Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,780 Year: 4,037/9,624 Month: 908/974 Week: 235/286 Day: 42/109 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rapid Evolution in Lizards
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 57 (464408)
04-25-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by teen4christ
04-25-2008 12:30 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
ICANT writes
quote:
They were still genetically the same as the ones they had left in 1971.
ICANT, despite our discussion about this for months now, you still don't know what evolution actually says. Somehow, you keep going back to the same misconceptions you had earlier.
Evolution is the change in allele frequency. Suppose that tomorrow a virus wipes out everybody who's got blue and green eyes. After a couple generation, the genotype is extinct. That's still evolution. The allele frequency of the population has changed.
Or suppose that tomorrow a virus kills off everyone who doesn't have blue eyes. After a couple generations, we're left with only blue eyes. That's still evolution simply because the allele frequency has changed.
He's just gonna say that that is micro- not macro-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by teen4christ, posted 04-25-2008 12:30 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 1:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 57 (464434)
04-25-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICANT
04-25-2008 1:14 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Catholic Scientist writes:
He's just gonna say that that is micro- not macro-
I don't have to say anything the articles have already said it.
The DNA was the same, the diet had brought about a change.
The title of the article said he was still a lizard.
So what do I have to say.
Did the lizard evolve to survive in his new home? Yes.
Yup, it certainly is a great example of macroevolution!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 1:14 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 57 (464455)
04-25-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
04-25-2008 4:49 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
According to my definition of macroevolution = one critter becoming another totaly different critter.
How does one critter become another? (as in by what process)
And where did you get that definition? Did you just make it up?
Why don't we discuss what the ToE considers macroevolution to be instead of your (personal) definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 6:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 57 (464470)
04-25-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
04-25-2008 6:08 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Catholic Scientist writes:
Why don't we discuss what the ToE considers macroevolution to be instead of your (personal) definition?
That has already been tried on a couple of threads and it did not work.
Was it your fault?
Give me your definition and I will see if I can agree that is what happened to the lizards.
I don't distinguish between micro and macro. Evolutions is evolution.
What happened to the lizards is an 'increase in information', the development of a new body part, what have you.
One critter will never turn into another because it is impossible. It has to happen gradually. What we see in this case, is one of those gradual changes. If you can accept this as one of those gradual changes, then there is nothing to stop these changes from piling up until we have some critter that is no longer the critter it was a long time ago. But this is not one critter turning into another. It is large populations of critters gradual evolving into another.
The lizards that these evolved from do not have this body part while these do. They are not the "same" lizard anymore so if you want to go by the 'turn into another critter' definition, then we have a new critter. Hooray!
Sure its still a lizard. But the ToE doesn't say that it will be anything else but a lizard. The changes are so gradual that you will never really notice the difference in kinds until it has been sooooo long, that you practically forgot what the original kind even looked like.
It doesn't go:
DOG ----> CAT
It goes:
DOG ----> COG ----> CAG ----> CAT
(as an oversimplified example)
DOGs and COGs will be barely distinguishable as will COGs and CAGs, and CAGs and CATs. But after many, many, generations, we will see that CATs are different than DOGs.
Please just once, try to understand what I'm saying instead of reading me out of context and doing everything you can to not have to admit that you could be wrong about all of this.
I know, I know,..... you CANT
And I think this was the problem in those couple of other threads....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 6:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 7:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 57 (464522)
04-26-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ICANT
04-25-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Care to respond to my explanations of your misunderstandings?
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't distinguish between micro and macro. Evolutions is evolution.
I can agree with that.
Then why all the nonsense about this lizard not "turning into another critter"? Are you trolling?
Catholic Scientist writes:
And I think this was the problem in those couple of other threads....
The one that was most intersting was between two evolutionist, Elmer and RAZD. I got in and exchanged a few messages with RAZD in it at the end, you can find the thread Here
I'll read it later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 7:48 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 57 (464649)
04-27-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr T
04-27-2008 6:26 PM


We’ll see, you just watch, sometime in the not to distant future there will be a follow up article on this lizard on page 62 of the paper in the bottom left corner retracting this ridiculous claim. Thats how it always is with these evolution scientist's earth shattering discoveries; Nebraska man and his cute family of four-from an extinct pigs tooth, piltdown man-man's and ape's skull and jaw hoax, lucy's bones found hundreds of feet apart and in different strattum, neandertal man now known to be completely human, coelacanth a 70 million year old fish that walked out of the water thought to be a missing link between fish and amphibians found in Madagascar fish markets and swimming at great depths in the Indian Ocean. The list goes on!
Have you ever heard of PRATT?
Points Refuted A Thousand Times....
You've been fed falsehoods and your gobbling them up!
Lucy and coelacanth are solid....
Start a thread on your claim for one of them and we'll get you cleared up
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr T, posted 04-27-2008 6:26 PM Dr T has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024