Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

Your point?

Evidently they're content to dwell in the watery deep and there is no mutation making them smaller or with big legs that can carry them on land. That's my point. They ain't evolving. Yet or now.

 

[Pogo]

You can turn the light out now mommy, I'm ready to sleep?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your point?

Oh, let me simplify. Whales probably have no need to live on land. OK, is that better? Isn't that what survival of the fittest means? In other words, if a species is having trouble surviving, mutations that push the organism to "survive" enable them to evolve to a point that makes life ok for them in a different form or environment. Also @Pogo and other educated ones in the topic of evolution.

 

[John53]

Evidently they're content to dwell in the watery deep and there is no mutation making them smaller or with big legs that can carry them on land. That's my point. They ain't evolving. Yet or now.

Probably because they evolved from land dwelling animals.

And maybe you haven't noticed that bottle-nosed dolphins are significantly smaller than blue whales.

 

[YoursTrue]

ok, @Pogo is getting tired. No need to evolve to no sleepy time...I guess.

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably because they evolved from land dwelling animals.

And maybe you haven't noticed that bottle-nosed dolphins are significantly smaller than blue whales.

So these large whales you think may have evolved by necessity to water dwellers because they may have evolved from land dwelling animals. Guess they moved in little increments to get off the land. And there is no need (survival of the fittest) for them to go back to the land, which they may have found untenable.

 

[Pogo]

OK, so whatever happened at abiogenesis we're that too. Meantime I was reading something about elephants and their teeth. I find it interesting that when all their teeth are gone they die. Maybe, who knows? they'll have a couple of elephants evolving with replaceable teeth coming up soon. But maybe there's no need for elephants to do that.
"‘Higher crowns protect against abrasion, which is important as elephants only have a set number of teeth. Once they’re all gone, the elephant will die, so it’s important to develop higher crowns to maintain a similar life expectancy.’ How deep-sea drilling is helping to unravel elephant evolution.

Elephants produce 6 and occasionally 7 sets of molars, they die when they are no longer able to eat. We produce 2 sets of teeth. There is probably little selection pressure for more sets since like humans, they generally outlast their fertility. As your article said, the change in dentition is evidence of a selective pressure.

 

[cladking]

Some of us are skeptical

The irony being that 75 years ago "skeptic" meant non-believer and now it means someone who believes, in Peers, Soup of the Day Science, and any twaddle uttered by an expert.

That's no "evolution" that's a revolution. ...Just like all life of all types.

 

[Valjean]

I understood him to mean that small changes can accumulate and become large changes. Your last sentence is correct. Did you think that anybody posting here disagrees? His words were, "Small changes can accumulate to create big changes. A grain of sand moving one centimeter a year will eventually circle the Earth. Changes don't always lead to big changes."

Your behavior has been called nitpicking. Yes, "can" would have been a better word choice than "will" in that middle sentence, but he was very clear in the pervious and following sentences that he meant "can." So why pursue this line of inquiry?

To clarify: Big changes are generally the result of accumulated small changes. Small changes don't always lead to big changes. A thousand things could interfere.

A grain of sand can circle the Earth. "Will" was a poor choice of words. It invited nitpickers to derail the discussion and go off on a tangent.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, let me simplify. Whales probably have no need to live on land. OK, is that better? Isn't that what survival of the fittest means? In other words, if a species is having trouble surviving, mutations that push the organism to "survive" enable them to evolve to a point that makes life ok for them in a different form or environment. Also @Pogo and other educated ones in the topic of evolution.

mutations do not "push" an animal to survive but may allow them to survive in a different niche thus lessening the pressure from their former niche.

The finches that had larger beaks survived better when there were only harder seeds during the drought. mutation comes first, reproduction comes later. You have heard all this before.

 

[Pogo]

Evidently they're content to dwell in the watery deep and there is no mutation making them smaller or with big legs that can carry them on land. That's my point. They ain't evolving. Yet or now.

They evolved slowly a long time ago to be where they are now, they are still evolving, sometimes it is a one way street.

 

[John53]

So these large whales you think may have evolved by necessity to water dwellers because they may have evolved from land dwelling animals. Guess they moved in little increments to get off the land. And there is no need (survival of the fittest) for them to go back to the land, which they may have found untenable.

I can't for the life of me work out what you're asking.

"May have evolved because they may have evolved" ????

 

[gnostic]

In sumery I said

It is naive to claim that organisms evolves just by RM and NS

They are only 2 of the 5 evolutionary mechanisms.

Genetic Drift, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking are the 3 mechanisms.

I have noticed that you seem have the tendency to ignore the subject on Genetic Drift when it is brought up.

Plus, Mutations are necessary for Natural Selection to occur, but you often bring them together, even though they are 2 completely different mechanisms.

Mutations can occur among individual organisms, but whether these mutated genes are inherited by the next generations, may or may not happen, and in those cases when mutations are not inherited, then there are no evolutionary change via mutations.

Natural Selection, on the hand, isn't random, because the driving forces for evolutionary changes is caused by changes to the environment.

Environmental changes could be changes to the terrain, or to the climate, or changes to the availability of resources (eg drought or famine), etc, so when an environment have changed, it put selective pressures upon populations of species, to either be adaptable to changes or risk reduction in reproductive successes that could cause drop in population growths, or even extinction to certain species.

Mutations are not always responsible for selective changes, so I don’t think you really understand what you are talking about. Natural Selection and Mutations don’t always occur together, especially as they are 2 different mechanisms.

Your mistakes are thinking they always occurred together.

 

[Valjean]

If change in species really occurred as Darwin and Evolutionists believe there would be a utter cacophony of species where many individuals took one path others took other paths. Why should we presume that every whale would suddenly start evolving along the same path since niches vary everywhere. There would be so many species many individuals would and die without seeing another of its own species except for parents and siblings and no matter how fit it is could not reproduce.

I'm not following any of this.
When a new niche opens up it's an opportunity for the whole community of organisms. Some chance to have variations that could take advantage of the new situation, some don't. Those that do manage to exploit the new conditions still face competition with others doing the same thing, and as long as the former lifestyle is still viable, there's no reason to expect the original phenotype to change, either. The original species continues and a new variant splits off.

Agree? Disagree?

 

[YoursTrue]

Elephants produce 6 and occasionally 7 sets of molars, they die when they are no longer able to eat. We produce 2 sets of teeth. There is probably little selection pressure for more sets since like humans, they generally outlast their fertility. As your article said, the change in dentition is evidence of a selective pressure.

Yes, well elephants don't have blenders to mix their food. Not sure at what point elephants lose their teeth, but many humans have their teeth in their "old age."

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not following any of this.
When a new niche opens up it's an opportunity for the whole community of organisms.

It is? In what way?

Some chance to have variations that could take advantage of the new situation, some don't. Those that do manage to exploit the new conditions still face competition with others doing the same thing, and as long as the former lifestyle is still viable, there's no reason to expect the original phenotype to change, either. The original species continues and a new variant splits off.

Can you give examples of those organisms that manage to exploit the new conditions? I'm talking about particular examples.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, well elephants don't have blenders to mix their food. Not sure at what point elephants lose their teeth, but many humans have their teeth in their "old age."

after menopause.

 

[gnostic]

Ok and how about refuting (or explicitly granting) anything that i have said?

because no biologists used Lamarkinian Evolution or Lamarkinian Inheritance in the last hundred years.

Lamarkinism is not active taught at any universities, anywhere around the world, today.

Do you not understand that?

I grant that organisms evolve, but I don’t claim to know exactly how did they evolve, nor what mechanisms where involved, nor the role that each mechanisms played

Leroy.

Are you or haven’t you been a working biologist, or some other jobs that are related fields in biology?

Do you have the qualification(s) or ever being educated in some biological fields at tertiary level (eg bachelor, master, PhD, any university- or college- level qualification)?

I am, most certainly don’t have that experience & qualification…mine has always been geared towards the engineering side, hence Applied Science, most related to physics than biology.

i would leave things to the experts in genetics and molecular biology, as these 2 areas work closely with evolutionary biology, as I am novice in biology, like you.

Even I did ask you the questions about experiences & qualifications, I don’t think you ever worked as biologist, or medical doctor or paleontologist. You have made too many errors in the past, so clearly you didn’t study much in biology.

 

[Valjean]

Like 99+% of relevant scholars I grant evolution……………I grant that organisms evolve, but I don’t claim to know exactly how did they evolve, nor what mechanisms where involved, nor the role that each mechanisms played

You should have learned the major mechanisms in high school biology. I assumed they were common knowledge -- till I began posting on RF. Mechanisms of Evolution | Biological Principles

All I am saying is that observing small changes cause by some mechanism by itself doesn’t prove that big changes also occur by that same mechanism (additional evidence is needed)………….. this is not supposed to be controversial nor hard to understand

So by what mechanism do they occur?
Do visibly new organisms just pop into being?

 

[gnostic]

It is? In what way?

Can you give examples of those organisms that manage to exploit the new conditions? I'm talking about particular examples.

Pathogenic bacterias, have often mutated, thereby becoming resistant or immune to antibiotics.

Like viruses, bacteria that cause infections, illnesses or diseases, changed (evolved) more frequently, than more complex multicellular organisms.

Biologists in the infectious diseases, have to work laboriously to develop medications, for doctors to treat patients. New antibiotics have to be made, because bacterias more often than not become resistant to treatments, just like new vaccines are needed to treat mutating viral diseases.

Medicine is one of the areas, where evolutionary biology is a necessity applications to treat bacterial & viral infections and diseases.