Evolution debate. Split from Ew Religion.

Do those changes not accumulate? Longer beak -> easier access to seeds/fruits -> works less for food -> flies less frequently -> loses capacity for flight -> develops strong leg muscles, bones become heavier, feathers become more greenish/brown to blend in with with the ground =NEW SPECIES

A hummingbird can become a bear-like animal with the proper environment and enough time.

Um, no. I don't think you understand what's being said at all. You see today can turn into tomorrow yeah, but how can TODAY turn into NEXT WEEK? Today doesn't just "magically" become next week, but it CAN become tomorrow.

You see while today can not just become next week, it can slowly get there believe or not. While in one 24 hour period today can turn into tomorrow, as you agree with, did you know that with ANOTHER 24 hours it becomes that day after that? Well, with this position continuing pretty damn soon you have next week. Seems unbelievable if you don't have the understanding of how time works I know, but it's true.

This can also be used with evolution. One small change, plus another and another and another will turn the original animal into something else. The small changes are accumulative.

It's maths tsuno, what you're saying is that this is possible; 1+1=2. But this is not; 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10.

Pray do tell me, what is it stopping these small changes building up over the years to turn one animal into a new one..? Some type of magical barrier set up by god?

Pray do tell me, what is it stopping these small changes building up over the years to turn one animal into a new one..? Some type of magical barrier set up by god?

When, they ask, does one animal become another? The answer is of course "gradually" but that still doesn't satisfy them. All these labeled lifeforms with mock Latin names are just the identified points on a spectrum.

That's because, as I've said before, you have no proof of this happening. There is no 'missing - link'. For any creature. You have no fish with legs. And don't even say frogs. As I've said before, that is a metamorphosis which is the same thing as puberty. You have no ape man. You have no proof whatsoever of there being a gradual change.

And what I'm saying is this -

http://m-w.com/dictionary/microevolution

http://m-w.com/dictionary/macroevolution

Macro evolution is not a series of changes, it's one large change from one species into another. Once again, unless you have proof of there being a gradual change, don't bring that back up.

@DS - you say that what I'm saying is that today can become tomorrow, but there is no next week. Nothing could be further from what I'm saying.

Math-wise. 1+1 = 2  and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10. HOWEVER. It's still a number. Next week is still full of days. In other words, will the species itself changed, it's still the same species. It did not go from a bird into a bear.

EDIT: Sorry about that DS.

That's because, as I've said before, you have no proof of this happening. There is no 'missing - link'. For any creature. You have no fish with legs. And don't even say frogs.

Actually, I was going to say Tiktaalik.

Macro evolution is not a series of changes, it's one large change from one species into another. Once again, unless you have proof of there being a gradual change, don't bring that back up.

What would you like us to do, watch an animal until it evolves? We can't say how gradual a change is because we don't have every specimen of every generation of a species preserved somewhere. What we have are bones, fossils, and living animals with similar body shapes. What you want me to do is take a bunch of snapshot photos and turn them into a film.

Math-wise. 1+1 = 2  and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10. HOWEVER. It's still a number. Next week is still full of days. In other words, will the species itself changed, it's still the same species. It did not go from a bird into a bear.

Like I said before, it's difficult to say when one species becomes another, but it does happen.

@Djang - you say that what I'm saying is that today can become tomorrow, but there is no next week. Nothing could be further from what I'm saying.

Math-wise. 1+1 = 2  and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10. HOWEVER. It's still a number. Next week is still full of days. In other words, will the species itself changed, it's still the same species. It did not go from a bird into a bear.

Well, seeing as Djang isn't here to debate my points, I suppose I'll have to do...

Your grasp of metaphors is really something else...

Perhaps you would like to try and grasp this; the type of evolution that you believe in, is capable of turning one creature into another over a longer period of time, even without empirical evidence showing this happening in one direct line, common sense would tell you that past behavior is a predictor of future behavior, what is it making evolution "magically" stopping when it hits the change-o-species line?

Pray do tell me, what is it stopping these small changes building up over the years to turn one animal into a new one..? Some type of magical barrier set up by god?

Perhaps then you would like to explain your version of interspecies-biased evolution that shows the proper mechanics that halts evolution once it reaches a certain point...?

Perhaps you would also be so kind as to how you came to this scientific enlightenment..? How many hours of ceaseless research went into your theory, how many sleepless nights? Please do tell... Who knows, perhaps your theory will revolutionise the science of evolution as we know it right here on RMRK!

Crap, sorry about that. I'm just used to the debating style. My mistake. -_-

EDIT: I'm not sure if I should take what you said as an insult of a compliment. (Speaking of metaphors)

I had to laugh at your last comment though, in a good way. While we're debating, it's not like we're a serious community.

As for halting evolution. Nothing does. Picture this. A small bird with a small beak. It needs to reach into deep holes to retrieve the food it needs to live. It develops a longer beak. With all the food it's been eating it has grown larger. Now it can't fly, so it develops a larger wingspan to carry it. It gets bored one day and decides to move somewhere else, perhaps something more tropical. When it gets there it's dark feathers absorb too much sun, so it starts to grow brighter feathers.

This can go on and on, but it's still a bird. It has the same bone structure, and same vital systems.

When you speak of micro evolution eventually creating a new species, you say that you have no proof because it takes millions of years to happen, yet you fail to show proof that it happened to the species that exist now. You say it happened, but show no proof, you say you have no proof, because it hasn't happened yet.

As far as scientific enlightenment, I have achieved no such thing. I am merely a 15 3/4 year old boy with common sense enough to tell the difference between fact and theory. 

When you speak of micro evolution eventually creating a new species, you say that you have no proof because it takes millions of years to happen, yet you fail to show proof that it happened to the species that exist now. You say it happened, but show no proof, you say you have no proof, because it hasn't happened yet.

Did they travel back in time to prove the big bang theory? If you can only believe in what you see Tsuno, then why do you believe in god ?_?

There are many ways to show proof of something other then just visual, in the same way they proved the big bang: they didn't watch it happen, they used mathematical equations to show that it did.

But I never said there was no evidence Tsuno, we have fossils showing "micro" evolution in process, the method of micro evolution becomes the method of macro evolution within a longer period of time, we know this because the most likely answer is that the method of evolution would not just suddenly stop for an unexplained reason at a certain period of time, it would continue.

Using your theory of evolution: We have a reptile, lives on the land and is a carnivore, for what ever reason this reptiles food source, perhaps small animals like mice or rats, has become scarce and it's species is dying out, well one of these reptiles happens to find a new food supply, a supply of fish from a lake or ocean, it learns that it can catch fish that are close to the shore and this new supply of food allows it to have many offspring.

This new hunting ground is of course taught to it's children, but what's this? One of the offspring has slightly webbed feet allowing it to move more swiftly into the ocean and catch more fish and therefore raise a larger family who shares his beneficial mutation.

Now without boring you with the details of each individual mutation that can happen with the version of mutation you agree with, we could say a creature could then grow webbing connecting the arms to the body, an increased lung capacity at first, fused back legs and many other qualities giving this once lizard more cohesion with the water, in fact I'm sure we could both imagine change that would limit the creatures ability to go on land, with fused behind legs it would simply be easier to stay in the water 24-7, it would then have more and more changes making it more and more suited to the water because of this constant submersion.

Is it still a lizard? Because the end result is actually a fish.

Explain why this is impossible if you disagree.

Is it still a lizard? Because the end result is actually a fish.

Wrong.

eh, whatever, would it still be classed in the same realm as it previously was then, if not how do you distinguish between creatures?

eh, whatever, would it still be classed in the same realm as it previously was then, if not how do you distinguish between creatures?

Yes, the aquatic reptile would be in the same family as its non-aquatic counterparts, if not the same genus Edit: unless your hypothetical lizard was be given an entirely new class. How does neofish sound?

"Fish" means something very specific. If a reptile evolved into something indistinguishable from a fish it still wouldn't be a fish because an animal can't enter another preexisting class - it just doesn't work that way. Evolution only moves in one direction: forward, not backwards or sideways.

"Fish" means something very specific. If a reptile evolved into something indistinguishable from a fish it still wouldn't be a fish because an animal can't enter another preexisting class - it just doesn't work that way because the only direction evolution moves in is forward. I'm thinking that your hypothetical lizard would be given an entirely new class. How does neofish sound?

Eh, sounds fine to me, as long as the rest of my example can still be used to show that evolution is the same whether macro or micro~

Thanks for pointing that out.

[ quote]Yes, the aquatic reptile would be in the same family as its non-aquatic counterparts, if not the same genus.[/quote]

I wasn't talking about a simple change, I was talking about mass-evolution. Besides, you have different species under the one genus, my 'neofish' would be a new species, under the same genus yes, but;

[ quote=Tsuno]When you speak of micro evolution eventually creating a new species,[/quote]

That is what Tsuno was referring to; a change in species, excluding my misuse of the word 'fish' I believe I accomplished that. If not, perhaps you would like to show an example in my error..?

Edit: didn't see edit~