|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intermediates | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
This is my personal observation that keeps me skeptical of evolution. Why did the creatures created by the stages of evolution between one species and the next die out. Simple and extremely complex organisms coexist to gether. So why couldn't a less developed human survive? It must have survived long enough to evolve into us.
If I evolved the ability to breath under water that would not lead to all other humans dying out. To me species look complete and not on the verge of any kind of speciation. Plus it must have taken millions of very gradual mutations to create us. So we can't have gone from monkey to human overnight which makes it essential that intermediates hang around for a long time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
I don't know how to quote yet so this is a general reply.
I think you've somewhat missed the point. A species has lots of adaptions/features like fingers, toes, liver, kidney, digestive system sexual organs. None of these can be produced in one mutation (over night). So to get to this stage yould have to be able to survive as a human with half an eye, half a liver, stubby fingers. Yet deformed/ill humans find it hard to survive long enough to procreate) If a creature with shorter fingers, less conscious awareness and a different digestive system could survive what would lead to its eradication? An amoeba can survive but not half man half monkey. On a David Attenborough programme on evolution they managed to give two living examples of the thing you'd expect to see. A bird with claws on it's wings and the Duck billed platypus. I can't read to much into deformed and reconstructed skulls personally. If a species goes extinct like the dodo it doesn't tend to leave ancestors. In the example I gave of breathing in water I wasn't talking about individual evolution but pointing out that developing a "beneficial trait" doesn't make previous adaptions less beneficial and so shouldn't lead to the previous traits disappearing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined:
|
Another general reply.
quote: Your grand parents skeletons will look like yours. I don't see why a skeleton on or gene make-up that is simply similar to ours means we are related. As I mentioned with the Dodo. It didn't leave improved ancestors.Extinct animals fail and hence don't leave ancestors. Such as the soon to be extinct Panda. quote: The examples of eyes given are Fully functioning eyes suitable for the organism.But what can you take from the human eye as it is and it still function. There are complex and simpler computers that doesn't that they are related except conceptually. My point is that humans are created apparently by millions of mutations so at some stage we would have had less functional, knees, backs, language etc. What kind of mutation could lead to our knee with out us being initially crippled. But I don't want to get into irreducible mechanisms particularly.But as I mentioned by refering to "complete species", recreations of transitional species like elephants with half a trunk look half formed intuitively. Only something like a Duck billed platypus gives that illusion of transition. I have absolutely no problem with being related to apes or pigs or an amoeba. But I am not going to form my sense of identity based on who I am allegedly descended from. I don't consider current Germans facist etc. I have noticed that there's another thread on this so i'll read up on it. But there appears to be no intermediated between humans and mokeys and Goriillas. I don't see why every intermediate stage would fail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
Thanks for not ranting at me.
Just a brief point before I go to bed. Would you consider a giraffe with a shorter neck, neanderthal man, prehistoric horse etc as aesthetically pleasing as the current variation? One problem I have with intermediates is that they are rarely/never aesthetically pleasing thats partly what I mean by half formed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
At EACH and EVERY stage of development, the organism with that particular eye is FULLY FUNCTIONAL What do you mean by stage of development? There are organisms with less complex eyes because that is all they need. They are not passing through a stage of development. A mollusc doesn't need a humans eye and the eye of a cat will never develop into a humans eye. But to get from a simpler eye to the human eye you would surely need numerous beneficial mutations and at no stage from simpler eye to extremely complex eye could the mutation create a disadvantage. And this is part of my thread concern you would need numerous stages to get from species to new species. So many stages that many should still exist. If the creature that bore the "advantage" died out it couldn't leave ancestors. I don't see the logic of drawing the conclusion that because there are similar eyes and skulls and genetic patterns that we are related. If you see a professional Tom Cruise look-alike you don't assume he's directly related to Tom just someone randomly with a striking resemblance. The skulls being found are of species that didn't survive yet we are to believe ourselves their offspring. Edited by AndrewPD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
That's a matter of taste. And a peculiar one. You find three-toed horses and short-necked giraffes ugly? Yes aesthetics and subjective taste is controversial. But if you took a sample average I am sure that you'd find people thought a butterfly was generally attractive and a moth less so. Apparently one of the reasons we find people attractive is because of signs of fertility.So if we find a deformed human unattractive it is because they don't look fully functional. Likewise we could judge by another animals appearance whether it is fit. We can look at an animal and see whether it's ill. So I see no problem in looking at an intermediate species and having the same sense of speculation. Aesthetics not relating to sexual selection is hard to explain but we seem to have it. We don't just find beauty in fertility but equations, logic etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
None of these can be produced in one mutation (over night) and Yet deformed/ill humans find it hard to survive long enough to procreate. For these are examples of what evolution actually says, and what you are "disproving
What I am saying here is that the ancestors of humans had to be healthy enough to survive long enough to produce, so why would they die out at all? I am saying that it is precisely because a mutation has to survive through being beneficial that it is strange for an intermediate to die out. As I mentioned with the Dodo it died out and left no beneficial mutations because it wasn't wily enough. Things that go extinct don't appear to be replaced by better models. Rather they are replaced by a completely different species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2415 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined:
|
Each small change is a slightly better eye. As I have said a snake doesn't need a human eye so why would you class a human eye as "better"? A snake will never evolve a better eye because it doesn't need one. For a human to survive in its current body it has to have good eyesight immediately it cant afford to wait for beneficial mutations. An owl has to have good night vision as well as the ability to fly. The human eye is part of a bigger package that all has to survive not just an eye mutation. But wonderfully all the neccesary mutations coincide. But I don't think the presence of a simpler eye or knee proves that you can remove a part of the human eye or knee and it still function. There are simpler and more complex computers (abacus). But because they are only conceptually related you couldn't take much from your computer and it still function.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024