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

I apologize... I was trying to be funny... Tretrapod is a classification of a WHOLE bunch of stuff (life)... It's like saying Mammal... But worst since it's higher on the scientific classification. To say something is a Mammal, doesn't really say much if you get my drift... It was why I said the fish joke.

Fish, per classification is basically almost everything that is animal I believe... Tretrapoda is a very, very large classification of life...

I wonder how many got my "fish" joke?

(oh, and just to let you know tretrapoda falls within the fish scientific classification... )

 

Neither would keeping the eyes! So why are there no moles with big gigantic eyes like some of the life in Madagascar?

How does the environment "select" something?

 

Fossil record

 

It's not random, it's place exactly how it should, and we have no clue the signals that are being transferred from one area to another... There are no neuron decoder chopsticks that we can plug onto the nerves and decipher what's going on.

Thus, it becomes random... Until we can "decode" anything (which we can't)...

All random...

 

I see life... all kinds of different life, most of which is extinct that no longer lives on this planet.

I see life that has appeared with the first fossils that is unchanged over billions of years, and I see life that hasn't appeared in the fossil record ever that live amoung us.

I see what I see, all that is there....


[edit]
OH - and just like Tretrapoda website or quote I gave, they suggested that there were GHOST ANCESTORS that dated WAAY BACK that are not in the fossil record... I just believe it was life like monkeys and apes, and one went extinct, not that they were ancestors...

Why would I believe that a squirrel monkey evolved into an ape? Just because squirrel monkeys didn't get fossilized and apes did? Don't you think that is a broad assessment knowing how ridiculously hard it is for anything to be fossilized to begin with?

 

Your taking this randomness in a direction to the point that someone who thought the "junk metal to Mercedes Benz in an abandoned garage" is a convincing counter argument to evolution.

If you can't understand, even what biologists are proposing (right or wrong), how could you ever hope understand the theory to the point it may be possible?

The environment "selects" by allowing it to live long enough to reproduce. The genes decide what it is, and the environment decides if it lives.

 

No, nerves "broadcast" when enough neurotransmitters are received to cause an action potential. The action potential is a change in the chemical balance of the neuron that causes an electrochemical signal to be transmitted down the length of the nerve, resulting in the release of more biochemicals at the other end.

The speed is variable and is dependent on length and peripheral (e.g Schwann) cells.

Yes to both in some cases. I can't recall specific examples right now without looking them up, but I'll be happy to GTFY if you need me to.

Which nervous system? Ours? Yes, I seem to recall reading that it is very similar to that of other primates (with the exception of the brain, of course).

This is due to a number of factors: the amount of biochemicals that trigger the pain response, the number of nerves responding to the pain stimulus, etc.

First, you said we have no clue. Now you say we don't know that much. The reality is that we know a whole lot more than you think.

I greatly appreciate this impressive demonstration of your lack of biology knowledge. I learned about nerves 12 years ago in high school advanced bio, and it wasn't ground-breaking new info at that time. Thank you for providing this awesome exchange that can be referenced every time you claim to know anything about biology.

 

I think we know more then you suggest. We know that if you sever the spine you can't walk. Although I've never done it, I'd imagine if you cut the Laryngeal nerve the organs it supplied would no longer function? Would you disagree?

 

I read it in a book, not sure what. If your super interested I'll try to find it (But I just moved ).

 

No, but there is something, I forgot what's it's called, but if you sever a nerve something someplace else might hurt... like gut that nerve off and then your foot starts to ache...

 

Difference is, we have thought and know that the junk in the garage is useless... Unless you think natural selection has intelligence...

A lot of things can have offspring and carry horrible things inside...

 

What has existed through time? By the way I'm familiar with the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya (So try something else ). Also note that some life is more stable then other life because of evolutionary pressure that either exist or don't.

 

i. I dont

ii. yes but it doesn't always matter. Most people aquire cancer if they live long enough. But if one can live long enough to reproduce aquiring cancer later does not negativly affect the genes. (There are minor exceptions to this like living long enough to reproduce AND care for the offspring but you get the idea).

 

Really? dismiss this observation as random?

You said "it's placed how it should". Why should it? why does it make perfect sense? Evolution has it's opinion, but whats is yours?

 

So we have agree that there are at least "some" things we know about nerves (Severing the spine i.e.). So then, the nerve that goes all the way down the neck of a giraffe and back up to the head... is for what? Whats the point? How can we explain something like this without evolution? Like Dawkinis or not, does he not have a point?

BTW, I do read the opposing side (I'm curretly reading "Icons of evolution"). And I read "A case for the a creator" last year. I just don't find their arguments convincing is all.

 

Start another thread, guys. This one is over 500 posts.