• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yes evolution involves outcomes of change and effect events that occur within a limited range determined by Natural Laws. In 19th century Cope's rules were proposed for evolution within how evolution takes place in the changes in the environment driving force of evolution. In summary cope's rule is the size of animals increase over time in response to positive changes in the environment that are more favorable. It has been also found that chnages that limit the environment can also decrease the size of animals.


A RAFT full of elephants and rats gets stranded on a remote island. The animals survive and reproduce. But as the generations pass, something odd happens: the elephants shrink to the size of Shetland ponies and the rats grow to the size of cats. They have found themselves at the mercy of one of evolution’s weird rules.

Most of us are familiar with evolution by natural selection, in which species change and diverge over time as those that successfully adapt to their environment pass on the genes that helped them flourish. What you might not be aware of, however, is that evolution’s work is in some places governed by a handful of rules that can have some pretty surprising results.

Near the poles, for instance, animals tend to grow larger than you might expect. In the tropics, meanwhile, birds often have strikingly big beaks, while their feathers may be unusually dark. And on islands, evolution gets very peculiar indeed – which explains why Sicily in Italy was once home to dwarf elephants just a metre tall and why rats in New Zealand are about twice the size of their mainland counterparts.

Many of the biological “rules” behind these patterns were proposed in the 19th century and it hasn’t been entirely clear whether they stand up to modern scrutiny. In the past decade, however, biologists have not only confirmed that many of these rules hold true, but also revealed the intriguing details of how and why they work. In some cases, researchers have even begun to use the rules to predict how species will evolve as the world warms.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
A real world example of Cope's law is the last known mammoths at the time of their extinct lived on an isolated island in the Artic Ocean Just North of Asian Russia. The mammoths were small pigmy mammoths a forth of the size of other mammoths.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not over millions of years as has been proven over and over and over.
Oh? That's news -- proven, you say, that they don't stay finches? Now let's see -- what was supposed to have evolved into birds? Was it dinosaurs? And that you say is proven. Really?
And let's see -- what were birds to evolve into? Oh, sorry, they're still birds yet to evolve.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Not over millions of years as has been proven over and over and over.
Clumsy. By incorrectly using the trigger word “proven”, you have walked into the JW playbook trap.

To reiterate for the nth time, science deals in evidence rather than proof. YT knows this perfectly well by now of course, having been told it about a million times, but your incautious use of “proven” allows the faux-stupidity weapon to be tediously wheeled out yet again.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh? That's news -- proven, you say, that they don't stay finches? Now let's see -- what was supposed to have evolved into birds? Was it dinosaurs? And that you say is proven. Really?
And let's see -- what were birds to evolve into? Oh, sorry, they're still birds yet to evolve.
I need to remind you that you are still an ape. Or do you think that you are an elk today? Perhaps an otter? They are cute. But sorry, you are not in those groups. But just think of it, you are not just an ape. You are a Great Ape.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
They still stay finches though. Don't they?
Much like ignorance, species exhibit considerable staying power. For a Finch to lay a Bonobo egg is about as rare as it would be for a person to doze off as a creationist and wake up with some semblance of scientific literacy. (Perhaps that's why there are more ignorant creationists roaming around than there are clever bonobos.)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Much like ignorance, species exhibit considerable staying power. For a Finch to lay a Bonobo egg is about as rare as it would be for a person to doze off as a creationist and wake up with some semblance of scientific literacy. (Perhaps that's why there are more ignorant creationists roaming around than there are clever bonobos.)
I see. So to believe that dinosaurs evolved to birds is not far fetched, right? Some had big wings...some had small wings...their DNA changed ever so slightly as time wore on, right? Kind of like man's unknown common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees, etc. Who needs proof when you have skeletons around?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
... you have unshakeable confidence in what you hope for? (Including, apparently, the hope that the Epistle to the Hebrews is infallible, despite the fact that neither the author nor the date of authorship is known.)
So? And because many say evolution for all things living is true, then what? The specifics change based on circumstances, so? Does that mean they have it "right"? Does that mean men and gorillas and birds have a common ancestor that evolved by chemical biologic reactions without an intelligence superior to that?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So you get to embrace science or deny it, and I fully respect your right to make that choice. I do not, however, respect it, if only because willful ignorance inevitably proves malignant.
What some who post do not comprehend is that I do NOT DENY SCIENCE. I do not, however, respect the idea that changes happen across the board from the start of life on earth due to the unintelligent process ascribed by how facts, such as DNA and cellular processes, are considered. As if there is no basic superior intelligent power behind it all.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I see. So to believe that dinosaurs evolved to birds is not far fetched, right? Some had big wings...some had small wings...their DNA changed ever so slightly as time wore on, right? Kind of like man's unknown common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees, etc. Who needs proof when you have skeletons around?
Again, "proof" is a term that is self defeating for you. You proclaim your ignorance to the world. We have evidence. Just as legal trial technically never prove anyone guilty since the standard is never absolute "proof" nothing is ever proven in the sciences. But if you accept that the world is spherical. If you accept gravity. If you accept almost anything in the sciences (and since you are using a scientific device that appears to be the case) it is highly hypocritical not to accept evolution as well.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What some who post do not comprehend is that I do NOT DENY SCIENCE. I do not, however, respect the idea that changes happen across the board from the start of life on earth due to the unintelligent process ascribed by how facts, such as DNA and cellular processes, are considered. As if there is no basic superior intelligent power behind it all.
Sorry but you regularly deny science. Evidence puts the burden of proof upon those opposing it and all that you have is denial. If you deny the evidence without showing that it is wrong then by definition you are a science denier.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
@YoursTrue Just so you're aware, the concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution conflicts with literal interpretations of scripture, but that isn't a prerequisite for belief in a god. Literal interpretation does however require willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and scientific illiteracy.
 
Top