Humans have inferior hearing, eyesight, smell, warm coat, motive power, strength, etc. compared to other members of the animal kingdom. Some evidence of “survival of the fittest”.
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:
David. Humans have the biggest brain. You know, that thing in your head developed by EVOLUTION, that has enable man to survive by inventing “stuff” to outperform all other creatures. Except perhaps bacteria. But then you don’t believe in EVOLUTION, so I guess that explains why your brain didn’t quite EVOLVE as far as it should have to grasp any concept other than Creationism.
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lastmanout/_forumfiles/popcorn.gif)
mike omalley said:And that very "adaptation" can result in specialization that eventually leads to the extinction of a species or sub-species.
Indeed--species don't "improve themselves," and they don't improve, they just adapt. Evolution is not about progress, though it's often misunderstood that way.
David Hill said:We don't need those things to survive. Instead, we use our brains and other capabilities to build telephonic and vision devices, efficient shelters, heating systems, transportation and lifting machines, fences, and efficient weapons.
Humans have inferior hearing, eyesight, smell, warm coat, motive power, strength, etc. compared to other members of the animal kingdom. Some evidence of "survival of the fittest".
We have evolved and will continue to evolve in a variety of ways, some positive and some negative in terms of the very long-term survival of humankind. Properly applied, our intelligence has and hopefully will continue to make up for our physical deficits, and allow lots of mistakes, both deliberate and accidental, to ensure the continuation of man’s dominance on the planet. Then again, our intelligence, if improperly, applied can also be our worst enemy.
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Some like to think that adaptation takes millenia and yet species are able to adapt within a human generation. For the past thirty years, a husband/wife team have studied a particular species of finch only found on one island in the Galapagos Islands. They trapped and measured every member of the species, at least once every year and documented their findings. They noted that during several seasons of drought conditions that the only birds that they measured all had large beaks as opposed to normal seasons when smaller beaked birds were abundant. When they studied the environment they found that as the drought intensified, the food source that produced small seeds was less drought tolerant and thus perished. Small beaked birds, unable to eat the larger seeds from more drought-tolerant vegetation, also died off. The finches with ‘adapted’ larger beaks became more abundant and were the only finch variety. As the seasons improved and smaller seeds became available, the scientists noted that small beaked birds were making a comeback. Thus nature selected those who were adapted to survive the current conditions. when the status quo returned small beaks were more essential for survival and so these birds adapted and flourished. all this in a span of thirty years.
Deleted
Does ‘The Beak Of The Finch’ Prove Darwin Was Right?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
As the naturalist on the Beagle, Charles Darwin made numerous valuable observations of as yet undiscovered plants and animals. Along the way, the Beagle anchored for an extended stay in the Galapagos Islands, 600 miles off the western coast of South America. While the crew mapped these rugged volcanic islands, Darwin studied the unique animals living there, especially the numerous varieties of finches, today classed as fourteen different species. Numerous features suggested to Darwin that these birds were related to each other and related to similar birds in South America. Yet they showed significant differences between them, including some features not found in South America. Of particular interest were the beaks. Some were small, others parrot-like. Some were curved, one had a boring beak.
Some creationists of Darwin’s day held to the absolute immutability of species, that God had created each species for each specific ecological habitat, and no significant changes had ever occurred or could ever occur. But, to Darwin, these animals appeared to be related and now showed much variety. They further appeared to have migrated from South America and acquired other traits after arrival. He could not reconcile the evidence with this particular creationist teaching. Thus his concept of evolution by natural selection began to take form.
But today’s creationists, and even some in Darwin’s day, freely allow for limited change within created kinds, or basic categories. It is within the creationist model to propose that the present varieties of finch descended from one or more ancestral categories of finch and that migration of animals into new areas can and does happen. Creationists agree fully with Darwin over the finches. But they disagree with the wholly unsupported evolutionary speculation that finches evolved from fish and ultimately from single-celled organisms. Rather, the evidence better fits the idea that each basic category of animal was created as that category. Changes are limited by the genetic information present at the start.
What, then, are we to make of the recent newspaper articles worldwide proclaiming that a new study of finches and their beaks have shown “Darwin was Right”? A team of Princeton scientists have won a prestigious award for 20 years of study of the finch’s beaks on one tiny island in the Galapagos chain, home of only a few finch species, and a best-selling novel entitled, The Beak of the Finches, tells their story and explains their findings. Just what was found?
The two scholars, Drs. Peter and Rosemary Grant observed how, under drought conditions, birds with larger beaks were better adapted than others, thus their percentage increased. But this trend reversed when the cyclical conditions reversed. Furthermore, in times of drought, the normally separate species were observed to cross-breed. They are related after all. Darwin was right!
But is this really evolution? Even after the changes there is still the same array of beak sizes and shapes. This is variation and adaptation, not evolution.
Actually, de-evolution has occurred; the observation is that there are larger groupings of species into what may be more reminiscent of the originally created kind. Creation agrees with Darwin’s observations and with the newer observations, but evolution doesn’t, even though the Grants interpret this as rapid evolution. Wonderful study-great data, wrong interpretation.
David,
I made no reference to evolution. The distinction was made in the other ‘infamous’ thread, regarding evolution and adaptation. They are not the same thing. A species may ‘adapt’ but not necessarily ‘evolve’. Adaptation relates to short-term environmental conditions, such as the finch example. As I stated, when conditions returned to ‘normal’ (status quo) then the small-beaked variety became more abundant. This is adaptation. However, if a species evolved to suit long-term conditions, such as the varieties of Galapagos iguanas, then a change in environment may result in extinction. From memory, we have three types of iguana, the sea dwelling lizard that feeds on seaweed, caught in the ocean. We then have a land-based creature that lives on dry land and does not venture into the sea and then the lizard that lives in the volcanic craters and eats one species of cacti. Now if that cacti became extinct, then this specialisation would cause the lizard to become extinct as the diet is so specialised. It does however, allow the lizard to exist in a harsh environment that no other is able to.
The ability to 'adapt' allows survival. There are many species that have evolved and not survived and their only trace is fossil records. We have a species called the Koala bear. It is not a bear, but common usage ascribes it as such. The Koala lives on the leaves of a very limited species of a particular gum tree. While the Koala is quite numerous and widespread, its limited range as regards its food source has limitations when it comes to land clearing, removal of habitat, bush fires, etc. This specialisation, while allowing survival, is wholy dependant on their defined food source being available. There is minimal nutrition in the food source and so the Koala must eat vast quantities of the leaf. More specialisation.David,
would this be the SAME J D Morris Ph D -
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/326.asp
You simply cannot find supporting ‘evidence’ outside of your own limited circle of ‘facts’.
Tim Brien said:
David, would this be the SAME J D Morris Ph D -http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/326.asp
You simply cannot find supporting ‘evidence’ outside of your own limited circle of ‘facts’.
I don’t know what you expect Tim, a National Geographic article? NatGeo has been-in-the-tank for evolution for a century now. College professors? There are some, and most have been censored at these centers of progressive thought [sic]. There are many individuals in the scientific fields that reject the theory of evolution, many of which are published in the sources I reference.
The frightening part of this whole Evolution versus Intelligent Design debate is, so called scientists, that were supposedly trained to seek truth and facts, even outside the accepted norms, will reject any research that does not fit into their predetermined belief system.
Intellectually neither model can be proven. (That is why the Dingobat’s screams for proof are ridiculous. Apparently he just isn’t aware of “scientific methods for discovery”.) Spiritually, it really doesn’t matter. Socially it is negligent and, in my opinion, part of a deliberate political attempt to eradicate all religious belief, “…the opiate of the masses”.
Tim Brien said:
David, would this be the SAME J D Morris Ph D -http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/326.asp
You simply cannot find supporting ‘evidence’ outside of your own limited circle of ‘facts’.
Yes, he is founder of Creation Science Institute and also involved with Creation Research Society
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:
Dear David. You would go along way to having your Creationist theories accepted by everyone if you would only offer some scientific proof that God exists.Can you do that?
http://www.icr.org/God/
Deleted
Why should I try, I doubt you read anything on the link I provided. By, discounting research because you do not believe in the premise or the source, you’ll stay stuck in your concrete mind with your own myopic vision of the world. This is why I really don’t bother answering any of your bogus inquiries.
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:
There you go.Avoiding the issue yet again.
Have YOU avoided reading the articles from the links I provided. Let’s start there.
David Hill said:
Does 'The Beak Of The Finch' Prove Darwin Was Right? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.Actually, de-evolution has occurred; …
Interesting. Surely “de-evolution” is a form of evolution.