J
jdragunas
Guest
even marcupials have live babies...
and petie, doesn't celacanthr just blow your mind??? He's only 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and petie, doesn't celacanthr just blow your mind??? He's only 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What Came First...!?
- Thread starter treybom
- Start date
petieaztec
Member
really, you are intelligent for your age. keep going I am suprised, i think your smarter than myself and i'm 24.
J
jdragunas
Guest
I KNOW!!! it's mind boggling!! and emporer is only 14 too, and he's practically a genious as well... i'm so proud of all of you!
petieaztec
Member
marsupials have not fully developed offspring which mature in there pouches until they are able to survive in the wild. i believe (this is my my specialty) that marsupials deliver a zygote that matures. I have not studied them for awhile so i don't know so much about them and i may be wrong but i know that the offspring is not fully developed. but before i get in trouble for being off topic......
J
jdragunas
Guest
yeah, but they still give birth to a live creature and not an egg... that's all i'm saying. and technically we're still pretty much on topic... i said "egg"....
celacanthr
Active Member
Originally Posted by petieaztec
I stand corrected. I am really dumb founded. the definition is was told of a mamamal is that they have live birth occur. no offense but to me monotremes are not mamals but rather more of a marsupial.
But in mamals not laying eggs I wasn't refering to i guess special cases you can call them.
anyways lets hear other people than me ***)
Almost up till the 20th century platypuses weren't even believed to exist! Then they were recognized as an actual creature, but they were usually thought of as some wierd reptile or bird.
As soon as they were recognized as actual mammals, the definition of "mammal" changed from :
1.hair
2.produce milk
3. have live young
4.warm-blooded
5.backbone
to* :
1. hair
2.produce milk
3.warm-blooded
4. backbone
unfortunately some resources still haven't updated their definition.
no offense taken!
*these aren't the only characteristics shared by all mammals, just gave some"basic" ones to make a point.
I stand corrected. I am really dumb founded. the definition is was told of a mamamal is that they have live birth occur. no offense but to me monotremes are not mamals but rather more of a marsupial.
Almost up till the 20th century platypuses weren't even believed to exist! Then they were recognized as an actual creature, but they were usually thought of as some wierd reptile or bird.
As soon as they were recognized as actual mammals, the definition of "mammal" changed from :
1.hair
2.produce milk
3. have live young
4.warm-blooded
5.backbone
to* :
1. hair
2.produce milk
3.warm-blooded
4. backbone
unfortunately some resources still haven't updated their definition.
no offense taken!
*these aren't the only characteristics shared by all mammals, just gave some"basic" ones to make a point.
celacanthr
Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
and petie, doesn't celacanthr just blow your mind??? He's only 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by petieaztec
really, you are intelligent for your age. keep going I am suprised, i think your smarter than myself and i'm 24.
:blush:
CE(I thought my ears were burning)LA
and petie, doesn't celacanthr just blow your mind??? He's only 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by petieaztec
really, you are intelligent for your age. keep going I am suprised, i think your smarter than myself and i'm 24.
:blush:
CE(I thought my ears were burning)LA
J
jdragunas
Guest
hehehe
J(your ears should be burning)D
you know, you're one of my heros!!!
J(your ears should be burning)D
you know, you're one of my heros!!!
celacanthr
Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
hehehe
J(your ears should be burning)D
you know, you're one of my heros!!!
thanx!
hehehe
J(your ears should be burning)D
you know, you're one of my heros!!!
thanx!
sfe
Member
Originally Posted by hagfish
So if evolution produced this chicken from another species and there is no intelligent design, how did a second chicken just happen to show up to keep the species going before the first chicken died? Keep in mind that the first chicken is technically a mutant and would likely be severely handicapped since evolution doesn't just happen all at once. I mean two cows don't have a baby and poof, it's a chicken!
The odds of a second chicken coming along that was evolved enough to mate with the first chicken before that first chicken died are absolutely ridiculous.
See that's a flaw what your saying. Of course its not going to be a mutant.
Evolution is the change over a long period of time. A chicken is not just going to come out of no where. Your right. Its going to happen over a long period of time. Let me show you this video of evolution on whales. Hopefully it will give you a better understanding.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_034_05.html
So if evolution produced this chicken from another species and there is no intelligent design, how did a second chicken just happen to show up to keep the species going before the first chicken died? Keep in mind that the first chicken is technically a mutant and would likely be severely handicapped since evolution doesn't just happen all at once. I mean two cows don't have a baby and poof, it's a chicken!
The odds of a second chicken coming along that was evolved enough to mate with the first chicken before that first chicken died are absolutely ridiculous.
See that's a flaw what your saying. Of course its not going to be a mutant.
Evolution is the change over a long period of time. A chicken is not just going to come out of no where. Your right. Its going to happen over a long period of time. Let me show you this video of evolution on whales. Hopefully it will give you a better understanding.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_034_05.html
celacanthr
Active Member
Originally Posted by SFE
See that's a flaw what your saying. Of course its not going to be a mutant.
Evolution is the change over a long period of time. A chicken is not just going to come out of no where. Your right. Its going to happen over a long period of time. Let me show you this video of evolution on whales. Hopefully it will give you a better understanding.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_034_05.html
BUT (if you believe in evolution) there is one point at which an actual chicken is born. Like if you changed the saying from "the straw that broke the camels back" to "the mutation that made the chicken"
See that's a flaw what your saying. Of course its not going to be a mutant.
Evolution is the change over a long period of time. A chicken is not just going to come out of no where. Your right. Its going to happen over a long period of time. Let me show you this video of evolution on whales. Hopefully it will give you a better understanding.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_034_05.html
BUT (if you believe in evolution) there is one point at which an actual chicken is born. Like if you changed the saying from "the straw that broke the camels back" to "the mutation that made the chicken"
sfe
Member
Originally Posted by CELACANTHr
BUT (if you believe in evolution) there is one point at which an actual chicken is born. Like if you changed the saying from "the straw that broke the camels back" to "the mutation that made the chicken"
Not true. Evolution takes millions of years. ITs a gradual process. Its not like all of a sudden there is a chicken on the nest of eggs. All of the offspring that are born are the same and they then pass down their traits. In the Law of Natural selection, the fittest survive and they are the ones that have adapted best to their enviroment. In this case, the chicken was produced. But did you check out my video? Its really good and interesting.
BUT (if you believe in evolution) there is one point at which an actual chicken is born. Like if you changed the saying from "the straw that broke the camels back" to "the mutation that made the chicken"
Not true. Evolution takes millions of years. ITs a gradual process. Its not like all of a sudden there is a chicken on the nest of eggs. All of the offspring that are born are the same and they then pass down their traits. In the Law of Natural selection, the fittest survive and they are the ones that have adapted best to their enviroment. In this case, the chicken was produced. But did you check out my video? Its really good and interesting.
hagfish
Active Member
Originally Posted by SFE
Not true. Evolution takes millions of years. ITs a gradual process. Its not like all of a sudden there is a chicken on the nest of eggs. All of the offspring that are born are the same and they then pass down their traits. In the Law of Natural selection, the fittest survive and they are the ones that have adapted best to their enviroment. In this case, the chicken was produced. But did you check out my video? Its really good and interesting.
Just like the chicken doesn't magically pop out of a cow as you pointed out, evolution would suggest that a functioning eyeball for instance wouldn't just suddenly be created in a new species. How, without intelligent design, does they eyeball end up existing when at first there was no eye and it has to be created one cell at a time, by pure chance? Human's can't create such complicated things on purpose, let alone by chance. So why would dumb luck get the eye to work?
In this world it takes takes engineers to build inanimate objects like buildings or computer chips. We aren't smart enough to create life or anything resembling it. But we assume that time and luck provides life eventually.
Not true. Evolution takes millions of years. ITs a gradual process. Its not like all of a sudden there is a chicken on the nest of eggs. All of the offspring that are born are the same and they then pass down their traits. In the Law of Natural selection, the fittest survive and they are the ones that have adapted best to their enviroment. In this case, the chicken was produced. But did you check out my video? Its really good and interesting.
Just like the chicken doesn't magically pop out of a cow as you pointed out, evolution would suggest that a functioning eyeball for instance wouldn't just suddenly be created in a new species. How, without intelligent design, does they eyeball end up existing when at first there was no eye and it has to be created one cell at a time, by pure chance? Human's can't create such complicated things on purpose, let alone by chance. So why would dumb luck get the eye to work?
In this world it takes takes engineers to build inanimate objects like buildings or computer chips. We aren't smart enough to create life or anything resembling it. But we assume that time and luck provides life eventually.
purplelova
New Member
Viper Is Gay
celacanthr
Active Member
Originally Posted by SFE
Not true. Evolution takes millions of years. ITs a gradual process. Its not like all of a sudden there is a chicken on the nest of eggs. All of the offspring that are born are the same and they then pass down their traits. In the Law of Natural selection, the fittest survive and they are the ones that have adapted best to their enviroment. In this case, the chicken was produced. But did you check out my video? Its really good and interesting.
1)Not every individual of a clutch are the same. I fthat were true, then every single animal would be the same (if you believe in evolution).
2)Let's say that Gallus gallus has 100 feathers (I am completely making up these numbers). Now let's say that there was an almost-a-chicken (AAC), with 110 feathers, and that was the only difference between it, and the midern domestic chicken. The AAC had 3 chicks, one with 111 feathers(A1), one with 105 feathers(A2), and one with 101 feathers (A3).
Now there was another AAC that has 95 feathers(A). It has 3 chicks, one with 99 feathers(B1), one with 94 feathers (B2), and one with 97 feathers (B3).
Now lets say that A3 and B1 had 3 chicks. One had 100 feathers(the first chicken!). One had 101 feathers. One had 99 feathers.
the part that is red is the exact point where the first true chicken came into existence.
Yes it did (according to the theory of evolution) take a million years or so for it to get to this point fromt the first true bird, but there was an exact point where the first true chicken came into existence.
3)No, i can't see the video. i wish I could but my computer is really slow today, but thanx for the link!
Not true. Evolution takes millions of years. ITs a gradual process. Its not like all of a sudden there is a chicken on the nest of eggs. All of the offspring that are born are the same and they then pass down their traits. In the Law of Natural selection, the fittest survive and they are the ones that have adapted best to their enviroment. In this case, the chicken was produced. But did you check out my video? Its really good and interesting.
1)Not every individual of a clutch are the same. I fthat were true, then every single animal would be the same (if you believe in evolution).
2)Let's say that Gallus gallus has 100 feathers (I am completely making up these numbers). Now let's say that there was an almost-a-chicken (AAC), with 110 feathers, and that was the only difference between it, and the midern domestic chicken. The AAC had 3 chicks, one with 111 feathers(A1), one with 105 feathers(A2), and one with 101 feathers (A3).
Now there was another AAC that has 95 feathers(A). It has 3 chicks, one with 99 feathers(B1), one with 94 feathers (B2), and one with 97 feathers (B3).
Now lets say that A3 and B1 had 3 chicks. One had 100 feathers(the first chicken!). One had 101 feathers. One had 99 feathers.
the part that is red is the exact point where the first true chicken came into existence.
Yes it did (according to the theory of evolution) take a million years or so for it to get to this point fromt the first true bird, but there was an exact point where the first true chicken came into existence.
3)No, i can't see the video. i wish I could but my computer is really slow today, but thanx for the link!
turboeel
Member
There is all types of evidence to prove evolution. There is Morphological evidence and Genetic sequence evidence.
The evolutionary process can be exceedingly slow. Fossil evidence indicates that the diversity and complexity of modern life has developed over much of the age of the earth. Geological evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.
The evolutionary process can be exceedingly slow. Fossil evidence indicates that the diversity and complexity of modern life has developed over much of the age of the earth. Geological evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.
turboeel
Member
Many critics of evolution claim that the theory robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning. Indeed, one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent design. As Louis Menand has pointed out, what was radical about Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection was not the notion of evolution — a concept people espoused before Darwin, and a word that does not appear in The Origin of Species — but his materialism: "Darwin wanted to establish... that the species — including human beings — were created by, and evolve according to, processes that are entirely natural, chance-generated, and blind" (Menand 2001: 121).