Posted on 03/11/2003 3:01:59 PM PST by Remedy
I really don't know how better to explain it. We'll be beating a dead horse if we keep up discussion on this particular topic much more.
Let's remember also that because the more advance species are sexual, they require mates to reproduce so this requires that not one, but several (or perhapse the whole species) transform itself into a new more advanced species.
Major misconception here. Species do not suddenly grow extra limbs in one generation. They do not "spontaneously" morph into something else. Most evolution has to do with features that are common in the species to begin with. Say that due to a change in the enviornment, taller members of the species have an easier time surviving. Gradually the speicies will tend to get taller. These enviornmental changes may not happen often, so species have no reason to change wildly. There are built-in resistances to most mutations, making variation relatively uncommon, so unless there is a definite pressure, there is no reason for something to be constantly changing.
Frogs may not compete for food with alligators, but they may indeed become food for the alligator.
Just because there is a predator/prey struggle, this does not imply a struggle for resources. Predators depend on prey species for food. If they eat too many and the prey become scarce, they starve and become scarce themselves. If the predators become scarce, the prey can overmultiply and the whole cycle starts again. This interdependence is critical, so there is no reason why alligators MUST eat frogs to extinction simply because they are more "advanced". I've said it before and I'll say it again: Just because a species is more complex, doesn't make it superior. You might not LIKE this fact, but that doesn't make it not true.
I already gave you an example of just such a frog, with citation and link to the site.
Please re-post it then. The last link I could find that you posted was back in 393. Something about puffer-fish.
I really don't know how better to explain it. We'll be beating a dead horse if we keep up discussion on this particular topic much more.
I do not see how you cannot understand that there is a contradiction when evolutionists say at once at the same time that species change out of necessity but that nevertheless those who do not change do not die. Evolution is full of death to those who do not change, it is rife with such phrases as 'struggle for life', 'survival of the fittest' and has a strong bent to Malthusianism.
Let's remember also that because the more advance species are sexual, they require mates to reproduce so this requires that not one, but several (or perhapse the whole species) transform itself into a new more advanced species. -me-
Major misconception here. Species do not suddenly grow extra limbs in one generation. They do not "spontaneously" morph into something else.
It is you who does not understand. You do not understand that the statement above supports my position. It takes the whole species to accumulate the traits gradually and build the changed species (again the sexual problem, the group needs to change, not just an individual). Because the change is gradual at involves a lot of individuals, again there should be none that remain unchanged (the whole genetic pool has to gradually change to accomplish the gradual transformation).
Frogs may not compete for food with alligators, but they may indeed become food for the alligator. -me-
Just because there is a predator/prey struggle, this does not imply a struggle for resources.
Oh come now! Predation is perhaps the greatest threat to a species. Let's remember that the excuse evolutionists give for what they consider 'proto-mammals' in Australia is the lack of predators. Predation plays a large part in evolutionary theory and no double talk can change that.
I already gave you an example of just such a frog, with citation and link to the site.-me-
Please re-post it then.
In post#708 to Junior:
Native New Zealand frogs (genus Leiopelma) are among the rarest frogs in the world. They are the living representatives of the most ancient lineage of frogs, closely resembling frogs that lived 200 million years ago.
From: Behavior and Biology of Native Frogs.
That's been explained to him at least 100 times, or if not 100, it seems that many. Perhaps yours will be the repetition that finally sinks in. Good luck.
I'll bet he's been told that at least 1720 times...
Thanks, but I'm not holding my breath. :)
There are a lot of pressures on species NOT to evolve. If the species changes to readily, it loses its identity and does not propogate. If it does not change AT ALL, then it cannot adapt to new enviornmental conditions. When you have frogs that "closely resemble" primitive species, that means they have not had any significant enviornmental pressures in all that time. You are right that this is unlikely. That is why it happens so infrequently and why, out of all the thousands of species of frogs in the world, the guy you are quoting is specifically interested in that one. It is because this is such a rare, but not impossible, phenomena, that gingko trees are so interesting. (We actually had a female gingko tree on campus where I did my undergrad work. That thing stunk to high heaven every spring.) Species DON'T change unless there is a real necessity. Unless they are locked in a struggle for the survival of the species. Most species have to go through this and so change and evolve with some regularity. Some slip through the cracks. These few so-called "living fossils" are compelling evidence for evolution. Not a refutation of it.
You do not understand that the statement above[in the last post] supports my position. It takes the whole species to accumulate the traits gradually and build the changed species (again the sexual problem, the group needs to change, not just an individual).
No, it doesn't support you. You are not arguing against evolution here. IT DOESN'T WORK THE WAY YOU ARE SUGGESTING. No one is proposing that this is anywhere close to what is currently accepted in Biology these days. This is not a contradiciton in evolution, it is a contradiction in YOUR VERSION of evolution.
Oh come now! Predation is perhaps the greatest threat to a species.
Predation is a vital method for "prey" species to keep their numbers at a reasonable level. Otherwise they multiply to the point where they eat all food available to them and consequently starve. It is possible for overactive predation to force a species to extinction, but this is, to my knowledge, uncommon. Usually this is due to the sudden introduction of new predators to an enviornment, like when dogs and rats brought by sailors wiped out the Dodo bird. Lions are not likely to force gazelles to extinction, nor are wolves, which are making a comeback incidentally, likely to wipe out white-tailed deer. Deer that are more succesful at avoiding predators are more likely to pass on their traits, which is why predation is important to evolution. You are suggesting that frogs would have to evolve into reptiles or else be eaten to extinction by alligators. Predators are a significant pressure on prey species and vice-versa, but this is a reason for frogs to evolve poisonous skin, not for frogs to evolve into reptiles on their own, or go extinct.
In post#708 to Junior:
Thanks, I must have missed it. I think I talked about this sufficiently in the first section of this post.
Right. After nearly two years of furious activity in our threads, he has yet to indicate that he has achieved any grasp of what evolution is all about. He constantly argues against weird notions that are stuck in his mind, which no biologist ever conceived of. But stay the course until you wear yourself out. You may be the one to achieve a breakthrough.
There are a lot of pressures on species NOT to evolve. If the species changes to readily, it loses its identity and does not propogate. If it does not change AT ALL, then it cannot adapt to new enviornmental conditions.
Funny that in the last two posts you have made arguments FOR evolution which I have often made against it. The propagation problem is one of them and that is a reason why in my view evolution is impossible. However, for evolution to be true, the changes have to be constant and over the whole species in order to provide 'test material' for favorable transformations. So regardless of environmental pressures there needs to be constant mutations going on. This makes the possibility of any species remaining the same for hundreds of millions of years impossible IF (big if) evolution were to be true. Yes, 'natural selection' is a destructive force and it prevents changes which makes it another contradiction in evolution - the calling of a destroyer and a conservative force the creator of anything.
When you have frogs that "closely resemble" primitive species, that means they have not had any significant enviornmental pressures in all that time. You are right that this is unlikely. That is why it happens so infrequently and why, out of all the thousands of species of frogs in the world, the guy you are quoting is specifically interested in that one.
Well again we see the contradictions of evolution and the excuse making - if a species changes it is evolution, if it does not, it is also evolution. The problem however is more than just a frog, but it is also about sharks, coelecanths, and many other species. Indeed everything that is not a mammal could be considered from an evolutionary standpoint an 'inferior' species, yet they constitute the majority of species on earth - AND THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY NEED TO TRANSFORM THEMSELVES INTO MORE ADVANCED SPECIES IN ORDER TO SURVIVE.
In fact, the whole argument by evolutionists that species need to transform themselves into more complex, more advanced species in order to survive is proven to be absolute nonsense by the simplest and oldest of all organisms - the bacteria. Bacteria are by all accounts the oldest and simplest of all organisms, they are also the most successful of all organisms. In spite of their small size (not only are they unicellular, but the cells are several orders of magnitude smaller than human cells) they still constitute some 90% of the bio-mass on earth. Now that is what I call success!
Certainly not by the #1 moron of evolution - you who only knows how to post insults and placemarkers.
Further, I did not say that species evolve suddenly - however, your buddy Gould does, he says they transform themselves suddenly (but being a charlatan he does not say how suddenly is suddenly just like the other charlatan Darwin never said how gradual is gradual). I am throwing back to evolutionists their own arguments. Slow change of a whole group is contradicted by the numerous species which have not changed at all and which evolutionists themselves claim to not have changed at all when it is convenient to them. For example they often compare the DNA of existing species as if the 'more primitive' species had not changed at all. This is just plain doubletalk and dishonesty by evolutionists - something we see from you all the time.
What's even odder is when Creationists assume that God couldn't have created evolution.
I give up. No breakthrough is possible at this point.
Gore3000, I just can't keep parroting the same arguments and hope that you'll eventually catch on. The sad part is how many other people think that the ideas you keep proposing are in fact how evolution works. Please try to understand that you are not arguing against the actual proposed theory, but something you've constructed yourself
PH, if any of his arguments were actually against the real theory, this might be worth continuing, but he's stuck in his own version and I'm tired of trying to get him to change it.
Time to get some actual work done.
Professdor who wishes death for our soldiers.
Posted by f.Christian to finnman69
On News/Activism 03/31/2003 2:52 PM PST #35 of 35
Why is it these ... anthroplogy prfessors --- are always getting into trouble?
Welcome to the club.
Yup, you cannot refute my statements so you go the way of all the other losers of evolution and resort to insults.
What I have shown are contradictions in evolution, taking both sides of the question. One day talking as if species do not change their DNA at all (as when they compare DNA sequences to prove evolution) and the next day saying that species change all the time. One day they say that evolution is gradual, the next that it is sudden. Which is it? One day saying that necessity drives evolution yet claims that older species had no necessity to change. Which is it? Take a side instead of all sides. Just because a species exists does not mean that evolution did it.
As I have shown many times on this thread there are three proofs of evolution:
1. Insults.
2. Doubletalk
3. Lies
So now we have another question which evolutionists cannot answer:
IF SPECIES MUST TRANSFORM THEMSELVES OUT OF NECESSITY, HOW COME SO MANY HAVE NEVER NEEDED TO CHANGE??????????
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.