animals that well illustrate evolution
Posted on: Tue, 2006-12-12 17:57
Offline
animals that well illustrate evolution
i was watching a show on national geographic call inside the womb and saw a few animal fetuses develop and learned the dolphin starts out with 2 nostrils which migrate up and fuse to make the blow hole and they also grow leg like appendages which later retract into the bodies. in addition to that the bones in their flippers look alot like a hand. all of these strongly suggest a land mammal ancestor and it would be 100% pointless for a god to design anything like that.
dose anyone else know any animals that well illustrate evolution.
humans, along with other primates
can you be more spesific
all of them.
Which are most apparant?
Well, it's recently be theorized(because of our subcutaneous fat) that we evolved near water originally.
Whales are good examples of evolution.
In fact, any sea animals with flippers.
Any animals with an aorta(instead of going straight down, all aorta's loop down into the lungs and back up)
HERV's aren't specific to any given species, but they are good examples.
Evolution is quite easy to support :) I ha da discussion with one of the more intelligent christians in my grade about my senior thesis, and he was like, the reason these style arguments all suck is because the intelligent christians support evolution and don't believe in intelligent design and stuff, and jsut hold that it is faith.
The one thing that bugs me about that is that faith is somewhat intellectually dishonest
I personally think that the teacup poodle is a creature that shows a reason evolution exists. No teacup poodle could have survived the iceage - enought said.
I know that creationists could say that man created the teacup poodle but i still like the imagry of refuting a creationist by throwing a teacup poodle at them (obviously this would be wrong and pointless.... but I still find it funny)
The creationists don't believe in the Ice Age. It ended 5000 years before they said the world was created.
Some of them do, I know some people that beleve in the ice age and beleve in dinosaurs... only they dont beleve that they evolved... they think that god created all species by magic
I also know some people who beleve that god works through evolution... like he just controlls it.. and as far as i know, there is no really good refutation to this (except the fact that god dosent exist...)
It becomes a unneeded hypothesis. Ask someone who says that for the rhetorical or logical need for a God. I have tried this to some religious people who also like science, and generally they just hate you. I think complete denial is the thinking person's first step to reanalysis.
ah, old-earth creationists. I had forgotten about them. The truth is ,none of those theories really have precedence, it's all about belief in god and the method by which is it created doesn't matter to any of those people. Most of the ID books were originally creationist books in their draft phases. Most of the ID or creationist people preach together. It's all incredibly disgusting 'science'(it's more like pandering)
Evolution is a big step to explaining the world that creationists say is all god made. Even if we could explain everything perfectly - and I mean everything... everything according to a law - BIble thumpers can still hide behind "god did it and he did it by..."
Proving evolution wont have that much of an impact on people opposed to it... it wont change minds... eventually the creationists will just say that god works through evolution
Take 3 random mammal embryos and look at the similarities. Uncanny.
Google Whales + Wolves + Evolution.
[quote=Guruite]Evolution is a big step to explaining the world that creationists say is all god made. Even if we could explain everything perfectly - and I mean everything... everything according to a law - BIble thumpers can still hide behind "god did it and he did it by..."
[/quote]
I would agree that evolution won't discourage the most zealous of the believers, however the spread of evolution is not entirely fruitless. Many have left their faith after reading Dawkins' [i]The Blink Watchmaker. [/i]
Yeah, Evolution just removes the argument that god is nescessary
[quote=Guruite]Yeah, Evolution just removes the argument that god is nescessary[/quote]
Not entirely, but I see what you're saying. Without God, we are able to adapt and thrive.
However, if a giant meteor 8 times the size of Earth was hurtling towards us, I think that would make a God very neccesary for survival.
But that's just picking hairs.
There are a bunch of things that we as a civilization could not survive without a god (however a meteor could be stopped by aliens... haha)
Ya, I sorta meant that evolution was one of the final stones that creationists could hide under (why are there monkeys?... where did we come from? ... but with evolution they are on the defensive and are required to change their belefs (or not accept science))
what on eearth does necessary mean? Our continued existence is not necessary. Nothing is.
I think the point was that God generally is used to 'explain' things on a basic level, and those 'explanations' are all taken account for.
[quote][b]I think the point was that God generally is used to 'explain' things on a basic level, and those 'explanations' are all taken account for.[/b][/quote]
Yes, well put
Archeopterix : now concidered a true bird because it has an avian lung, which cannot arise from a reptilian lung because in the one the air flow is constant, while in the other the air flows in and out.
I must have missed something... what is that in response to?
thank you for debunking years old myths of evolution, good to see you getting to the heart of the matter. Although I guess it's better than saying that radioactive decay projects an age of 6-10000 years, when there are trees older than that, and we know that Chinese empires started before then... Riiight
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]thank you for debunking years old myths of evolution, good to see you getting to the heart of the matter. Although I guess it's better than saying that radioactive decay projects an age of 6-10000 years, when there are trees older than that, and we know that Chinese empires started before then... Riiight[/quote]
Last time I checked I thought U-235 decayed every 24000 years.
[quote=KCahill][quote=AgnosticAtheist1]thank you for debunking years old myths of evolution, good to see you getting to the heart of the matter. Although I guess it's better than saying that radioactive decay projects an age of 6-10000 years, when there are trees older than that, and we know that Chinese empires started before then... Riiight[/quote]
Last time I checked I thought U-235 decayed every 24000 years.[/quote]
What do you mean by that? We can never predict when an individual atom of U-235 will decay, or which one, but the half-life of decay is 713 million years.
In fact, the fact that U-235 decay is measurable proves the earth cannot possibly be less than at least a few million years old, because 24000 on the U-235 scale isn't even measurable, whereas significant decay has been measured.
[quote]What do you mean by that? We can never predict when an individual atom of U-235 will decay, or which one, but the half-life of decay is 713 million years[/quote]
Sorry AngosticAtheist. I meant Pu-239 has a decaying of 24000 years. When I say decay I mean half-life, Im normally not that specifc.
ahok, Pu, that works. With U-235 I was really confused as to how that would work...
There's some kind of weasel I saw the other day that lives here in Manitoba. It's bright white with a black tail--a perfect example of camouflage. It lives in the snow, where the white blends in, and there are leaves and sticks in the ground which the black part blends in with. The only reason I could see it was because it was moving.