by metatron 135 Replies latest jw friends
"Anyway, as you probably know now, animals that don't seem to have changed much are not proof against evolution; it just means that they have not had much competition or change in their environment over the millennia."
Yeah. So if there is change - that is a grand prrof of evolution. And if there is no change - that is a grand proof of evolution.
Nice theory. Covers all possible past, present and future findings. Impossible to disprove. eh..... and therefore no science ........
" Yeah. So if there is change - that is a grand prrof of evolution. And if there is no change - that is a grand proof of evolution."
No-one said that, silly!
"And if there is no change - that does not disprove evolution." is the correct way to phrase it.
Before this discovery, fundamnetalist evolutionists thought they knew that all things are equally evolved, except for the shark and a few other species - Satan
What do you mean by "equally evolved"?
How do you think we measure evolution exactly?
We know for an absolute certainty that all living things share a common ancestor - sometimes referred to as LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). We know some of the features that LUCA must have had and even some of it's genes. Since then some species have become far more complex than others. Relatively simple lifeforms like bacteria and archaea had the planet to themselves for the first 2 billion years before eukaryotic cells evolved from a symbiotic merger. Only then was multicellular complex life possible.
Some species like humans have become very complex in that time and others, like the coelacanth, are still closer to ancient species. This latest fossil discovery shows that sharks have changed more than was previously thought.
OldHippy - Are you being accidently or wilfully obtuse?
facepalm.........
I used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?').
Yes, in reality the rate of change is related to how well genetic mutations are suited to their enviroment. So although the rate of generic mutations in a shark could be the same as any other living thing, it could well be that the current design is the best suited to survive and thus individuals with mutations are not able to survive as well. This is well in line with the concept of natural selection.
There is a current PBS programme: "The inner Fish" showing TRACES left of our common ancestor's past, as it branched through the ichtes / Pisces* line. Now,
if we only could have retained the feature of REGROWING scales/TEETH,
we would avoid that agony at the dentist. and lead to the extinction of that branch.
*the French do not call the swimming pool 'PISC-IN-E' for nothing.
I look forward to seeing the inner fish program.
Some more species that scientists believe have not evolved much in millions of yrs: fig wasp, some crocs and alligators, some octopii, coelacanth, cockroach, dragonfly, horseshoe crab and nautilus. Yet, fundamentalist evolutionists, ie, those who stick w current orthodox evolutionary thought, say that evolution goes on at the same rate, across the board.
Snared racket goes bald from face palming.
S
fundamentalist evolutionists, ie, those who stick w current orthodox evolutionary thought, say that evolution goes on at the same rate, across the board.
Who ever said that?
Perhaps, i worded that wrongly. That all are equally evolved is more accurate.
S
But as I asked you above, what do you mean by "equally evolved"?
