So, my question will be: when environment changes, did the population has no time to go to another place to live for safety?
Africa is one of the worst places to live just about everything can make you sick its overcrowded, the weather sucks most of the time..... And still people live there why dont they go away find a better spot they have legs dont they?
Say Europe starts transforming in to a desert, a wolf or a doggy or whatever the animal can try to wander and search for food but it will either run into competition that has the home advantage, or it will find no better hunting grounds and all the energy it used in searching for greener pastures is wasted, and during a food shortage wasted energy = death.
Better example when there is a low population of rabbits and other animals foxes eat, the foxes start to loot chicken coops seems like a good idea at the time but that angers their competition Man, he gets his gun and shoots the fox
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Please don't take this so hard, I said slightly off-topic.
The off topic part involves how evolution works ( and this involves intellen as well as you).
When you assert things such as
Message 52: Changes in the composition of traits in breeding populations cannot create new structures where none existed before. It cannot change keratin into collagen no matter how many different traits occur in a population.
This is making an unevidenced, unsupported statement that purports to delineate a limitation to evolution.
These assertions are invalidated by evidence that contradicts it. One such was already provided by Tangle
Message 61: My favourite example of evolution in big animals [most reasonable people accept evolution can happen in bacteria where it's easily demonstarted, but have difficulty imagining evolution in 'proper' animals like lions and horses] is the the Italian Wall Lizard.
This creature managed to evolve new features in 25 years - incredibly really when we generally think of changes happening over thousands, sometimes millions of years..
This is from the wiki:
... The cecal valves, which occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,[5] have been described as an "evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards".[7]
Thus your assertion that novel features do not evolve is falsified. The evolution of collagen has also been addressed by several people.
What you haven't addressed is whether the group of characteristics that improve the ability of the Newfoundland Dog -- webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and a modified swimming behavior -- constitute a novel feature:
Do you agree that a breed of dog with webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and a modified swimming behavior, constitute the development of a novel feature within the Newfoundland Dog breed? One that does not exist in either the ancestral species (Wolf) or combined in this way in other dog breeds? Yes No
The other puppies think they look funny and call them names.
The environment changes; water levels rise.
The puppies with webbed feet were happy; they played and swam and all hung out together while they laughed at the puppies without webbed feet that couldn't swim real fast all the way from here to there and all the way back again.
The puppies without webbed feet moved to higher ground and they played chase and catch the tail and run around the tree and laughed at the puppies with webbed feet.
Soon there were two different populations, the clean foot puppies and the web foot puppies.
And that is how evolution works.
I don't know what you are saying. I am discussing RAZD's premise1 that he had posted in OP.
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
FRAKO = Africa is one of the worst places to live just about everything can make you sick its overcrowded, the weather sucks most of the time..... And still people live there why dont they go away find a better spot they have legs dont they?
Say Europe starts transforming in to a desert, a wolf or a doggy or whatever the animal can try to wander and search for food but it will either run into competition that has the home advantage, or it will find no better hunting grounds and all the energy it used in searching for greener pastures is wasted, and during a food shortage wasted energy = death.
Better example when there is a low population of rabbits and other animals foxes eat, the foxes start to loot chicken coops seems like a good idea at the time but that angers their competition Man, he gets his gun and shoots the fox
1. Yes, in Africa but Africans can tend their houses and lands. Some go to another places to find food. But animals had no houses to live like dogs so they can go to other places, by following the changes in environment.
2. Yes, there will be competition but the competition will never be the caused of those animals to evolve to another species. Either they fight or die. That means, natural selection has no part in the origin of species.
3. And the low population of any organisms will never diminish the possibility of nat selc to that population, thus, showing that ToE and evolution is wrong. How low is low is maybe debatable but small population has no possibility of evolution.
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
SUBBIE = There are several questions there, and I'm not sure I understand them all. But I strongly suspect you are not understanding my point.
The doggies do not live in the middle of an otherwise lifeless desert. There are thousands of other species in the environment as well. If all the doggies go extinct, that will open up opportunities for other organisms to thrive. Perhaps doggies were competing with wolfies for food. With doggies gone, wolfies may increase. Perhaps doggies were eating kitties. Since fewer kitties are being eaten, they may see a population increase.
Any species going extinct will change the competitive balance of the enviroment that the species inhabited.
Yeah, there are thousands of another species, that means, natural selection cannot be the caused of the origin of the new species, therefore, evolution is wrong.
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
It is not I that is very confused. It is you, probably. ToE, with its 150 years of gathering data and so called "facts", had messed up everything in science. Your post is one example. I am talking about natural selection of evolution, not mutation. Why are you talking about mutation?
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
The reason why I cannot believe in that story that you've posted was that the population of dogs can go to another places to look for food for life if environment changes.
If I am wrong, then, how evolution will kick in to evolve new species if population can go to another place to find for food?
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
The other puppies think they look funny and call them names.
The environment changes; water levels rise.
The puppies with webbed feet were happy; they played and swam and all hung out together while they laughed at the puppies without webbed feet that couldn't swim real fast all the way from here to there and all the way back again.
The puppies without webbed feet moved to higher ground and they played chase and catch the tail and run around the tree and laughed at the puppies with webbed feet.
Soon there were two different populations, the clean foot puppies and the web foot puppies.
And that is how evolution works.
Look at the part that says:
quote:A few of the puppies are not perfect copies.
Those puppies have webbed feet.
The puppies that were born with webbed feet are the result of a mutation.
Are you with me so far?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
That is a hilarious scientific story. It is hilarious since you did not specify if the population of dogs, say doggy1, did really mutate and got its new trait, i.e., the webbed feet.
Anybody can claim that! But not anybody can show that with support in science.
And the worst case from ToE or evolution is that, RAZD had posted in his premiese1 that natural selection deals with ecological challenges. But doggy1 could just go to another place to find food or whatever, for safety. Therefore, there will be be no evolution.
So the question will be: how come ToE says that "webbed feet" is the product of evolution?
By mutation? So, natural selection did not play role for that trait?
Then, I am right that nat selec is not part of evolution.
Mutation is always harmful since DNA has its repair mechanism.
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
™ Version 4.2
(1)