Evolution?

But what you're implying would not allow for any change, because a change would disrupt the equillibrium. That is, no change is allowed, unless an equal and opposite change occurs simultaneously. That's silly -- you're just making things up, buddy.
 
Couldn't help but leap in. The woodpecker example - initially the Woodpecker had a regular beak, which it used to peel the bark away from trees in search of grubs.

Those Woodpeckers with strong enough beaks could afford to lever aside the first couple of mm of wood too - and the process continued on from there. Now Woodpeckers hammer their beaks through the bark into the wood looking for grub tunnels.
 
Thanks, Lion, it's nice to see you too! The other boards I've been frequenting have been pretty slow, so I figured I'd check this one out again..thanks for the welcome
smile.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But what you're implying would not allow for any change, because a change would disrupt the equillibrium. That is, no change is allowed, unless an equal and opposite change occurs simultaneously. That's silly -- you're just making things up, buddy.
wink.gif
yeah, I am just making stuff up. I'm just going by what makes sense to me. Ive only been here for 19 years, so I can't really tell you from experience exactly how everything came to be...
What I'm implying is that since everything is dependant on something else you can't start off with one organism, but I think change can happen.
 
You've just totally ignored your previous assertion of an earth in total equillibrium. But whatever. Why is everything dependant on something else? You're begging the question, so please support this assertion.
 
I don't think I ever said total equilibrium, but maybe I implied it. I don't believe that much of an extream as to say total equilibrium.
Thats a strange question, can you tell me something that isn't dependant on another organism?
 
According to the law of Bio Genesis you need life to beget life.

Sorry if I am a little late on jumping in, but with the woodpecker it could have evolved to have a stronger beak or maybe one smart/hungry woodpecker figured out it's beak was strong enough to hammer into a tree.

Species do evolve, it is scientificaly proven.  What has not been proven is for a species to evolve into another species.  Using our woodpecker analogy, early woodpeckers referred to as woodbenders use their beaks to pry through a tree to get to food, as they evolved their beaks became stronger to be able to penetrate the wood making it easier to get the food.

The point is that they evolved from a bird with a already strong beak and still have the same specie's genetic make up.  They did not evolve from a sparrow or a beaver.
 
Thanks for that article Timor, it was a little difficult to fully understand, but I managed to stretch my poor brain over all the corners finally.
smile.gif


Well, it seems that whilst we don't have tadpole to beaver, we do at least have frog to toad then. More, no doubt, will be uncovered.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Dependant on another organism? Sure. Had life never evolved here on earth, earth still would have existed. Rock is rock, pretty much.
you knew what I meant, but incase you didn't. My queston was is there any organism that isn't dependant on another organism?
 
Presumably, the first organisms. Having never really seen this does not eliminate the possibility. It has been shown that life from non-life is very probable in conditions similar to what the early earth would have been like. Furthermore, scientists were able to create a virus from scratch. No matter what, though, there is going to be a "first" organism -- whether it was created or happened to evolve is the issue.
 
Don't you think scientists creating a virus from scratch would support creationism? How has it been shown that life from nonk-life is probable? Looks like more of a specualtion to me because we don't know anything about what early earth was like. Sure theres a first organism, but If all the organisms are created in a day, that explains how they can be interdependant. I don't see how a organism can exist alone.
 
I have posted a link to this in the past - you need to search for abiogenesis - life from no life. It's possible and has been replicated in the lab.
 
CCGR, they were unnatural in that those scientists originally thought that one of the components present in their soup would also have been present in primitive earth's soup (which is what they were trying to replicate). They later learned that early earth's soup would not have this component. Upon removing it, they still got the same results as before.

Sorry, forget exactly what "the component" was
tounge.gif
 
All Ive found so far is that some scientists made a virus by taking some dna from something, and creating a virus. I haven't read anywhere about them standing by and watching a virus be formed from a soup. Do you have an article?
 
heres all I got
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The virus was made by synthesizing many short strings of DNA using the molecule's fundamental chemical building blocks, then pasting them together in the correct order, the scientists said. The viral DNA was inserted into bacteria, where it was able to replicate like a natural virus.
 
Back
Top