both to survive they had to evolve independently of each other, yet appear at exactly the same time and with precisely the right functions.

How could two completely different species evolve separately from distinct ancestors, yet depend on each other to exist? Frankly, the idea that this relationship evolved is utterly beyond reason.

http://www.ucg.org/b...fy-evolution-0/

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy