Posted on 10/26/2006 11:28:10 AM PDT by aculeus
"When all you have to do is suck off of someone else's resources, you don't have to evolve much."
Provided that said resources are always accessible by the equipment you have to access them.
"This also explains why liberals are still around."
On this, we are on the same page.
Gotta run. Thanks for the responses.
It's a chordate.
Only a few of an organisms genes specify its shape. Most of the genes control the detailed composition of proteins. There could have been wholesale changes at the cellular level, but you'd never know it from the fossil record.
That's not wild speculation, either. We observe such low-level divergence occurring in the real world, almost in realtime. Consider the wide variety of bacteria that exist in the world today, all sharing very similar morphologies. If you only knew the shapes, you'd never guess at the extreme variety.
The only really surprising result from this discovery is that an ecological niche has remained so stable for 360,000,000 years.
With the sun going down so early, I thought it was already 8:30.
Well wow. If I had known that I wouldn't have made my comments. NOT!!!
Oh, Lord have mercy! Every time I see that photo, I feel like throwing up. Please, someone---get that woman a burqa!
Ok, I'll warn you now so you can call me names ahead of time - I'm going to post and run, because I can't strand my son at school.
Here's my comment: I've seen in this thread the one common theme I've seen from all evolutionists - no matter what the fossil record shows, it supports evolution.
Think about it. All of these have been proposed on this one thread: 1) If there are changes, that must mean evolution. 2) If there are no changes, that must mean evolution. 3) If this branch didn't change, others must have, so that must mean evolution.
So: None of us were there, and the evidence is approached from a foregone conclusion. My conclusion just happens to be based on God, and whether any will admit it or not, He's better able to do the job than chance.
Flame away, but like I said, I gotta go.
You mean Gerry Garcia?
And, once again, I ask, where is the evidentiary links which support the contention that different species of animals "evolved" from completely different earlier species of animals? The Zoology course I took in college certainly didn't provide such evidence, and noone on any of the threads from FR has either. The most that biologists have been able to say is that they "think" that is what happended, not "we know that is what happened".
That's because the actual fossil records reflects a tree of life that has in fact evolved. Every physics experiment we do likewise supports the conservation of momentum, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
If there were events in the real world that violated evolution--say, a creature that was half mammal, half fish, or fossils occurring out of order in well-dated strata--then the theory evolution would conflict with the evidence. We don't see that in the real fossil record, however.
First of all, I'm not going to call you names. I find the pride and the name-calling more prevalent among the creationists, so I'll leave that to them.
Second, I would like to refine your comment slightly to reflect that state of things more accurately:
You said, "no matter what the fossil record shows, it supports evolution." That's probably how it appears to someone who is dead-set against evolution as a theory. A more accurate version of your statement would be, "short of divine intervention, the only thing that could explain the wide variety that we see in the fossil record would be a process based in evolution. However, since the fossil record is sketchy, we must continue to refine this theory as new data emerges." It's an exciting pursuit, because every once in a while it does get thrown a curve, and it forces the theorists to refine their suppositions and sometimes change them. The pursuit is for a cohesive theory that will account for the variety, and to do that, we must constantly start with the premise that evolution is involved, or else all we have left is divine intervention. Who knows? Maybe God was behind all of it. It's the mechanism that's fascinating.
I was hoping you'd elaborate on your thoughts. I shouldn't have expected as much.
Most people would have seen that my thoughts were very clear.
I hate lampreys. I hate lampreys (and I hate who posted those pictures.)
I hated lampreys from the first time I accidentally saw one in my high school biology book and screamed in class.
Hell is full of lampreys (and leftists. Or maybe I'm just being redundant about parasitic creatures with no backbones.)
Evolution needs to get its stories straight. Constantly revising is not an answer."
This isn't a revision. It's known, for example, that modern sharks have also remained largely unchanged for many millions of years.
"Only a few of an organisms genes specify its shape."
I'd have to just take your word on that, but I suspect it would be in a "this is science's best guess at this point" kind of declaration.
"Most of the genes control the detailed composition of proteins. There could have been wholesale changes at the cellular level, but you'd never know it from the fossil record."
But does this really amount to a hill of beans, when other creatures have changes radically, and wholesale, as one would assume they should. It would make more sense to me, in an evolutionary sense, if the lamprey were extinct or changed significantly. Would it not to you?
Just curious.
This makes the lampray very much more in tune with Earth's long term environment than any other vertebrates species. That, in Darwinian terms means they are the "fittest". All the others were "less fit" ~ that is, they were evolutionary failures!
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.