Evolution is a Joke PT VII (back by popular demand)

I totally understand your point and have made the same one myself (using a jungle as my example) myself several times. But, my story doesn’t end up so pleasant… How mine works is how life is right now and how we can assume it will be in the future or has been in the past. Trees go extinct, whole bunch of light comes through and everything that was dependent on shade dies. The ecosystem is devastated.

What happens is there is no present diversity. There, per your example I’ll throw in there, different types of that same vine due to mutation. They would all burn up in the afternoon sun. Animals that depended on that vine for food and shelter? Gone too… There wouldn’t be insects with brown and also green backs, they would be all green and living in the vine, now they are exposed and eaten… After that, the animals that need that insect are now not evolved into eating another food source, and they die also…

Per what we have witnessed, there is not a selection. These things happen all the time, floods, what have you and either you get lucky and be in the right place at the right time or die… There is not a different gene sequences that hold a lifeform above another of the same breed….

This is/has been witnessed and Natural Selection has not. Things survive due to chance and luck, not gene sequences that have not given them the ability to elude certain distaster….

 

I totally understand your point and have made the same one myself (using a jungle as my example) myself several times. But, my story doesn’t end up so pleasant… How mine works is how life is right now and how we can assume it will be in the future or has been in the past. Trees go extinct, whole bunch of light comes through and everything that was dependent on shade dies. The ecosystem is devastated.

What happens is there is no present diversity. There, per your example I’ll throw in there, different types of that same vine due to mutation. They would all burn up in the afternoon sun. Animals that depended on that vine for food and shelter? Gone too… There wouldn’t be insects with brown and also green backs, they would be all green and living in the vine, now they are exposed and eaten… After that, the animals that need that insect are now not evolved into eating another food source, and they die also…

Per what we have witnessed, there is not a selection. These things happen all the time, floods, what have you and either you get lucky and be in the right place at the right time or die… There is not a different gene sequences that hold a lifeform above another of the same breed….

This is/has been witnessed and Natural Selection has not. Things survive due to chance and luck, not gene sequences that have not given them the ability to elude certain distaster….

 

The experiment with E. Coli is not good. And if you are suggesting that isolation of sexual gene flow (I am assuming you mean genetic and sexual drift) ends up being quite bad. Without variation one could end up like that tribe in Africa with two very large two (quite creepy)… variation is needed…

We have no clue if variations are gradual and/or rapid and we can only speculate.

 

Color is not evolution it's adaptation....

The definition of common descent is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/common+ancestor

Main Entry: common ancestor
Part of Speech: n
Definition: in genealogy, any person to whom two or more persons claim descent; also, the most recent ancestral form or species from which two different species evolved

That's not my opinion, it is how it is in Biology...

Berkeley states the following on the first page of Evolution 101:The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02



Your example that I will include about the beetles is here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_15

Not evolution it's descent with modification - this is genetic drift. Genetic drift alone is not evolution, but one of the mechanisms.

 

What animal has 2 ear bones?

All nerves in all animals kind of “have” to control the same muscles, even though some have more muscles than others? So, the same nerves in a 2 chromosome bull dog ant are the same in a humming bird? I don’t think that assessment is correct…

Question:
Why are different species, although different, similar in so many ways? [/QUOTE]
And how are they so different in so many ways? Not all life on this planet is the same… the suggestion of you, an ant, a rose bush and E. Coli bush having an ancestor is unfounded.

Evolution is a hypothesis…

 

Exactly how I stated in the next sentence......? According to evolution animal like a fish cannot transform instantly to a walking creature. And this is what we see.... a gentle progression along time. such as a fish, to a flopping creature (like a mud skipper [one of my favorite modern transitional forms]), a crawling creature (like a tiktaalik [my favorite transition form]) to a more efficient land/water creature like an amphibian (frog) and on to other more sophisticated land adaptations. It can also be seen in the other direction with vestigial structures (i.e. the coccyx in humans [lost tail], the tiny hind legs in whales, the eyes of moles and cave fish). Does none of this even tickle the possibility of evolution?

 

The diversity your craving would (According to evolution) occur over a large amount of time. Moreover, I wasn’t suggesting that this is how it ought to happen. It was only meat to be an analogy or visualization tool. However, a forest, immediately under this condition, tends to explode with life struggling to get sunlight. I don't see your claim that life would be devastated to be plausible in light of this fact.

 

I actually wasn't referring to genetic drift (I don't even know what sexual drift is so I probably wasn't referring to that either). Genetic drift, as I understand it, would be involved with vestigial forms like I discussed earlier. This is where the genetic mutations that would negatively affect vision for example do not negatively impact the survivability of the animal (Like a mole). And therefore these mutations are allowed to exist, because it's not lethal to the animal.

I was referring to traditional evolution, where an advantage could be gained by one group and this advantage would not be passed to the tube next to it because they are isolated from each other. This is how new species are able to be formed (This was a response you your "lone" chicken offspring [as the offspring of another species] and your puzzlement of how a new species can arrive because one one if formed they cannot mate)

 

i. None, our evolution from ancient reptiles currently shows the incus and malleus evolving together.

ii. Why do they "have" to? For example on the same topic... why does the same nerve that supplies a jaw bone is a shark supply the stapes in our ear? Add to this question that there are fossils of early amphibians which show a transition from the jaw bone to stapes, and the development of the stapes in mamals and jaw bone in sharks occurs in an analogous situation.

If you want to keep going with nerves. Take the Laryngeal nerves in fish that go directly from the brain to gills (As the crow flys) but in humans it takes a little detour [Brain to chest to thyroid and others] because of the development of a neck and now crossing vessels. A favorite example is of the giraffe where the nerve goes maybe 10 more more feet out of it's way to go down the neck, around a vessel before returning to organs it passed only by inches at the start of the journey. All of this can be explained by evolution by the way... if fact it makes perfect sense to the theory. Another example is the vas deferens, look that one up because I'm tired of typing.

 

I can still type if you pose a worthy question. Please feel free to reply to the open questions I posed (If they are worth of course!).

You may also yell "UNCLE" at any time.

 

That was funny! I read this email first and anticipate the questions!!!

 

I apologize - it does not. If this was true and it takes millions of years for this to happen to animal life, why are we not witnessing it? Why are we not seeing a species of fish (we’ll take salmon) showing signs of legs in the NW. But, in Alaska there are no signs? Since it’s going to take millions of generations for the ones in Alaska to get the “evolutionary mutation” it would seem that we should observe this in every species on the planet…

And we don’t…

About your favorite Transition fossil? It’s not a transition fossil… Now, the funny part about Evolutionary Biologist that I have stated about 1 billion times. They can be proven wrong on everything and all they do is say “No!”… You just got proven wrong, does that change how your previous beliefs? “NO!”

They haven’t been right yet…

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik
If scientists come to a consensus about the date of these footprints and the fact that they belonged to a tetrapod, would it contradict Tiktaalik's status as a transitional form? No. Tiktaalik's position on the evolutionary tree of tetrapod ancestors wouldn't change a bit — after all, Tiktaalik would still have all the characteristics that help us understand the order and way in which tetrapods evolved. However, it would imply that Tiktaalik and early tetrapods like Acanthostega have long ghost lineages — a series of ancestors that lived but did not leave behind a fossil record. In other words, our best hypothesis regarding the evolutionary relationships among these organisms would not change, but we'd have to reevaluate the likely dates we assign to different branching points on the family tree of tetrapods and move many of them back in time.

Did you see it? Tikka is just a fish is all, they placed it believing it was a transition in evolution. BUT, they found something else… Does that change how you feel about Tikka? NO!!! But (as they said) Tikka has a LONG GHOST LINEAGES of fossils that are not recorded!!

And the next line is what the fossil record truly is… It’s finding life and putting them in categories. It is not, never has been, never will be evidence for evolution.. ever…

I just find it ridiculously funny that Atheist that believe in Evolution are far worst being narrow-minded than the ones that they disagree with that believe in Faith…

Next “transitional” fossil you bring up will have the same results…. I promise!!!

 

As my analogy demonstrated, it is an observed reality of what happens when an ecosystem is interupted with one species of life going extinct... Other life is dependant on that life and the repercussions are usually devastating. This is how deserts started… It has been observed and tested. When the trees were cut down, the forest was unable to retain water due to evaporation. Water being the key to life – life died.

 

What decided that the mole didn’t need eyes? What process said, “HEY! You know what… during meiosis (mitosis- I forget) let’s shake up the gene sequence and stop producing eyes, since we don’t need them really…”

If it is science, then there should be moles with eyes unless you think something is “controlling” things. During the cell division of life, there is “nothing” telling it what to choose and what not to choose, it just does. Unless you think that sperm and a human egg and orchestrate such divineness, I suggest we leave that one to the Christians because we have no clue and to imply that we do would be false.

Ah! I get it… this is speciation. Great demonstration of this here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml

I believe in speciation, but I do understand that when brought back together, the two different species will mate then become one again…

 

I am unfamiliar with this… could you provide a link?

I don’t see how this randomness helps or hurts evolution…

That is, my arch nemesis Richard Dawkins banter there… Uhhhh…. The point of that outlandish statement is to get people not in the “know” to believe. Fish do not represent how we evolved. If that was the case we would see it in ALL life, not just his ridiculous pulling two species out “of the water” and trying to prove an isolated point.

 

Readers..

Further about Mr. Dawkins… Do you know we have no clue on how nerves work with chemical/electrical responses? How can Dawkins say that some nerves don’t do anything? These nerves he suggest could be sending messages (broadcasting) things to all sorts of places and that is why they “seem” to go out of the way.

Another broad assumption of evolutionary biologist try to dupe the follows. Get their religious pack of sheep to follow without question by suggesting these nerve ending just roll around the body with no purpose except where then end up. Nerves could just be like CAT6 cables and networking. What if there are broadcasts and these seemingly long nerves are what gets information to certain places? Do we know? Of course we don’t… Do we suggest tell people, “Hey look! I found something, but instead of finding a reason why these nerves go here and there, I’m just going to say it’s evolution and not test it or put my hypothesis of what these nerve ending do through the scientific method… The masses are sheep and they will follow.”

 

Sorry, what? We know a lot about how nerves work, especially with regard to the electrochemical reactions that take place in and between them. I think you need to explain that comment further.

 

What? Do nerves broadcast as I was saying? How fast do they send messages? Are there some nerves that send messages faster than others?

Do mulitiple nervers send out the same messages? Are chemical balances between some nerves different?

Dealing with evolution, is the nervous system comparable with the whole ape clade?

Why does the nervous system relay back pain at different levels?

We don't know that much about the nervous system. To suggest we do, the most complex thing we've run into in the cosmos is ridiculous...

 

i. We don't see this kind of progression in the record? Please let me know what you see.

To chose an animal and expect it to evolve in a direction you chose (A salmon to a land creature) is not something you should expect. Why should an animal evolve in the way you want it to? Maybe it's destined to be the nest sea anemone? Secondly, YES everything alive is a transitional form! Great job you have a fantastic career ahead of you as a researching evolutionary biologist! All the examples of vestigial structures are a good example of this.

 

Cut a tree down in the rain forest and see what happens. Desrest are deserts because only a certain type of life can live there (Not because trees are extinct [Obviously])

 

What do you mean by "record"...?

I could care less about the salmon being in the water... There is nothing that is in one ecosystem and in another that is of a different species and the progression of "evolution" is combining two different species as evolution states. If it takes millions of generations, we should observe this, it's part of the scientific method! We don't...

We don't see two different species having offspring and those mate, and then only produce the second species offspring that is evolving... Or however it works... we don't know, because it's never happened...

Just to let you know - everything ISN'T a transitional form, because there is life today that has not evolved since it appeared in the fossil record. And, as I pointed out to you earlier, all life that survived major extictions, if they appeared again in the fossil record, were unchanged... Therefore, there is no evidence of everything being in transition since it is not being witnessed anywhere on this planet nor documented...

 

Okay...they are saying it's a fish... but it's built like a tetra pod? So, they thought it was a tetra pod and now think its a fish? (Is that what they said? correct me if I'm wrong) This confusion over what it actually is, is the reason I really like this transitional form.

 

You cut down all the trees in a rain forest it will turn into a desert... Google "how deserts are formed"...

First site: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_deserts_form

First option: Deserts may be formed by any of the following:
Deforestation - when trees are cut down, there are no tree roots to hold the soil in place. This means wind erosion can pick up more good topsoil and take it away. This results in a vicious circle whereby plants cannot regenerate and so more soil is eroded away.

Most deserts were something before they were deserts and evaporation rates caused them to become deserts... If there is sun and it rains, but the evaporation rates are higher than rainfall... Look out!!!

 

i. The environment of the mole decided that (Dark, underground). The loss of sight does not negatively impact the capability of the animal to produce offspring. Therefore a mutation that slightly degrades the ability of the mole to see is not selected against.

ii. correct nothing is choosing (DNA wise). The environment is selecting.

 

Whats random about a bone, traced from a fish jaw support bone to an ear bone in mamals, and both being supplied by the same nerve random? Call that dumb luck if you want, but then what about all the other nerves that can be similarly traced? At some point it's no longer a coincidence.