Creation VS Evolution

The video is correct, pensfan13. Adaptation means changing in response to something. Long necked giraffes, for example, always existed. They didn't develop long necks in response to anything.

 

I never suggested anything happened in response to anything. I said that we adapted to the point of evolution.

 

Good thing I never said you did, huh?

 

Nothing described in Meagain's post is an adaptation. Those are all examples of evolutionary traits.

 

Oh, I thought you were comparing the video to what I said.

 

Which allowed them to be better suited to survive... Which is the definition of an adaptation. Evolution is just massive adaptation.

 

No, it isn't, as not all adaptions are genetic (genetically encoded) and, therefore, heritable. The traits that Megain listed did not develop in response to anything. Evolution is so much more than adaptation.

 

so far this thread is filled with so much subtle differences in the way or the why that beings evolved that it makes me miss when i could just call a creationist stupid for not seeing that even if there was a god he made evolution possible through his design.
so is it they got long necks because the ones with long necks were the ones to get the food or was it their babies got long necks because their babies needed long necks to get the food.

 

This, very basically. Remember, there were always long necked giraffes. There were also giraffes with short necks. As their habitat changed, evolution favored those with longer necks. Thus these giraffes were better fed, which made for better breeding. Eventually the short necked trait was bred out and they evolved into the long necked species we see today.

 

And for the theory of evolution occurring since the unified continent Pangaea; who really likes the common chemical principle of oxygenation for the empowering of mammal life with bigger rain forests?

Does one really tell the tree for the forests? Now I'm being biased against the competition of theories in what happened in the measured time.

 

I've never understood why it was always one or the other. I believe in evolution; the scientific data is far too compelling not to. But long before there were apes, when the earth was just beginning, something caused life to begin in that primordial soup. I'm fairly certain it wasn't God as depicted by Christians - that being who sits in the heavens somewhere deciding who is going to live or die or suffer, etc. But there is a force out there that created our planet, our solar system, our galaxy and all the hundreds of billions of galaxies that exist out there. Even if you go all the way back to the Big Bang (if you subscribe to that theory of universal "birth"), something caused that to happen. For living things to be born out of all that is amazing; for those living things to evolve into us - sentient beings who ponder our existence and seek to discover the answers is simply mind-boggling...and humbling. At least to me. Instead of spending so much time arguing over who is right or wrong with regard to how life began, we really should be grateful for the fact that we exist at all and look more to where we're going as a civilization.

 

Well there is a measured time line of events "materially" occurring. Even if we accept radiogenic events from the chemistry in old rocks, the time line may be distorted for the relativity of spatial intra-position for conventions. Why not? Or the particular space of a subject of interest to the biologists are justified to not occur again within a whole re-observing of species.
The inner growth in forests really exists temporally simultaneous with constantly new species to expect. That is if we think of forests in the universal way as directly a product of the climate, the species were not expected, but somewhat the particular researched region 'knows" some new life for chemical quantities not, as I said, justified. :biker:

 

A lot of individuals equate natural selection with Darwinism (aka evolution). Natural selection has to with helping a species by shifting a population so that an existing appendage would be more specialized and thus help it to survive. Darwinism is the belief that natural selection can account for how the animal or appendage arrived on the scene with out a designer.


All it would take to disprove this theory is one example, your hand(s). If you have one, take a good look at it. What is your hand really good for? Can you dig with it unaided? Perhaps in some soft sand. I would be willing to bet my Cocker Spaniel could dig a hole a lot faster with his paws than you could with your bare hand. How about flying? Can your hands get your airborne all by themselves? No. A birds wings are much more suitable for that. How about swim? If I put you in a shark tank with just one hungry medium sized tiger shark, who would win? I would bet money on the shark. So what can you deduce regarding the human hand? Simple, it's not s specialized instrument. No, just the opposite. It's a general purpose instrument. So while natural selection may help specialization, it would never be the cause of generalization. The only conclusion that you can arrive at regarding the human hand was that it was designed.

 

Flawed logic, to assume general purpose (or wide range) functions are not advantageous over more "specialized" appendages. The more "specialized" are less likely to adapt to environmental changes and near extinction level events. They both exist for the same reason; they MANAGED to exist, find a niche, and survive nature up to this point. We don't look around and see all the stuff that DID NOT work out and replicate. To think that what we see today is "designed" is an illusion from lack of comprehension. Either everything was created or everything evolved, you divided generalized and specialized into an illogical duality to "prove' your flawed position. You just destroyed your own argument.

 

They exist because our brains became developed enough to use tools.