Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong Part 2

[McBell]

For some, that must be quite a relief. JK. Peace.

You should look up more often.

 

[joeboonda]

You should look up more often.

Takes deep breath, lands....

 

[yossarian22]

Squirrels learn quite readily and are highly intelligent animals, why do you think there is such a cottage industry devoted to keeping them out of feeders.

They seem very stupid to me.

10.17.97 - Secret of the squirrel brain: Memory tricks investigated in new UC Berkeley study
Again, it takes a wonderfully sharp mind to gather all that food, hide it and not loose it.

No, it takes long term memory to dp it.
Their key analogy is faulty. I am positive you could remember where everything in your house was if getting fed depended on it

You seem to have a mistaken notion of intelligence.

And you seem to think being specialized in a single area means intelligence.

This is a gross generalization. It takes as much brain power to spot a trap as it does to set one.

Arguably more so, but I am talking about stalking, which means active hunting, not just sitting around and waiting for a stupid fish to wonder what the light above your head is. Also, if all of the animals could see the trap and avoid it, the hunter would die out now wouldn't he.

Running rarely works, most animals take off before the trap is sprung.

Seems to work well for zebras.

Most hunters are terrible failures, they only succed once in every ten attempts.
It doesn't bode well for thier superior intellect.

And some hunters are very smart and have high success rates. Go to the top of the food chain, and intelligence invariably increases.

In any way you measure it jellyfish are evolutionarily speaking more successful than we are.

Hardly.

Longevity,

If you consider a year to be a particularly long time.

number of species, number of genera,

You consider that success?

number of individuals...

Population size never means evolutionary success.
Population size increases as you go down the food chain.

You only really cite examples from the top of the food chain, and that is where carnivores/omnivores tend to have the highest concentrations

 

[Willamena]

If you consider a year to be a particularly long time.

I would think the more rational measure of longevity would be relative.

 

[yossarian22]

I would think the more rational measure of longevity would be relative.

Well time is very relative. A year is not that long to us, but probably would be to a mayfly.
But arguing that living a long time means evolutionary success is dumb. Animals which breed alot live a short time so they do not compete with their offspring.

 

[painted wolf]

They seem very stupid to me.

You need to look closer then.

No, it takes long term memory to dp it.
Their key analogy is faulty. I am positive you could remember where everything in your house was if getting fed depended on it

Hardly. I'm sure you've lost your keys, even though you depend on them not only for food, but shelter as well.

And you seem to think being specialized in a single area means intelligence.

absolutly not, I find intelligence to be a humanocentric bias.

Arguably more so, but I am talking about stalking, which means active hunting, not just sitting around and waiting for a stupid fish to wonder what the light above your head is. Also, if all of the animals could see the trap and avoid it, the hunter would die out now wouldn't he.

Stalking is still involving setting up a trap.
Survival of the fittest. You don't see the smart zebra getting eaten now do you?
I never said anything about all prey being able to spot the trap. Individuals vary in intelligence as much as they do any trait.

Seems to work well for zebras.

More often than not the zebra sees the lion first and escapes so yes, it does work well.

And some hunters are very smart and have high success rates. Go to the top of the food chain, and intelligence invariably increases.

Are you sugesting that Nile Croc's and Komodo Dragons are more intelligent than a Zeebra? Because they are at the top of the food chain?

Hardly.

humanocentric bias

If you consider a year to be a particularly long time.

try 470 million years...

You consider that success?

in evolutionary terms yes... an astonishing success.
You have to stop thinking in such a narrow human focused way about evolution. We are a single species, a single genus. When we go extinct thats it. No more Hominids. The Jellyfish will hardly have noticed us, just a blip compaired to thier hundreds of millions of years. The dinosaurs were hardly a shrug.

Population size never means evolutionary success.

Tell that the Asiatic Lion... or the Panda, or the Tiger. Population size is very important, it cushions you from extinction.
[/quote] Population size increases as you go down the food chain. [/quote]
You seem to have a misconception about the Jellyfish. They are active predators, not bottom of the food chain. They hunt and kill fish, invertibrates and anything that crosses thier path. Few animals can eat them in return save for Sea Turtles and for some species, humans.
These are not bottom of the food chain animals.

And they are starting to directly compete with us for fish supplies. Given thier adaptability, reproductive success and overall evolutionary fitness, they are going to give us a run for our money on dominance of the oceans food supplies. Brains or no brains.

And the mayfly looks at a year as we would a decade. Its not that horrible.
And while most Jellies are short lived one Turritopsis nutricula is effectively immortal. They simply revert to larval stage when they get 'old' and start over.

wa:do

 

[rojse]

Evolutionary success is not defined by the longevity of a species, but by how well it breeds, and how long the species itself survives.

Look at ants. Flies. Cockroaches. They have short lifespans, but are hugely successful, due to how widespread they are. their form always follows the same shape, and roughly the same size. I am sure that just about every single person in the world knows what those animals look like, and it is hard to confuse them with anything else.

What about crocodiles, or sharks, or the coelacanth fish? They have survived many millions of years in a near unchanged form. That sounds like a huge success to me of a different sort.

The lifespan of a single individual of a particular species is not an indication of the successfulness of that species. Look at giant turtles. A lifespan of hundreds of years, but how many of them are left? Or whales?

 

[yossarian22]

Hardly. I'm sure you've lost your keys, even though you depend on them not only for food, but shelter as well.

Faulty analogy again.
You can still get fed without keys. Its called money. Shelter? Money.
How many people forget their PIN code at the bank?

absolutly not, I find intelligence to be a humanocentric bias.

Bully for you/

Stalking is still involving setting up a trap.

Hardly.
It is active hunting. Unless you consider wandering into a hunter's sense of sight/smell to be falling into a trap.

Survival of the fittest. You don't see the smart zebra getting eaten now do you?

I see the slow one in the back getting eaten.

Are you sugesting that Nile Croc's and Komodo Dragons are more intelligent than a Zeebra?

In this example they might be.
The higher on the food chain you are, the more intelligence you are likely to have. Look at the very top of every food chain. That animal is either the biggest and/or the smartest of all the animals below them

in evolutionary terms yes... an astonishing success.

Simplicity tends to result in being able to survive a wide variety of environments.

Tell that the Asiatic Lion... or the Panda, or the Tiger. Population size is very important, it cushions you from extinction.

Who said it isn't?
It just does not equate to evolutionary success.

You seem to have a misconception about the Jellyfish. They are active predators, not bottom of the food chain. They hunt and kill fish, invertibrates and anything that crosses thier path.

In other words, stupid fish.

These are not bottom of the food chain animals.

They are not top of the food chain either.

 

[s2a]

Does anyone else come across many people who hold beliefs or say things about evolution that are clearly contrary or falicious with evolutionary theory yet are strong advocates of evolution?

Occasionally...

In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it.

Perhaps the inherent fallacy/flaw is that evolution theory is NO predicated upon any faith-based belief?

They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

Rationalization by personalized convenience/conscience. Most people have NO understanding as to the physical mechanics of their kitchen microwave, but few doubt the expectant results. Ask someone to explain how their FM radio culls invisible waves of radiated energy, plucked from the amorphous ether...to then reproduce music, or other recorded analogue sound.

Let's face it. Most people don't understand the very science they either take for granted as immutable fact...or deny as unfounded and ungodly conspiratorial claptrap.

Ignorance is poor argument in either favoring--or denying--palpable scientific conclusions corroborated by measured/tested facts. Most people have little, if any, real understanding of whatever they either hold or defend as "truth".

In my experience however, veritably stupid people "deny" evolution as scientific fact, purely based upon their religious beliefs alone. Such folk have my sympathies, but little deserved tolerant respect...

 

[joeboonda]

In my experience however, veritably stupid people "deny" evolution as scientific fact, purely based upon their religious beliefs alone. Such folk have my sympathies, but little deserved tolerant respect...

You would be surprised then, to know I studied the scientific evidence and it lead me to believe the Bible was true. My first encouter with the scientific evidence happened over 26 years ago and it grows evermore absolutely convincing, no doubt about it, that the Biblical accounts of the Creation and the Deluge are completely true and reliable.

 

[MaddLlama]

You would be surprised then, to know I studied the scientific evidence and it lead me to believe the Bible was true. My first encouter with the scientific evidence happened over 26 years ago and it grows evermore absolutely convincing, no doubt about it, that the Biblical accounts of the Creation and the Deluge are completely true and reliable.

Some people will believe anything.

 

[painted wolf]

Faulty analogy again.
You can still get fed without keys. Its called money. Shelter? Money.
How many people forget their PIN code at the bank?

where I live, no keys no food. I can't walk to a grocery store and back. Absolutely not in the winter. And I'll admit it I forget my PIN code. Granted I don't use it much either.

Hardly.
It is active hunting. Unless you consider wandering into a hunter's sense of sight/smell to be falling into a trap.

Where I live, I'm in sight of a bear whenever I leave my home and go for a walk. Its not difficult to be in sight of a predator in a healthy ecosysem.
Stalking is slimply sneaking up within range of attack. it is setting the trap, an active trap but a trap none the less.

I see the slow one in the back getting eaten.

The smart zebra doesn't leave the safty of the herd, the stupid one does.

In this example they might be.
The higher on the food chain you are, the more intelligence you are likely to have. Look at the very top of every food chain. That animal is either the biggest and/or the smartest of all the animals below them

bias.... Elephants are not predators and they are certenly smarter than lions. Baleen Whales are as intelligent and larger than thier predators.
Predators tend to be smaller than thier prey, not bigger.
Crocs can be very large, but they are capable of killing animals much larger than themselves. The average croc is still a small animal.

Simplicity tends to result in being able to survive a wide variety of environments.

LOL, so now mammals are simple?

Who said it isn't?
It just does not equate to evolutionary success.

You consider the Panda to be an evolutionary success? How do you define evolutionary success?

In other words, stupid fish.

brain vs. no brain. No brain wins. Eyes vs. no eyes, no eye wins.
Brains and so on don't make you invulnerable. Jellies kill dozens of people a year, stupid humans? No amazingly well evolved jellies.

They are not top of the food chain either.

There is no 'top' in the food chain. Everything is eaten by something elce. Not even humanity can escape this fact.
It you really want a top.... then consider the Virus. Nothing avoids them and nothing feeds on them. Perhaps the humble Virus is the top?

wa:do

 

[UnTheist]

Bacteria is at the top of the food chain. They eat everything

 

[camanintx]

You would be surprised then, to know I studied the scientific evidence and it lead me to believe the Bible was true. My first encouter with the scientific evidence happened over 26 years ago and it grows evermore absolutely convincing, no doubt about it, that the Biblical accounts of the Creation and the Deluge are completely true and reliable.

What evidence, scientific or otherwise, is there that a man built an ark, collected two of each species, and survived a massive flood that covered the world for 40 days as described in the Bible?

 

[yossarian22]

where I live, no keys no food. I can't walk to a grocery store and back. Absolutely not in the winter. And I'll admit it I forget my PIN code. Granted I don't use it much either.

You are missing the point. If you lose your keys you will not die. If a squirrel cannot find its food supply, it will.

Stalking is slimply sneaking up within range of attack.

Or waiting for something to wander into range.

it is setting the trap, an active trap but a trap none the less.

traps are passive by definition. you set up then wait.

The smart zebra doesn't leave the safty of the herd, the stupid one does.

So?
Many times all the zebras stay in the pack, its just the slow one that gets eaten.

bias.... Elephants are not predators and they are certenly smarter than lions.

And are at the top of the food chain.

Baleen Whales are as intelligent and larger than thier predators.

So? Every rule has an exception

Predators tend to be smaller than thier prey, not bigger.

Then they make up for it in numbers or another area- like having razor sharp teeth.

Crocs can be very large, but they are capable of killing animals much larger than themselves. The average croc is still a small animal.

And it makes up for it by having jaws which can bend steel.

LOL, so now mammals are simple?

No, I consider jellyfish to be simple.

You consider the Panda to be an evolutionary success? How do you define evolutionary success?

I do not. There is no such thing. The fact that the animal exists at all means it is successful

brain vs. no brain. No brain wins. Eyes vs. no eyes, no eye wins.
Brains and so on don't make you invulnerable. Jellies kill dozens of people a year, stupid humans? No amazingly well evolved jellies.

I'd actually go with stupid humans here.

There is no 'top' in the food chain. Everything is eaten by something elce. Not even humanity can escape this fact.

Sure there is. The top of the food chain is eaten when it is dead.
What hunts humans? Nothing. We are currently at the top.

It you really want a top.... then consider the Virus. Nothing avoids them and nothing feeds on them. Perhaps the humble Virus is the top?

They are not alive.They can be fed on, just not in any traditional sense of the word.

 

[painted wolf]

You are missing the point. If you lose your keys you will not die. If a squirrel cannot find its food supply, it will.

I will if i do it in the middle of winter.

Or waiting for something to wander into range.

sounds passive to me. Face it predators don't want to waste energy, they will be as lazy as possible because the risk of missing is so high.

And are at the top of the food chain.

Elephants are at the top of the food chain?

So? Every rule has an exception

In a scientific discussin the exceptions make the rules. You can not argue for one point then simply dismiss contrary evidence.

No, I consider jellyfish to be simple.

Jellies are anything but "simple".

I do not. There is no such thing. The fact that the animal exists at all means it is successful

I'm sure the creodonts would apreciate that.

Sure there is. The top of the food chain is eaten when it is dead.
What hunts humans? Nothing. We are currently at the top.

you need to study the food web more then.
Humans are prey to lots of animals. Mountian Lions, Lions, Hippos, Crocs, Sharks, Bears, wild boars, and so on. If they can get the chance to eat us they will. We are no more at the top of the food chain than we are the top of the evolutionary ladder.
Both are sadly out dated ideas.

They are not alive.They can be fed on, just not in any traditional sense of the word.

name one thing that feeds on viruses. If you find it we can cure a lot of illnesses.
The line between the most complex viruses and the simplest bacteria is growing more and more fuzzy as we study it.

Bacteria is at the top of the food chain. They eat everything

I would agree. Bacteria are the true masters of this planet. (though an very good agrument could be made for the virus)

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

sounds passive to me. Face it predators don't want to waste energy, they will be as lazy as possible because the risk of missing is so high.

Some hunters are passive. Most tend to move around, especially those with good senses.
An no,you will not die in the middle of winter unless you have absolutely no form of cash

Elephants are at the top of the food chain?

Er, what hunts an elephant? As a primary food source.

Jellies are anything but "simple".

Er, they kind of are.

you need to study the food web more then.
Humans are prey to lots of animals. Mountian Lions, Lions, Hippos, Crocs, Sharks, Bears, wild boars, and so on.

Really? So they actively hunt us and we construe a primary source of food?
Nope. Nothing actively hunts us. there are a few individuals in each species that do not follow the trend,.

name one thing that feeds on viruses. If you find it we can cure a lot of illnesses.
The line between the most complex viruses and the simplest bacteria is growing more and more fuzzy as we study it.

There are a variety of anti-viral chemicals.
Hey, I told you it was not in the traditional sense of the word.

 

[painted wolf]

Some hunters are passive. Most tend to move around, especially those with good senses.
An no,you will not die in the middle of winter unless you have absolutely no form of cash

Most hunters are lazy. They spend the majority of thier day sleeping. The only exception are the shrews, who will die if they don't constantly eat.
And yes, lock me out of my house with no keys at night with a wind chill of -40 and all the cash in the world won't save me. Not even if I manage to get it to light on fire.

Er, what hunts an elephant? As a primary food source.

Some prides of lions specallize in hunting elephants. Crocs will take them too if they get the chance. Not to mention humans have historically eaten them.

Er, they kind of are.

kind of doesn't cut it. If its so simple how does a Box Jellie see with its eight eyes and no brain to process the images?

Really? So they actively hunt us and we construe a primary source of food?
Nope. Nothing actively hunts us. there are a few individuals in each species that do not follow the trend,.

Few predators have a 'primary' prey species. Most hunters are opportunistic and will eat whatever is easy to kill. When a Mountain Lion kills a human it actively hunts it.
To say otherwise is to split hairs. WE are a prey species as much as anything elce.
Wolves will eat Bears, Bears will eat Wolves and so on.

Now when a herbivour species goes after predators specifically to kill them, things get really intresting. Cape Buffalo will actively hunt down Lions whenever possible.
That makes being a Lion a lot more tricky.

There are a variety of anti-viral chemicals.
Hey, I told you it was not in the traditional sense of the word.

right, so then no.
Viruses have thier way with us... using us as machines of thier own procreation and adaptation.
If that doesn't give you a little humility, nothing will.

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

Most hunters are lazy. They spend the majority of thier day sleeping. The only exception are the shrews, who will die if they don't constantly eat.

I was under the impressions that birds also must eat very often because of their metabolism

And yes, lock me out of my house with no keys at night with a wind chill of -40 and all the cash in the world won't save me. Not even if I manage to get it to light on fire.

Yes, assuming that you live totally isolated with means of communication.
Unlikely. Losing your keys is not a matter of life and death and never will be, unless somebody threatens to blow your head off unless you give him the keys.

Some prides of lions specallize in hunting elephants. Crocs will take them too if they get the chance. Not to mention humans have historically eaten them.

Not all. Elephants are fairly high up on the food chain because few things can take them down.

kind of doesn't cut it. If its so simple how does a Box Jellie see with its eight eyes and no brain to process the images?

You mean the light sensors?

Few predators have a 'primary' prey species. Most hunters are opportunistic and will eat whatever is easy to kill. When a Mountain Lion kills a human it actively hunts it.
To say otherwise is to split hairs. WE are a prey species as much as anything elce.
Wolves will eat Bears, Bears will eat Wolves and so on.

Which is why I had the word "a primary" not "the primary"

Now when a herbivour species goes after predators specifically to kill them, things get really intresting. Cape Buffalo will actively hunt down Lions whenever possible.
That makes being a Lion a lot more tricky.

Thats interesting.

right, so then no.
Viruses have thier way with us... using us as machines of thier own procreation and adaptation.
If that doesn't give you a little humility, nothing will.

The most dangerous weapon is the simplest one.

 

[joeboonda]

Some people will believe anything.

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics