Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution!

[CaptainClown]

to work out the probability of something happening you need known quantities. you need to know the possible outcomes. all of them. since there is no limit to a god there is an infinite amount of possible outcomes making the probability of it doing any specific thing infinitely small. therefor you can not say whether one action is more probable than another. making probabilities pointless in that case.

or in other words you can't be specific about metaphysics. so you have nothing specific to calculate the probability with.

ahh ok I gotcha thanks

 

[Arc-Light]

But that adaptation adds to our perfection. It is with that adaptation where an organism can grow and gain immunities to all sorts of things. Like how a fish could gain an immunity to the sting of coral and use the coral as a self defense against a predator. While there were many sacrifices made, the ability to adapt seems for me seems to show that life is just about perfect....very damn slow though.

Not necessarily perfect, if so we wouldn't need to adapt to new problems. The failure is there, its just we have been damn lucky....you can say our fight for survival has been prefect, which up to this point it has.

 

[CaptainClown]

Not necessarily perfect, if so we wouldn't need to adapt to new problems. The failure is there, its just we have been damn lucky....you can say our fight for survival has been prefect, which up to this point it has.

Well I think our intelligence is what makes up for that. The natural evolution imo is going to be A.I. but oh well thats another topic. We just have two different opinions about evolution but glad we are on the same page.

 

[Arc-Light]

Well I think our intelligence is what makes up for that. The natural evolution imo is going to be A.I. but oh well thats another topic. We just have two different opinions about evolution but glad we are on the same page.

 

[UA-Archangel]

I don't get why everyone thinks creationism and evolution theory have to be seperate.

It's because those that believe in evolution. don't want God to be part of the process so they keep defining creation as the literal 6 day thing, with God's hands in the dirt.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Evolution is not an act. It's a process.

 

[Bubonic]

Things don't necessarily evolve to be more "perfect", they evolve to deal with the current threats to survival.

I'm sure some of you've heard that if we were designed we'd have better conceived back and hips. But alas those are remnants of our knuckle dragging simian ancestors.

 

[Danalys]

It's because those that believe in evolution. don't want God to be part of the process so they keep defining creation as the literal 6 day thing, with God's hands in the dirt.

creationism has always ment 6 literal days. what you're looking for is theistic evolution which i doubt you find that many people argueing against. but anyway blame it on the Institute for Creation Research.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I blame people who give a ****

 

[Carcharodon]

eh...I'm not impressed. This is simple adaptation. I believe there is a difference in adaptation and evolution (sure, some might argue i'm splitting hairs).

A fish, due to pollution can't see its prey very well, so it adapts to the poor vision the water provides.

In the same vein, its getting cold outside, so my body is beginning to store more fat from the foods i eat for better insulation. Thats not evolution, thats just adaptation.

Show me a fish that is in the process of turning into a completely new species.

Okay, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about (which is about par for this board when it comes to evolution), I'll help you out.

Do you really think the scientists don't know the difference between your body storing more fat and A SHIFT IN ALLELIC FREQUENCY??

I'll break it down for you: what they're seeing is a shift in the genetic structure of a population. These aren't individual fish improving their eyesight over the span of their lives. These are traits driven by genetic changes over time within the population.

Natural selection occurs in response to a change in environment. Pollution most certainly DOES count in this instance. In any case, whatever the cause, these fish have shown a shift in allelic frequency (uh, by the by, that's the definition of evolution) within their population that has led to the adaptation of improved eyesight.

When we see enough genetic drift to constitute reproductive isolation, the species will have split into two species. This is evolution at work.

The people who study this sort of thing are just a little more knowledgable about this than you. Give them the benefit of the doubt on this one, because if you've proven anything with this post it's that you really don't match up to them.

Sorry.

 

[sshuttari]

Interesting and scary at the same time.

 

[Carcharodon]

The fish is mutating due to pollution.

How is that "evolution"? Its adapting to the environment because its being forced to by chemicals, not from "natural selection".

It's still evolution. Natural selection is what drives the process naturally (typically), but it isn't required. Besides, from the fish's standpoint, it's a shift/change in the environment, regardless of circumstance.

The process is still essentially the same.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I think the sparrows outside this bar in my town are so fat from eating all the crumbs in the outside eating area they can't fly so they're going to speciate.

 

[Carcharodon]

I think the sparrows outside this bar in my town are so fat from eating all the crumbs in the outside eating area they can't fly so they're going to speciate.

...are you being facetious? I really can't tell.

 

[Ronny Shade]

the theory is strong

 

[Carcharodon]

the theory is strong

I'm still not sure whether or not you're trying to pull my leg. In case you're not, no, your "theory" is crap. If you are, then . You got me.

 

[UA-Archangel]

creationism has always ment 6 literal days. what you're looking for is theistic evolution which i doubt you find that many people argueing against. but anyway blame it on the Institute for Creation Research.

No. Creationism is simply the act of life being created supernaturally. It then gets broken into literal creation and whatnot.

Just as evolution is simpy means life evolved. It does not inherently mean a certain kind of evolution.