Evolution Question

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

konradv, Belief doesn't depend on scientific proof.

blu, Pussy.

 

[rikules]

Evolution is not a scientific theory, it's the belief in magic.

just like religion!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It wasn't advantageous to force every species in the world to be a coastel dweller.

Not a lot of sources of saltwater to be found inland.

That's pretty fucking lame.

70% of the planet is water, but undrinkable. Better to be able to process either salt or fresh water as the far superior survival strategy

Whatever, Frank. You obviously have your mind made up. However, there is a good answer to your question. You just refuse to accept it.

Why waste your time with rhetorical questions?

I have my mind made up that people just like to report back whatever it is they think they've learned without ever questioning it.

"Moving inland" is an absurd non-answer.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Evolution is not a scientific theory, it's the belief in magic.

Failure to believe that living creatures can evolve and adapt is on par with believing the Earth is flat or the Sun revolves around the Earth. It simply doesn't work. Especially when you can literally see single cellular organisms adapt and change over the course of days.

 

[konradv]

That's pretty fucking lame.

70% of the planet is water, but undrinkable. Better to be able to process either salt or fresh water as the far superior survival strategy

Whatever, Frank. You obviously have your mind made up. However, there is a good answer to your question. You just refuse to accept it.

Why waste your time with rhetorical questions?

I have my mind made up that people just like to report back whatever it is they think they've learned without ever questioning it.

"Moving inland" is an absurd non-answer.

Drinking salt water is only a good survival strategy, if there's salt water to drink. Since most of the water land animals encounter is fresh, being able to drink salt water would be an anti-survivalist waste of resources. Is that better, Frank?

 

[Dante]

If we evolved from the oceans, how come we can't drink salt water?

Because it's been at least a billion years since the first animals crawled out of the sea and we've evolved further. Our renal system has been accustomed to fresh water and drinking sea water causes more water to be excreted than the amount taken in, leading to dehydration.

It's interesting to note that ocean dwelling mammals, such as dolphins, also cannot drink seawater. They get the water they need from the bodies of the fish they eat."

You'll have to excuse Frank. He may be one of the brighter bulbs @ USMB, but he is what you get when you wallow in the small gene pool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If we evolved from the oceans, how come we can't drink salt water?

Been thinking about this, and this might help you understand what's going on.

Try going vegitarian for about 6 months. Then eat steak.

What you'll find is pure agony. If you give up meat for a while, you'll find you have to ease back in to eating meat. Your body seems to just lose the ability to process it. One of my friends have a vegetarian girlfriend, which means he was a vegetarian too. At Christmas he'd go home, his parents would serve him steak, and he'd suffer mightily.

So the inability to drink saltwater isn't that surprising. After all, if your own body can have trouble processing meat after a break from it, imagine what its like if your specied hasn't drank salt water in thousands or millions of years.

Finally! An answer that actually thought it through!

Asking people to think is considered a threat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because it's been at least a billion years since the first animals crawled out of the sea and we've evolved further. Our renal system has been accustomed to fresh water and drinking sea water causes more water to be excreted than the amount taken in, leading to dehydration.

It's interesting to note that ocean dwelling mammals, such as dolphins, also cannot drink seawater. They get the water they need from the bodies of the fish they eat."

You'll have to excuse Frank. He may be one of the brighter bulbs @ USMB, but he is what you get when you wallow in the small gene pool.

That means a lot coming from a guy who lists "Sucking my own dick" as what he likes to do in his free time

 

[Dante]

It's interesting to note that ocean dwelling mammals, such as dolphins, also cannot drink seawater. They get the water they need from the bodies of the fish they eat."

You'll have to excuse Frank. He may be one of the brighter bulbs @ USMB, but he is what you get when you wallow in the small gene pool.

That means a lot coming from a guy who lists "Sucking my own dick" as what he likes to do in his free time

you've been spying on me again?

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Evolution is not a scientific theory, it's the belief in magic.

Failure to believe that living creatures can evolve and adapt is on par with believing the Earth is flat or the Sun revolves around the Earth. It simply doesn't work. Especially when you can literally see single cellular organisms adapt and change over the course of days.

Where can I see this for myself? And do they actually become different species, or grow new appendages and such?

 

[Skeptik]

But you'll admit that if evolution or Intelligent Designed worked as advertised, then we would be have evolved or developed the ability to safely process salt water for drinking.

What a HUGE design flaw!

Evolution is full of design flaws.

Which is why we scoff at "intelligent design".

But we "evolved" away from the far, far, far superior ability to drink salt water because....?

Because it did not provide a survival advantage. Bipedalism provided a survival advantage, and so did the opposable thumb. Tails didn't provide a survival advantage, so we don't have them.

It would be handy to have a tail, at times, particularly a prehensile one. Imagine being able to open a door without putting down the groceries first.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it's been at least a billion years since the first animals crawled out of the sea and we've evolved further. Our renal system has been accustomed to fresh water and drinking sea water causes more water to be excreted than the amount taken in, leading to dehydration.

Interesting, but inaccurate. The simple answer is that the ocean has gotten more salty since the first amphibian climbed out of it. The current inhabitants of the ocean gradually evolved to this environment as it got saltier, but land animals and fresh water fish never needed to adapt.

Oceans haven't actually gotten much saltier since ancient times or the oceans would be nearly as salty as the Dead Sea. Salt is actually taken out of the system by plate tectonics recycling the ocean floor and its accrued salt deposits and by taking water with it as it does so. I believe my rendition is the more accurate of the two theories. For your theory to be true at the time the first animals crawled onto land, the seas must have been nearly fresh, which is not borne out by the fossil record.

The ocean has gotten saltier.

Why is the Ocean Salty?

I don't know of any study of the fossil record that proves the oceans have not gotten saltier over time, and everything I know about how this works tells me the ocean gets saltier over time. The reason the ocean is not as salty as the Dead Sea is the ocean is a lot bigger.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's pretty fucking lame.

70% of the planet is water, but undrinkable. Better to be able to process either salt or fresh water as the far superior survival strategy

Whatever, Frank. You obviously have your mind made up. However, there is a good answer to your question. You just refuse to accept it.

Why waste your time with rhetorical questions?

I have my mind made up that people just like to report back whatever it is they think they've learned without ever questioning it.

"Moving inland" is an absurd non-answer.

You had your mind made up before you started this thread.

Since you believe in "guided evolution", why don't you answer your own question?

Why did we guide our genetics to not drink saltwater?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I have my mind made up that people just like to report back whatever it is they think they've learned without ever questioning it.

"Moving inland" is an absurd non-answer.

Yes, you do have your mind made up. It's also quite clear that you ignore all the intelligent answers, respond to the useless ones, and claim no one is thinking. You've been given several smart ideas in this thread, and have shot down none of them.

Oh but that's right, you believe, without a lick of supporting proof, that organisms and cells consciously just pop out whatever genetics they "want". All those organisms just believed hard enough, despite having brains the size of peanuts, and it magically came to be!

It would be handy to have a tail, at times, particularly a prehensile one. Imagine being able to open a door without putting down the groceries first.

Oh who are you kidding? You'd just have more groceries being held by the tail, and wish you had a second tail to help you open the door.

But that is a good point. Extra unneeded body parts that just get in the way are a source of trauma and infection.

 

[Toro]

Oh who are you kidding? You'd just have more groceries being held by the tail, and wish you had a second tail to help you open the door.

But that is a good point. Extra unneeded body parts that just get in the way are a source of trauma and infection.

With a tail, you could play video games better, too.

 

[marksinvirginia]

Where is the flaw in dropping resources to maintain a function that is no longer required to live?

Because 98% of the water on the planet is rendered undrinkable

And about .000000000000000000000000000000001% of that water is found inland.

When we decided to become land dwellers, we obviously had to adapt a new strategy for hydration.

********************************

When we decided to become land dwellers......... LOL.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Evolution is not a scientific theory, it's the belief in magic.

Failure to believe that living creatures can evolve and adapt is on par with believing the Earth is flat or the Sun revolves around the Earth. It simply doesn't work. Especially when you can literally see single cellular organisms adapt and change over the course of days.

Where can I see this for myself? And do they actually become different species, or grow new appendages and such?

You can find online documentation of the changes that the 1918 Spanish Flu (which killed boatloads of people) went through. It shifted from a pig flu, to a VERY fatal human flu, and them shifted to a less fatal flu and back to a pig flu, iirc.

You're also seeing the evolution of antibiotic resistant super bacteria thanks to the overdosage of antibiotics in general. Bacteria and virus life forms produce so fast, with such small time intervals for a generation, that you can see them adapt and change very quickly.

We can also document changes in other life forms. There are very famous cases in changes of bird plummage as environmental change occurs.

At this point, there's some very clear throughlines in the evolution of certain species. Evolution supporters don't have all the answers, or completely evolutionary diagrams of every species, but that's why research is on going. At this point the mechanism is a settled fact, the questions that remain are the speed of evolution (how fast can a multicellular organism adapt), and the origins of the species (applying the process in reverse).

What I've always found strange is that many doubts about evolution are biblically based. However, if you read the New Testament, wouldn't a God that cares about even the sparrows have provided animals a means to survive a changing world? Not only that, the Noah's ark story goes from ridiculous fairy tale to outright believable if you allow for the idea that Noah saved a sample of the animal kingdom at the time, and today's variety is a result of evolution to the post flood world. Evolution seems pretty compatible to Biblical belief to me.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Failure to believe that living creatures can evolve and adapt is on par with believing the Earth is flat or the Sun revolves around the Earth. It simply doesn't work. Especially when you can literally see single cellular organisms adapt and change over the course of days.

Where can I see this for myself? And do they actually become different species, or grow new appendages and such?

You can find online documentation of the changes that the 1918 Spanish Flu (which killed boatloads of people) went through. It shifted from a pig flu, to a VERY fatal human flu, and them shifted to a less fatal flu and back to a pig flu, iirc.

You're also seeing the evolution of antibiotic resistant super bacteria thanks to the overdosage of antibiotics in general. Bacteria and virus life forms produce so fast, with such small time intervals for a generation, that you can see them adapt and change very quickly.

We can also document changes in other life forms. There are very famous cases in changes of bird plummage as environmental change occurs.

At this point, there's some very clear throughlines in the evolution of certain species. Evolution supporters don't have all the answers, or completely evolutionary diagrams of every species, but that's why research is on going. At this point the mechanism is a settled fact, the questions that remain are the speed of evolution (how fast can a multicellular organism adapt), and the origins of the species (applying the process in reverse).

What I've always found strange is that many doubts about evolution are biblically based. However, if you read the New Testament, wouldn't a God that cares about even the sparrows have provided animals a means to survive a changing world? Not only that, the Noah's ark story goes from ridiculous fairy tale to outright believable if you allow for the idea that Noah saved a sample of the animal kingdom at the time, and today's variety is a result of evolution to the post flood world. Evolution seems pretty compatible to Biblical belief to me.

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

 

[konradv]

Where can I see this for myself? And do they actually become different species, or grow new appendages and such?

You can find online documentation of the changes that the 1918 Spanish Flu (which killed boatloads of people) went through. It shifted from a pig flu, to a VERY fatal human flu, and them shifted to a less fatal flu and back to a pig flu, iirc.

You're also seeing the evolution of antibiotic resistant super bacteria thanks to the overdosage of antibiotics in general. Bacteria and virus life forms produce so fast, with such small time intervals for a generation, that you can see them adapt and change very quickly.

We can also document changes in other life forms. There are very famous cases in changes of bird plummage as environmental change occurs.

At this point, there's some very clear throughlines in the evolution of certain species. Evolution supporters don't have all the answers, or completely evolutionary diagrams of every species, but that's why research is on going. At this point the mechanism is a settled fact, the questions that remain are the speed of evolution (how fast can a multicellular organism adapt), and the origins of the species (applying the process in reverse).

What I've always found strange is that many doubts about evolution are biblically based. However, if you read the New Testament, wouldn't a God that cares about even the sparrows have provided animals a means to survive a changing world? Not only that, the Noah's ark story goes from ridiculous fairy tale to outright believable if you allow for the idea that Noah saved a sample of the animal kingdom at the time, and today's variety is a result of evolution to the post flood world. Evolution seems pretty compatible to Biblical belief to me.

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

Multi-celled organisms didn't necessarily develop because a single-cell split and decided to stay in contact, but that different single cells congregated together for mutual advantage.

As for not seeing evidence of change, what of the fossil record? Have you completely dismissed it or is it just one of those things you "don't see"? There's not seeing and there's being willfully blind to what's been unearthed over the years. Which category do you fall into?

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

You can find online documentation of the changes that the 1918 Spanish Flu (which killed boatloads of people) went through. It shifted from a pig flu, to a VERY fatal human flu, and them shifted to a less fatal flu and back to a pig flu, iirc.

You're also seeing the evolution of antibiotic resistant super bacteria thanks to the overdosage of antibiotics in general. Bacteria and virus life forms produce so fast, with such small time intervals for a generation, that you can see them adapt and change very quickly.

We can also document changes in other life forms. There are very famous cases in changes of bird plummage as environmental change occurs.

At this point, there's some very clear throughlines in the evolution of certain species. Evolution supporters don't have all the answers, or completely evolutionary diagrams of every species, but that's why research is on going. At this point the mechanism is a settled fact, the questions that remain are the speed of evolution (how fast can a multicellular organism adapt), and the origins of the species (applying the process in reverse).

What I've always found strange is that many doubts about evolution are biblically based. However, if you read the New Testament, wouldn't a God that cares about even the sparrows have provided animals a means to survive a changing world? Not only that, the Noah's ark story goes from ridiculous fairy tale to outright believable if you allow for the idea that Noah saved a sample of the animal kingdom at the time, and today's variety is a result of evolution to the post flood world. Evolution seems pretty compatible to Biblical belief to me.

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

Multi-celled organisms didn't necessarily develop because a single-cell split and decided to stay in contact, but that different single cells congregated together for mutual advantage.

As for not seeing evidence of change, what of the fossil record? Have you completely dismissed it or is it just one of those things you "don't see"? There's not seeing and there's being willfully blind to what's been unearthed over the years. Which category do you fall into?

You decide. And what is it about the fossil record I'm missing? And for your first question, are you saying that different organisms came together to form a single lifeform? That's new to me.