quote:

---

This was at my predominantly Baptist, 1A school in West Texas, and nobody's parents pitched a fit about it.

---

quote:

---

for example, the hippopotamus' closest living relatives are the cetaceans (whales and dolphins). those two groups come off a branch of a larger branch that also includes the ruminants (cows, deer, sheep).

---

It's not very intuitive to me to look at a hippo and a dolphin and draw any kind of connection.

I wonder why there aren't different species of humans?

ever heard of Homo neanderthalensis or neanderthals?

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2011/11/modern-humans-once-mated-with-other-species/

[This message has been edited by tbdead (edited 10/17/2013 2:50p).]

quote:

---

It's not very intuitive to me to look at a hippo and a dolphin and draw any kind of connection.

---

ok?

quote:

---

It's not very intuitive to me to look at a hippo and a dolphin and draw any kind of connection.

I wonder why there aren't different species of humans?

---

So what you're basically saying is, "this doesn't make sense on the surface, so I'm not going through the trouble to think too hard about it and I'll just dismiss it."

There is so much information out there to explain this stuff, you just have to look. You can even watch some youtube videos about it. I won't delve into it too much, but here's a great old video from Bill Nye the Science guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svHQ4BQY__o&list=PL0735BEC4EDBF2628

quote:

---

So what you're basically saying is, "this doesn't make sense on the surface, so I'm not going through the trouble to think too hard about it and I'll just dismiss it."

---

Not sure this is a fair appraisal of bamdvm's post.

the problem with his apparent position is that any comparisons we'd make that ARE intuitive would be dismissed as not truly separate. lions and tigers clearly have a common ancestor and no one would say they are the same species, but to some geniuses, "they're just different 'kinds' of cat".

I took his questions as honestly seeking answers.

quote:

---

We have no effect on the evolutionary process.

The most fit are generally the most successful and being smarter than the average human does not necessarily increase your fitness.

---

Hasn't our technology and presence affected the selective pressures on us (and other animals as well)?

And with all the "go research" comments, there is a bunch of garbage to filter through as well.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We have no effect on the evolutionary process.

The most fit are generally the most successful and being smarter than the average human does not necessarily increase your fitness.

---

Hasn't our technology and presence affected the selective pressures on us (and other animals as well)?

---

Everything we do affects us but its not like we are going against evolution. No where does it say the fastest, smartest, most agile, best swimmer, etc is the most successful species. In fact, in general it's the opposite. The cheetah, which is the fastest land animal in short distances on earth, is dying out. (Random note, you know who the fastest land animal is over long distances? As in several miles? Us, we hold that particular record).

Being the most intelligent may not be evolutionarily advantageous. I created a thread on here a couple years ago about that exact idea. I wouldn't be surprised if that our super-intelligence would actually make us quite unsuccessful, evolutionarily speaking. It's an opinion but looking at all the ways we can wipe out our species with our technology, it's well within the realm of possibilities.

quote:

---

I took his questions as honestly seeking answers.

---

i've been trying to answer his questions that way. his lastest responses come across, to me, as fairly dismissive and not really like someone that is taking in the information i've offered. especially when i posted a link that explains in a very brief manner the reasons scientists group hippos and whales as relatively close relatives.

quote:

---

Everything we do affects us but its not like we are going against evolution. No where does it say the fastest, smartest, most agile, best swimmer, etc is the most successful species. In fact, in general it's the opposite. The cheetah, which is the fastest land animal in short distances on earth, is dying out. (Random note, you know who the fastest land animal is over long distances? As in several miles? Us, we hold that particular record).

Being the most intelligent may not be evolutionarily advantageous. I created a thread on here a couple years ago about that exact idea. I wouldn't be surprised if that our super-intelligence would actually make us quite unsuccessful, evolutionarily speaking. It's an opinion but looking at all the ways we can wipe out our species with our technology, it's well within the realm of possibilities.

---

I agree with everything you've said here. But it seems to me that we've changed our environment so significantly from that of our prehistoric ancestors that the selective pressures will be very different from theirs. My only contention with what you said is that we don't have an effect on evolution. This self-made change in environment seems like it would cause a pretty big change.

quote:

---

Being the most intelligent may not be evolutionarily advantageous. I created a thread on here a couple years ago about that exact idea. I wouldn't be surprised if that our super-intelligence would actually make us quite unsuccessful, evolutionarily speaking.

---

the technology wiping us out is one thing, but i'd look at it even more simply. our large brains make child birth relatively dangerous for both mother and child. our medical abilities have removed much of this, which has allowed genetical "problems" of the past like small hips to be propagated more than otherwise. if medical technology were to falter or be lost, it could cause some real problems.

disclaimer: i'm no scientist, just spitballing here.

I'd mention that the more educated (not the same as intellegent) people are reproducing less. If that trend were to continue we could eventually be globally below the replacement rate (assuming more and more people become educated and the trend continues) and start dying out. Since we're spit balling

quote:

---

But it seems to me that we've changed our environment so significantly from that of our prehistoric ancestors that the selective pressures will be very different from theirs.

---

Completely agree.

quote:

---

My only contention with what you said is that we don't have an effect on evolution. This self-made change in environment seems like it would cause a pretty big change.

---

You asked if we had any effect on the evolutionary process. We don't have any effect on the process. We have made our species more successful in creating an environment in which traits that would have been selected against in the past are now not selected against. The evolutionary process will still occur, our species will adapt and the fittest will survive. We really have no affect on which traits are more fit than others even though we affect which traits continue to propagate through our socio-environmental society.

I still don't feel like I explained that well enough.

quote:

---

I'd mention that the more educated (not the same as intellegent) people are reproducing less. If that trend were to continue we could eventually be globally below the replacement rate (assuming more and more people become educated and the trend continues) and start dying out. Since we're spit balling

---

I don't know about global trends but in the US, there are more educated(if you count people who attended college) now than in the past AND they represent a greater proportion of our population. This requires a source so I'll try and find one, it was posted over at politics a few days ago.

Intelligence is even more complicated. 1. There really is no true way to test and rank intelligence. 2. Choose any group and the variation among them will be greater than the variation among our entire species. Just because "intelligent" people might reproduce less(statistically speaking) does mean intelligent people will stop being produced outside of that "intelligent" group.

Sure there have been selective pressures for our species to become more intelligent than say, a million years ago(homo sapiens have been around for about 2.5 million years) but that is over a long time span. 50 years of less "intelligent" groups breeding and outpacing the variation of the species is not going to do it.

I wasn't saying I find it likely or anything. Just saying that we are seeing trends in certain countries like the US and europe to birth rates below the replacement rate. It would just be an interesting counter-intuitive way we could die out. I certainly don't expect that to happen though as I'd assume behavior would be adjusted

I think amercer said it best when he elaborated "survival of the fittest" with "survival of the most diverse gene pool." The more variations of "us" there are, the better chances we have the "answers" we need to any incoming, species destroying crisis.

I honestly think this is one area that makes America truly exceptional. I'm pretty certain we've never seen a more diverse gene pool ever collected under one political entity in human history. What ever the future has to throw at us, the American people have the most likely tools for the occasion.

[This message has been edited by Silent For Too Long (edited 10/17/2013 9:39p).]

quote:

---

id you crack me up. A new type of canine is still a canine. A new type of bird is still a bird. Keep trying to place that square peg through a circular hole though.

---

It's peculiar to encounter such a powerful level of stupidity. Note I didn't say ignorance. This is just plain old run of the mill stupidity. Many creationists cannot accept evolution because the conclusion terrifies them. You are one of these, but your arguments are just so uniquely bad.

You asked for a new species and I gave you several. Of course it's still a bird. Of course they are still bacteria. You don't get those levels of changes on short time scales and not one person arguing for evolution claims that. In fact it would be irreconcilable with what we know. You are asking for a crock-o-duck like a buffoon. These are of course new species. Birds are a class. You know life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

According to your argument.

This:



is the same species as this:



Because they are both birds. They are different species you dolt.

quote:

---

And keep repeating your ridiculous line that a bird that could formerly fly only loses the ability to fly due to a DNA change.

---

Uhg, yup it's laziness that causes short flight. Not a new different wing geometry. And it's heavy lifting that allows it to eat it's unique diet, not an adapted huge beak.

But lets completely dispel the laziness argument. On the same island chain are flightless cormorants. its wings are about one-third the size that would be required for a bird of its proportions to fly. I mean get of the damn ground. Not just short little trips, the wings are mathematically too small.

quote:

---

I guess if I ever lose the ability to do pull ups it must be due to a DNA change, huh? It can't be on account I got out of shape.

---

LOL. I've never seen this level of self ownage. Yea, the birds are born, and can't fly like all the other birds of that species because they are "lazy". Not because their wings literally have a different geometry.

And the bacteria learned to eat nylon (which doesn't occur naturally) how exactly? Lots of bacteria pushups? You are like a 9/11 truther, every accredited university in the first world is in on one big conspiracy.

Other creationists I've encountered are usually just ignorant. You just suck at thinking.


[This message has been edited by Aggrad08 (edited 10/18/2013 12:02a).]

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you think the chick of a flightless bird (that has the same DNA as its ancestors that could fly) will fly if you place it in a new surrounding?

---

Hey, you say they are the same bird. So they should be able to fly right? They just don't on the island cause they don't need to right? They're lazy.

---

Lame troll attempt. Even for you Tyson.

Why do you and Aggrad08 have such a hard time understanding that a bird's inability to fly on an island with no predators is not the cause of some mutated DNA?

I was actually trying to agree with you guys with regards to Natural Selection.

However, you and Aggrad08 are mocking Natural Selection, which is the only part of the THEORY of Evolution that has been proven.

Amazing.

[This message has been edited by AgBeliever (edited 10/18/2013 11:04a).]

You clearly don't understand the words you are using. But hey, take those birds to the mainland and they'll fly because the only reason they aren't right now is because they are lazy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Seriously? You can not understand how a bird flies to an island where there is no predator, and due to that has no need to fly and eventually becomes flightless?

---

i understand it. you don't. that's why it's funny/sad that you think the birds just become lazy and are indistinguishable from birds that remain flighted.

---

Obviously not since you, Tyson and Aggrad08 seem to think the flightless birds in this case here have a different DNA when it's been documented that it was the environment (no predators) that caused them to be flightless.

But hey. What are facts, right?

quote:

---

which is the only part of the THEORY of Evolution that has been proven.

---

A theory isn't just some wild guess made while drunk.

In fact, one of the biggest criteria of scientific theories is the fact that they can never be proven, only disproven.

Also, in just about all of your posts, you make snide comments and mock the posters you're arguing with. And it doesn't make you look any better.





[This message has been edited by ItalianSta11ion (edited 10/18/2013 11:15a).]

Sure. So if you just took them to the mainland they'd learn to fly.

quote:

---

They are different species you dolt.

---

A bird is a different species than a bird. Okay.

quote:

---

But lets completely dispel the laziness argument. On the same island chain are flightless cormorants. its wings are about one-third the size that would be required for a bird of its proportions to fly. I mean get of the damn ground. Not just short little trips, the wings are mathematically too small.

---

Why do you keep linking the wiki page that supports what I have been saying all along?

How do you keep missing this...over and over and over and over again?

quote:

---

These cormorants evolved on an island habitat that was free of predators. Having no enemies, and taking its food primarily through diving along the food-rich shorelines, the bird eventually became flightless.

---

quote:

---

LOL. I've never seen this level of self ownage. Yea, the birds are born, and can't fly like all the other birds of that species because they are "lazy". Not because their wings literally have a different geometry.

And the bacteria learned to eat nylon (which doesn't occur naturally) how exactly? Lots of bacteria pushups? You are like a 9/11 truther, every accredited university in the first world is in on one big conspiracy.

Other creationists I've encountered are usually just ignorant. You just suck at thinking.

---

Talk about self ownage. It was not the geometry of their wings that led to the matter of flightless. Reread the article again, or at least the quote from it that I just posted for you, that you keep ignoring.

Or you can be like that ostrich you posted.

quote:

---

A theory isn't just some wild guess made while drunk.

---

Depends on who is making the theory.

Agbeliever, can you give the scientific definition of species?

quote:

---

A bird is a different species than a bird. Okay.

---

Holy crap even you can't be this stupid. Yes, a hummingbird and an ostrich are both birds. They are also different species. "Bird" is not a species.

You're right BB.

It's not like the Hummingbird and Ostrich don't have feathers, wings, and two legs.

Point being, where is the fish that had it's DNA mutate to the point of sprouting legs and becoming a salamander? Same for salamander to cat, cat to ape, ape to human.

As a molecular biologist, my official guess is that that fish died a long time ago.

quote:

---

As a molecular biologist, my official guess is that that fish died a long time ago.

---

quote:

---

It's not like the Hummingbird and Ostrich don't have feathers, wings, and two legs.

---

4th Grade. 4th Grade is where I learned the difference between species and larger groupings of organisms. Again, "bird" is not a species. "Mammal" is not a species. "Reptile" is not a species. Seriously, ask your kids. They likely know this.

Agbeliever breed?

Our poor country.

[This message has been edited by boboguitar (edited 10/18/2013 11:44a).]