Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Originally Posted by northpaw

Now THAT is an interesting question! I'm curious: do you understand enough about evolution (whether you agree or not) to offer any possible explanations? That is, to play devil's advocate? (heh)

I ask because I think understanding your stance is much less challenging (i.e. "God made them that way"), which is, in my humble opinion, part of the attraction for many people.

Even IF they did, then it's still the same kind of animal not a new one.

Originally Posted by northpaw

If you want to directly witness a horse-like animal evolve into a different species like a giraffe, you'd have to live an awfully long time, as these things take many, many, many generations. However, as has been said before, we've directly witnessed genetic changes due to selection taking place "in the lab", though it's on a much smaller scale, like fruit flies or bacteria.

For any interested in a modern, full-blown case of speciation in action (that's macroevolution for those of you who draw that distinction), check out the hawthorne fly/apple maggot, whose two varieties are showing difficulties in interbreeding and are likely well on their way towards evolving into two distinct species.

You mean like the ones that they screwed up by messing with them and developed some with no wings and some with extra wings that can't fly, that's real natural and scientific. In other words an (supposedly) intelligent being can make things happen in a lab intentionally by messing with it, ya that's what happens in nature. Yes it happened though 'long ago in a land far away'. In other words they are still flies, right? Oh no, the scientism cult wants you to believe that they are 'new species', ya they are so desperate for anything to prop up their phoney religion that they have to mess with things genetically in the lab. Unlike scientist in the past who relied on what was observed in the real world, or the use clay and paint and plaster and drawings and make stuff up and would have everyone to believe that they by some superior intelligence know how things where.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Even IF they did, then it's still the same kind of animal not a new one.

Seems like you didn't make an effort to address what I was getting at, but since you've raised a new point, we can talk about that instead.

Consider this hypothetical horse-like creature that is evolving a longer neck. You're saying that it's still the same animal rather than a new one. Fair enough, I see what you're saying.

However, if those animals ran wild across the plains, and only the ones near the far eastern edge (by a forest, let's say) began munching on the trees - with the successful long-necked ones having long-necked offspring, etc. - at some point you could easily have had two different populations: one group that still had shorter necks, and one that had developed longer necks. You say they're still the same animal, and I agree, but only up to a point. If they become so different that they can no longer reproduce with members of the other group, aren't they then different animals (i.e. different species)?

Or do you have some other criteria for what would make them "different animals"?

Or are you unwilling to concede that such a thing could ever be possible, under any circumstances?

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

You mean like the ones that they screwed up by messing with them and developed some with no wings and some with extra wings that can't fly, that's real natural and scientific. In other words an (supposedly) intelligent being can make things happen in a lab intentionally by messing with it, ya that's what happens in nature. Yes it happened though 'long ago in a land far away'. In other words they are still flies, right? Oh no, the scientism cult wants you to believe that they are 'new species', ya they are so desperate for anything to prop up their phoney religion that they have to mess with things genetically in the lab. Unlike scientist in the past who relied on what was observed in the real world, or the use clay and paint and plaster and drawings and make stuff up and would have everyone to believe that they by some superior intelligence know how things where.

Did you even look at that wiki link?
It explains how a species in the wild is apparently currently in the process of splitting into two species via evolution. All we did was introduce apples to North America a couple of hundred years ago, and natural selection has done the rest.

Originally Posted by northpaw

Or are you unwilling to concede that such a thing could ever be possible, under any circumstances?

The nature of the beast, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by jcd

If this bacteria existed, and could only eat nylon and nothing else, that is exactly what I'm suggesting.

If you are actually interested in organisms acquiring "new information" you could google "Richard Lenski E Coli".

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist


Hey look it was just a hypothetical. OK, I went too far, I don't know what I was thinking. But cut me some slack; it was a late night.

Oh, and be nice to CF1, he's my brothah.

Same old 'look what happens when we tinker with stuff in the lab, but it happens naturally too, really, trust us'. But things couldn't possibly have come about by any superior being because there is no one or anything superior to or more intelligent than us, especially X and JCD, we've been across the universe and seen everything and been everywhere and know everything and if it was out there then we would have known it. It doesn't matter that in the fossil record things show up fully formed the way that they are actually seen in the real world. Punctuated equilibrium, I'm telling you man.

Pimp on gangstuh!

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

because there is no one or anything superior to or more intelligent than us, especially X and JCD

Con-to-the-trol-to-the-freako-1....now you're talking my language yo!

Originally Posted by northpaw

Did you even look at that wiki link?
It explains how a species in the wild is apparently currently in the process of splitting into two species via evolution. All we did was introduce apples to North America a couple of hundred years ago, and natural selection has done the rest.

Sure I did.
So, one of them is not going to be a fly 'eventually'.

Originally Posted by northpaw

Seems like you didn't make an effort to address what I was getting at, but since you've raised a new point, we can talk about that instead.

Consider this hypothetical horse-like creature that is evolving a longer neck. You're saying that it's still the same animal rather than a new one. Fair enough, I see what you're saying.

However, if those animals ran wild across the plains, and only the ones near the far eastern edge (by a forest, let's say) began munching on the trees - with the successful long-necked ones having long-necked offspring, etc. - at some point you could easily have had two different populations: one group that still had shorter necks, and one that had developed longer necks. You say they're still the same animal, and I agree, but only up to a point. If they become so different that they can no longer reproduce with members of the other group, aren't they then different animals (i.e. different species)?

Or do you have some other criteria for what would make them "different animals"?

Or are you unwilling to concede that such a thing could ever be possible, under any circumstances?

If there was evidence. Other animals feed on trees too, why didn't this happen to them? And why did theirs allegedly continue growing? And why isn't there the thousands of intermediates found in the fossil record? Why do you go to the extent of believing in speculation and supposition instead of coming to logical conclusions from the evidence that exists?

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Sure I did.
So, one of them is not going to be a fly 'eventually'.

"Fly" is not a species. They don't have to stop being any kind of fly in order to be a new species. In fact, there are thousands of different species of flies.