Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Constantly designed baramins and the evolving food chain
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 40 (199011)
04-13-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-12-2005 4:17 PM


quote:
However, we do see species die off, and we know that they weren't fit enough.
How do we tell the difference between poor fitness and an environmental change that is too swift for specialists to adapt to? Couldn't extinction be a function of swift environmental change instead of initial poor fitness? Could it also be a function of an emmigration of newer species that create an unbalanced ecosystem? I think the problem of extinction is more complex than you describe.
quote:
It might look like they evolved, but what if evolution is infact based on the food chain? We see that the chain is needed for the circle of life.
Not if every organism derived their energy from the sun, such as plants. A food chain is not necessary for life.
quote:
So if an important species dies off - the 'transitionals" would infact be the designer making improvements on the previous model.
Why not make all of the improvements in one fell swoop? What tests do we use to detect the difference between evolution and your design process? Why couldn't evolutionary processes produce the same end product?
quote:
So the food chain would be that which evolves!!!!!
Last I checked, it is organisms that make up the food chain. Therefore, any change to the food chain would have to involve a change in the organsisms making up the food chain. Evolution changes the organisms, and a new food chain is the RESULT of these changes, not the cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-12-2005 4:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 40 (199369)
04-14-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
04-13-2005 7:13 PM


quote:
Let's say that all the transitionals are a result of the designer modifying unsuccesful species, in order to keep the circle of life going? It's logical because then each organism will have a purpose.
Why not just let them go extinct and leave the niche open? This seems to have happened quite a bit throughout earth's history. The recent extinction of mega-fauna and the extinction of the dinosaurs are two great examples.
quote:
It's logical because then each organism will have a purpose. It's the same as the other circles in nature, circles work best, and to keep life going, God would surely have to keep the chain going, would he not?
Life seems to do just fine without outside interference. Even if we killed off every mutlicelled organism there would still be a lot of life on the earth. What is the purpose of the zebra and the lion? To multiply. That's it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2005 7:13 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2005 4:15 PM Loudmouth 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