- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rush Limbaugh thinks evolution is a hoax because gorilla never became human
Posted on 6/1/16 at 3:52 pm to themunch
Posted on 6/1/16 at 3:52 pm to themunch
quote:
I do not debunk the fact that species can evolve or change as such. I just do not grasp one species changing into another. Because one species has similar items of anatomy does not mean necessarily that they are some how related or have common ancestry.
Genetics.
0
Posted on 6/1/16 at 3:53 pm to slackster
quote:But it doesn't have to be a case of a previous model. A population of critter may be isolated from others. the stressors are different there. They adapt over time. The wolf-like critter that became early whales did so because of proximity to water. That doesn't me the early whale was somehow better or more evolved that its ancestor. It was just an adaptation that took advantage of that habitat.
As the product evolved, it became just as good as the previous model PLUS something else each time, and eventually that model filled multiple voids.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 3:55 pm to themunch
A species is nothing more than a collection of traits. If you agree that each of these traits can (and does) fluctuate and change over the course of generations, then you must agree that at some point enough traits will change that the two populations are not the same species.
You are getting into the false dichotomy of micro and macro evolution. There is no difference. All evolution is the same; only once that process of a certain trait changing happens enough you have two distinct populations. So if a dog adapted to lose its fur, lost its claws, and grew a short snout.... It would no longer be a dog.
You agree that each of those changes can happen, so given enough time, enough will happen to make the eventual species not resemble its original ancestor.
You are getting into the false dichotomy of micro and macro evolution. There is no difference. All evolution is the same; only once that process of a certain trait changing happens enough you have two distinct populations. So if a dog adapted to lose its fur, lost its claws, and grew a short snout.... It would no longer be a dog.
You agree that each of those changes can happen, so given enough time, enough will happen to make the eventual species not resemble its original ancestor.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 3:59 pm to themunch
quote:what dont you grasp? in order to survive, species undergo mutations that allow them to do so. that doesnt mean every single member of that species will undergo the same effect. maybe a certain set of primitive apes had a situation more friendly towards walking on two feet and needed to have larger cognitive function. maybe a different set of that same type of primitive apes needed to figure out how to climb trees and pick fruit and shite. not all members of the same species have the same needs that are required for mutations to occur
I just do not grasp one species changing into another.
This post was edited on 6/1/16 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:00 pm to Bmath
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:00 pm to themunch
quote:
Because one species has similar items of anatomy does not mean necessarily that they are some how related or have common ancestry.
The majority of evidence and our current understanding on the mechanics of reproduction, DNA replication, and general observations made of the current ecological make-up of species point to the Theory of Evolution as the most likely agent.
If you're attitude is unless someone shows me something that somehow proves with 100% certainty that monkeys turned into humans via the process of evolution I can't grasp it, then well we can't show you that one document. It can be said though that out of all the current theories on how a multitude of species came to exist, Evolution is by far the most likely. Based on scientific observations and our current knowledge of biology, genetics, etc.
This post was edited on 6/1/16 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:00 pm to Blob Fish
quote:
It's likely that multiple genes contribute, as well as genetic modifications, and environmental factors. Scientists will probably never find a "gay gene" just as they will never find a "fat gene". But that doesn't mean that genes don't play a role.
That is because being fat is also a choice and not in your genes.
But I will agree with you that environmental factors play a huge role in our choices.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:02 pm to JamalSanders
quote:
That is because being fat is also a choice and not in your genes.
But I will agree with you that environmental factors play a huge role in our choices
It could be due to your gut microbiota.
This post was edited on 6/1/16 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:03 pm to Bmath
quote:
Butterfly Evolution
I've always loved the peppered moth example...
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:04 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
Will we become asexual in order to survive?
Humans are being bred and conditioned now to being asexual hermaphrodites. Watch the old Star Trek television show. More sexually ambiguous races and groups. Also the Star Wars series. These kinds of cutting edge movies reflect the cusp of technological evolution and what man is now able to accomplish through technology and medical breakthroughs. It is just now in it's embryonic stages. It is coming down the pike though.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:05 pm to genuineLSUtiger
Wut? Just so we are clear, this show about a dashing male starship captain and well endowed female aliens was pushing for hemaphrodites?
This post was edited on 6/1/16 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:05 pm to lsuwontonwrap
Firstly, man did not evolve from modern apes. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor, which is extinct. However, the question comes from a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is not a straight line, where entire populations change into new species all at the same time. Often times, a small group breaks away from a population and begins to evolve independently of the source group. The source group does not need to go extinct, and is generally unaffected by the development of the smaller group. This is called "Allopatric Speciation," and it is just one of many ways that new species can evolve. There is nothing in evolutionary theory which states a source population must go extinct in order for new species to evolve.
References:Allopatric Speciation
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:05 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
not all members of the same species have the same needs that are required for mutations to occur
Maybe it's a bit nit picky, but the mutations are going to happen regardless. It's the needs that determine whether a mutation sticks. If the mutation is beneficial then it increases the likelihood of being passed on and the individuals with it surviving to breed. Then it accumulates over many generations.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:06 pm to genuineLSUtiger
Luke Skywalker fricked an ewok and created oprah.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:06 pm to Bmath
quote:
Bmath
BTW...were you around during the heady days of arguing evolution topics on the PoliBoard? Would have been a year or so after all the bullshite with the Dover School Board and their attempt to smash Intelligent Design into the curriculum.
Volvagia was great in those arguments...handful of others, Wiki being one of them. Apex, Revealtor and a few other notables took up the other side.
Honestly...kind of miss those days...
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:07 pm to GeauxTigerTM
The beejon thread was amazing.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:09 pm to Peazey
right. the point stands though. not all members of the same species have the same needs and therefore, they will not all evolve at the same time and into the same exact species. you get splits coming off at different times from different subgroups
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:09 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
The beejon thread was amazing.
You bastard. You had to name him
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:10 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Honestly...kind of miss those days...
Remember Bayou's insanity? That was good stuff.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 4:10 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
You had to name him
Spirit sword for the win...
Page 7 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News