• 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!

What's the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?

siti

Well-Known Member
The supposed vestigial pelvic bones and hindlimbs have been shown to be involved with mating habits.
What a fascinating argument for Intelligent Design! When God invented the whale he discovered there was not much to hang the creature's presumably prodigiously proportioned reproductive appendage on and not wishing to impede the animal's promiscuous nature, He wondered what he might use to anchor the over-sized organ. Rummaging around his studio for discarded designs that might work, he happened upon a range of hitherto unused but underdeveloped pelvic sets. These will do, He said, but not having time to refine the design of the otherwise appendage-less appendices, he simply appended the reproductive appendage leaving the now useless ambulatory appendage points in place. Not terribly convincing I'm afraid.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
What a fascinating argument for Intelligent Design! When God invented the whale he discovered there was not much to hang the creature's presumably prodigiously proportioned reproductive appendage on and not wishing to impede the animal's promiscuous nature, He wondered what he might use to anchor the over-sized organ. Rummaging around his studio for discarded designs that might work, he happened upon a range of hitherto unused but underdeveloped pelvic sets. These will do, He said, but not having time to refine the design of the otherwise appendage-less appendices, he simply appended the reproductive appendage leaving the now useless ambulatory appendage points in place. Not terribly convincing I'm afraid.
There is no convincing the "unconvinceable". Even God will not do that. Have you never heard the saying...."a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"?

You can mock and ridicule and do whatever you like, but you will never alter God's truth. He will show you one day.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
There is no convincing the "unconvinceable". Even God will not do that. Have you never heard the saying...."a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"?

You can mock and ridicule and do whatever you like, but you will never alter God's truth. He will show you one day.
I wasn't trying to alter anybody's "truth", I was making the point that your interpretation of the whale's pelvic bones current functionality in assisting successful copulation is, in fact, stronger evidence in favour of evolution than against it. It is utterly absurd to suggest that an omnipotent intelligent designer with unlimited options at his disposal could do no better than employ inadequate leg-hangers to anchor the muscles required for sexual reproduction.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Crossing the species boundary. We can tell a pug and chihuahua are related because they could hook up and produce offspring. And we know man is not related to the monkeys because we can't hook up with apes and produce offspring, no matter how much we might want to.
Neither can some species of cats can reproduce for example , but they are still regarded as cats belonging to it's family tree. We are apes, but we cannot reproduce offspring with other apes. That's evolutionary branching.

It by no means is suggesting no relation exists. There is.

I'll bet a modern human cannot produce with a Neanderthal either.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
There is not a single shred of evidence that any creature ever evolved outside of its kind. When there is no actual evidence, what takes its place?....supposition, suggestion and ability to interpret "evidence" to suit what you want to believe.
Others have posted plenty of evidence many times that I have witnessed. That you don't accept any of it is only somewhat like my not accepting any "evidence" for God because the evidence for evolution fits with many observable and inferred criteria. Evidence for God, however, does not fit with anything observable. It is all merely arbitrary attempts to explain the observable with stories that have only the agenda of explaining "God" behind them. As others have said, that is where you mistake "evolution" as a belief-system or a "religion". Scientific minds aren't "stuck" on evolution like you are "stuck" on God. Evolution is the best-case explanation of the evidence as it presents itself in all forms. If scientific evidence comes along that completely rocks the boat and evolution needs to be discarded as a result, then that is what will happen.

On what do you base this documentation if no one was there to witness it? There has to be a "process" to document.....but there is no evidence that this process ever took place except in the fertile minds of the scientists who are 'interpreting' the 'evidence'.


You know how feelings can be wrong? I have no intention of being "gone" or to 'rub anyone's nose' in anything.
The purpose of my contribution to any threads on evolution is to demonstrate to the undecided that science has no real evidence to prove that a long slow process of evolution ever took place.....but at the same time, to also demonstrate that creation wasn't the work of some celestial magician 'poofing' things into existence in a week.
I think you misunderstood much of what you're replying to above. I'm going to try and say it more succinctly. The process of documenting evolution IS going on, right now, with the modern cataloging of species. However, what I was saying is that this documentation process has only been in place for a few thousand years - which is not enough time to see significant change in organisms - not enough time to see a separated organism break from its "kind" via evolution. That's why I was saying that, in time, once there has been enough time for a change like that to have occurred, humans will have documented the "in-between" forms over many many generations of human lives. And that's also why I was saying you would "be gone" (whatever your "intentions" are, you're not going to outwit death by old age or otherwise)... many many human life-spans of time and ALL humans alive in this moment will be "gone".

I was sort of chuckling when you said "I have no intention of being gone". I was talking about thousands to tens of thousands of years into the future. So its not as if you have a choice. You will, most definitely, "be gone."
 
Last edited:

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
Ah, now I see where the animosity originates. You see, science has been on a pedestal for so long, that no one can imagine any logical thinking person could possibly disagree with it. The educated ones have elevated themselves above the common people and how dare they question what we study.....
and how dare they question our findings!
2mo5pow.gif


When egos drive anything, there is often deception and corruption. Add money to that equation and you have a recipe for fraud. I am not saying the fraud is deliberate, but carefully 'managed'.
Humility cannot survive in the world of academia. The hostility comes from wounded egos. If what you believe is true, then no one should be able to show you up as flawed in your evaluations. Hostility comes when egos are threatened.

Science is the study of the natural world and tries to determine through its different 'branches', how the natural systems work and interact on earth and in the big universal picture.

Unfortunately, science has become a "religion" to many people who cannot imagine why anyone would want to discredit their ideas or methods. They have their 'idols' and 'holy' writings that are treated like scripture.

We humans are designed to worship, whether we acknowledge that fact or not. Worship is as old as the human race itself, but not seen in the animal kingdom at all. If it isn't a specific deity that is worshipped, then it is something that replaces that deity and is pursued with equal devotion and fervor. For some, it is sport, attending their 'temples' and adoring their 'idols' on the sporting field every week.
For others its 'stars' in the entertainment industry, following their trends in fashion and music and lifestyle.
We can be caught in this very human behavior without even being consciously aware of what we are doing.
You and I are no exception.

From my perspective, I see satan directing humans into whatever will take them away from the Creator and his worship, substituting all manner of things to achieve his goals. And what better way to deceive than to make everyone believe that there is no Creator, or if there is, he isn't one bit interested in what we do. And you have to be some kind of mental case if you believe in the devil. :p Right?



"Plants and animals have special characteristics, or traits, that help them survive in their surroundings. They develop these traits through a process called adaptation. ... It occurs when natural selection acts on a heritable trait, or characteristic, that allows an individual to better survive in its environment."


adaptation | biology and physiology



According to Britannica, yes.



There appears to be a basic structure in most vertebrates.

5.8.jpg


Basic or natural structure can mean that this framework can be used in a variety of creatures without them being related.
It is just as explainable when describing ID. Don't we ourselves use basic structures to build our own things?
If it works for all and is sound, why deviate?

whalesevoln.gif


Here again we see a similarity in bone structure in different creatures. As a framework for the creature, it works for all of them. It does not necessarily indicate an evolutionary process, but could well be the work of a master designer, using that basic structure in a variety of creatures.

The supposed vestigial pelvic bones and hindlimbs have been shown to be involved with mating habits.

Status shift for whale pelvic bones



Do you mean the hawthorn flies, stickleback fish etc? All available with a Google search.
This one from Wiki.....
600px-Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg.png

54911-050-0E225E16.jpg


What we see with "speciation" is variety within a species. Darwin's finches are all still finches. (Bird "kind")
All are identifiable as varieties within their "species". (The ones described in Genesis that even a child could comprehend)



"A hierarchical system is used for classifying organisms to the species level. This system is called taxonomic classification. The broadest classifications are by domain and kingdom; the most specific classification is by genus and species. The hierarchical groupings in between include phylum, class, family, and order."
Shown here in this example of the grizzly bear....

biological-classification-8-638.jpg


Biological classification
(page 8)



As we can see from the examples used, "kinds" are rather self explanatory. Bears are a kind. But not all animals who look like bears, actually are. Koalas for example. Not all mammals are of a single "kind" but all feed their young milk. Similarity does not always mean relationship.

Dogs are a "kind". Cats are a "kind". Insects are a "kind"....birds are a "kind"....fish are a "kind". But science can tell us a little more about the details. What it cannot tell us with any certainty is that one "kind" ever evolved into another.



Where did you get yours? :D Obviously from a source you trust.....me too.
That is so ridiculous oroborous much. This philosophy suggest that we should adapt to what someone calls an animal not only that you suggest that insects and birds are all related. ARE elements related too. Oroborous much. Pacification leads into murder not out of it. And much suicide. Maybe you check what happened in Liberia. They might try to cover things up religion but that's why evolution and forced mixes on brainwash philosophies is cultural mean. Why do you think they invest time in the worship of angels in world scale and then make you believe there are no differences between people which leads to nilisim. Personally I'd rather stay down to earth.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Ah, now I see where the animosity originates. You see, science has been on a pedestal for so long, that no one can imagine any logical thinking person could possibly disagree with it. The educated ones have elevated themselves above the common people and how dare they question what we study.....
and how dare they question our findings!
2mo5pow.gif


When egos drive anything, there is often deception and corruption. Add money to that equation and you have a recipe for fraud. I am not saying the fraud is deliberate, but carefully 'managed'.
Humility cannot survive in the world of academia. The hostility comes from wounded egos. If what you believe is true, then no one should be able to show you up as flawed in your evaluations. Hostility comes when egos are threatened.

Science is the study of the natural world and tries to determine through its different 'branches', how the natural systems work and interact on earth and in the big universal picture.

Unfortunately, science has become a "religion" to many people who cannot imagine why anyone would want to discredit their ideas or methods. They have their 'idols' and 'holy' writings that are treated like scripture.

We humans are designed to worship, whether we acknowledge that fact or not. Worship is as old as the human race itself, but not seen in the animal kingdom at all. If it isn't a specific deity that is worshipped, then it is something that replaces that deity and is pursued with equal devotion and fervor. For some, it is sport, attending their 'temples' and adoring their 'idols' on the sporting field every week.
For others its 'stars' in the entertainment industry, following their trends in fashion and music and lifestyle.
We can be caught in this very human behavior without even being consciously aware of what we are doing.
You and I are no exception.

From my perspective, I see satan directing humans into whatever will take them away from the Creator and his worship, substituting all manner of things to achieve his goals. And what better way to deceive than to make everyone believe that there is no Creator, or if there is, he isn't one bit interested in what we do. And you have to be some kind of mental case if you believe in the devil. :p Right?



"Plants and animals have special characteristics, or traits, that help them survive in their surroundings. They develop these traits through a process called adaptation. ... It occurs when natural selection acts on a heritable trait, or characteristic, that allows an individual to better survive in its environment."


adaptation | biology and physiology



According to Britannica, yes.



There appears to be a basic structure in most vertebrates.

5.8.jpg


Basic or natural structure can mean that this framework can be used in a variety of creatures without them being related.
It is just as explainable when describing ID. Don't we ourselves use basic structures to build our own things?
If it works for all and is sound, why deviate?

whalesevoln.gif


Here again we see a similarity in bone structure in different creatures. As a framework for the creature, it works for all of them. It does not necessarily indicate an evolutionary process, but could well be the work of a master designer, using that basic structure in a variety of creatures.

The supposed vestigial pelvic bones and hindlimbs have been shown to be involved with mating habits.

Status shift for whale pelvic bones



Do you mean the hawthorn flies, stickleback fish etc? All available with a Google search.
This one from Wiki.....
600px-Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg.png

54911-050-0E225E16.jpg


What we see with "speciation" is variety within a species. Darwin's finches are all still finches. (Bird "kind")
All are identifiable as varieties within their "species". (The ones described in Genesis that even a child could comprehend)



"A hierarchical system is used for classifying organisms to the species level. This system is called taxonomic classification. The broadest classifications are by domain and kingdom; the most specific classification is by genus and species. The hierarchical groupings in between include phylum, class, family, and order."
Shown here in this example of the grizzly bear....

biological-classification-8-638.jpg


Biological classification
(page 8)



As we can see from the examples used, "kinds" are rather self explanatory. Bears are a kind. But not all animals who look like bears, actually are. Koalas for example. Not all mammals are of a single "kind" but all feed their young milk. Similarity does not always mean relationship.

Dogs are a "kind". Cats are a "kind". Insects are a "kind"....birds are a "kind"....fish are a "kind". But science can tell us a little more about the details. What it cannot tell us with any certainty is that one "kind" ever evolved into another.



Where did you get yours? :D Obviously from a source you trust.....me too.

I appreciate your informative posts, they often include more scientifically relevant information than the rest of the thread put together

I think we run into a problem that one Darwinist conceded here; they are 'content' with the theory, there is little motivation to scrutinize it, and in fact there's often a very defensive emotional stance towards any scientific critique; and so little chance of a substantive debate emerging- mostly ad hominem and/or arguments from authority as we see

But then there are people like myself who were once the same way, -they do eventually become curious enough to look into the actual science for themselves. I don't think that anyone who does this, with anything like an open mind, comes away still convinced of Darwinism.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The evolution of the giraffe's long neck occurred so that the animal could reach leaves in taller trees. Since giraffes do not bend their knees to drink from a pool of water, they require a long neck that can reach all the way down to the water.

So any luck finding that half-necked Giraffe yet?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So any luck finding that half-necked Giraffe yet?
You mean like this:-

The cervical anatomy of Samotherium, an intermediate-necked giraffid
Giraffidae are represented by many extinct species. The only two extant taxa possess diametrically contrasting cervical morphology, as the okapi is short-necked and the giraffe is exceptionally long-necked. Samotherium major, known from the Late Miocene of Samos in Greece and other Eurasian localities, is a key extinct giraffid; it possesses cervical vertebrae that are intermediate in the evolutionary elongation of the neck.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
If this is actually supposed to be a serious comment - are you actually asking for some intermediate in neck length that is otherwise identical to a modern giraffe?

If so, you understand nothing about evolution.

So the answer is no, nobody ever found the short necked Giraffe ancestor? That's a pretty large skeleton, wouldn't you expect some intermediates to be found by now?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So the answer is no, nobody ever found the short necked Giraffe ancestor? That's a pretty large skeleton, wouldn't you expect some intermediates to be found by now?
A giraffe is a giraffid - so are its short necked ancestors - I refer you back to my previous link.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
What a fascinating argument for Intelligent Design! When God invented the whale he discovered there was not much to hang the creature's presumably prodigiously proportioned reproductive appendage on and not wishing to impede the animal's promiscuous nature, He wondered what he might use to anchor the over-sized organ. Rummaging around his studio for discarded designs that might work, he happened upon a range of hitherto unused but underdeveloped pelvic sets. These will do, He said, but not having time to refine the design of the otherwise appendage-less appendices, he simply appended the reproductive appendage leaving the now useless ambulatory appendage points in place. Not terribly convincing I'm afraid.
lincoln+mark+ii.jpg


300px-800px-1970_Lincoln_Continental_Mark_III_rear.jpg




Fascinating argument for Darwinism, the vestigal tire hump is proof positive that this 2nd car accidentally morphed itself from the earlier one

Not terribly convincing!
 
Top