(December 25, 2017 at 4:49 pm)ignoramus Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 4:22 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Artificial selection is a thing. Farmers/dog breeders been at it for years

Edit: @ ignoramus

I suppose that is unnatural selection, but how do we know that those 2 dogs wouldn't have had sex anyway naturally?


Merry Xmas...

All jokes aside, Darwin wrote a lot of dogs in The Origin of the Species, and used trait selection as an example of what selection can do.

(December 25, 2017 at 4:07 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Hey Haipule, merry Christian btw, do you think there is such a thing as unnatural selection?

The hammerhead was a mutated shark. The mutation just happened to be beneficial, hence it's survival.
But I've always wondered how they can possibly find each other attractive enough to mate without alcohol?

We get baby warthogs by some process, I think.

(December 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 24, 2017 at 9:02 pm)Haipule Wrote: K'den: some pointed to "natural selection". Alrighty then: does the Hammer Head shark prove "natural selection" or, does it disprove it?

I would require much more information to answer that in full on but as the hammer head shark is the result of evolution I would say that it was a case for. 

https://www.livescience.com/6478-hammerh...olved.html

"Now, hammerhead sharks have had their first eye examination, and it has laid the debate to rest. Sharks with wider heads have better binocular vision – all the better to track fast-moving prey like squid with far more accuracy than sharks with close-set eyes.

The research also shows that hammerheads – among other sharks – have a 360-degree view of the world in the vertical plane, allowing them to simultaneously see prey above and below them.!"


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...ts-hammer/

Yep, definitely pro evolution.

What was your point?

The main advantage of the hammerhead shark is it's ability to detect critters under the sand. All sharks that feed off the bottom have some sort of radar/sonar thingy to find hiding food. The hammerhead, because of it's wide head, is superior at it and can cover a much larger territory in a much shorter amount of time. Since it is superior, then why aren't all sharks hammerheads by now? Or, as the population of hammerheads increases, will other sharks just die off in a million years making the selection complete?

I choose the hammerhead shark because it does not fit with "natural selection". Actually, they disprove it according to the studies I have read written by evolution minded scientists. Sorry, too long ago to remember any more than this. I used to live on the ocean front and would occasionally see hammerheads and watch them so I had an interest in learning about them. Thankfully, the ones in the backyard were too small to be a threat to surfers.

---

(December 25, 2017 at 4:07 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Hey Haipule, merry Christian btw, do you think there is such a thing as unnatural selection?

The hammerhead was a mutated shark. The mutation just happened to be beneficial, hence it's survival.
But I've always wondered how they can possibly find each other attractive enough to mate without alcohol?

That's why I always buy my dates two drinks! One doesn't seem to be enough. Four is too many! But two, makes even me very attractive!

I don't know, all fashion models have wide PD's(pupillary distance). A wide PD is a sign of beauty in a woman. I mean come on: Uma Thurman!

Yes, I believe in unnatural selection and wrote about it in my tread "Science the Bible and Satan" in the form of a joke.

A: “Rising to the rank of Four Winged Anointed Cherub Who Covers(Luis Cifer--Satan), I saw how God ruled the universe and I said to myself, “I can do that”. To prove that I could not, God created the earth and gave us creatures to rule.”

Q: What where those creatures?

A: “Lizards.”

Q: Lizards!?

A: “Yes, lizards. And we immediately went to work creating bigger and better lizards, which you call dinosaurs, in our genetic labs, so I could prove my point that I will be like the Most High.” We are draconian and made them in our image. Since, as you know, I am called a “dragon” and “serpent”.

Q: Are you saying that you @$%&ed a gecko and out popped a brontosaurus?

A: “No, actually it took many years of experimentation in our labs using our polypollinating sperm.”

Q: “Oh my God! So an evolutionary selection did take place, as observed by science, but it was not a “natural selection” but rather, a very “unnatural selection”!

A: “Precisely.”

Q: What did you do with your millions and millions of failed experiments?

A: “We discarded them. Today you call them ‘oil fields’ and it is where you get your oil to make gasoline to run your cars.”

Q: What happened to the dinosaurs?

A: “Dinosaurs, like their relative lizard, are cold blooded creatures and need a temperature between 65-85 degrees to survive. They were too big to burrow into holes to keep warm. Back then, the whole earth was a constant temperature as there was a lens of water over the earth and there was no weather and no polar ice caps. This lens of water not only kept the whole earth at approximately the same temperature but, it also acted as a hyperbaric chamber. Which is why, before the flood that destroyed the Nephilim in Genesis 6, men lived much longer than they do now, as the waters are no longer separated.”

Q; Well, thank you very much for that Lou Sir!

A: “Hey, a devils got to do what a devils got to do! Also, the earth was smaller then with less gravity so our creatures, which were indifferent growers, could get quite large living so long.”

Q: Smaller?

A: “Yes”

Q: But, what happened to the dinosaurs?

A: “As you know from Genesis, God does not create carnivorous animals. Yet, some of our creations were carnivorous. They also became too populace and started to destroy the earth so, God sent a giant meteor unto the earth which caused the first winter and destroyed all that we had done.”

Q: Then what happened?

A: “After the dust settled God gave us mammals.”

Q: So it’s true then, dinosaurs and mammals did not exist at the same time.

A: “Correct”

Q: So then you did some “monkey lovin’”.

Whoever that Q&A is with, neither of them know anything about dinosaurs nor the environment they lived in at that time.

(December 27, 2017 at 9:15 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Whoever that Q&A is with, neither of them know anything about dinosaurs nor the environment they lived in at that time.

It's between Satan and I and it's just a joke to explain scientific observation and the bible through the actions of Satan pre Adam and Eve. Again, it's just a joke! And, I think it's brilliant as far as humor is concern--not so much the science.

Here is the whole joke:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-52131.h...=unnatural

(December 22, 2017 at 12:03 am)Haipule Wrote: My vote: Adaptation, or Biological Adaptation? Yet, "evolution" covers a broad spectrum of thoughts that aren't all controversial. Perhaps, each science needs it own word/words to convey their thought outside of the all encompassing "evolution"?

Trouble is "adaption" doesn't cover it.  We're not talking about same generation changes, you're thinking of Lamarckism.  (Long discredited.)  Evolution is multigenerational and involves random mutation which rarely (but regularly over large enough samples of generations and/or time) out competes the status quo.

(December 27, 2017 at 9:52 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(December 22, 2017 at 12:03 am)Haipule Wrote: My vote: Adaptation, or Biological Adaptation? Yet, "evolution" covers a broad spectrum of thoughts that aren't all controversial. Perhaps, each science needs it own word/words to convey their thought outside of the all encompassing "evolution"?

Trouble is "adaption" doesn't cover it.  We're not talking about same generation changes, you're thinking of Lamarckism.  (Long discredited.)  Evolution is multigenerational and involves random mutation which rarely (but regularly over large enough samples of generations and/or time) out competes the status quo.

Yes but, to explain everything as "evolution" is too general. Although it is probably the best word for the overall idea but, most people don't know that there are even different processes within evolution and each science should have their own best words to explain these processes.

Like the Hammerhead Shark which is not here by any standard evolutional thinking such as "Change Though Time" or "Adaption", but is an example of a dramatic morphological change/appearance that just appeared!

I could say that a hammerhead shark is a part of the whole of evolution but that word indicates something of a slow process that is not sudden. IOW's, I think evolution is a poor word to explain a sudden change.

And the so called, "Evolution of Man" appears to be the same way to me. The fossil record only shows sudden changes with out millions of missing link bones. Just one dramatic morphological change after another.

Yet, the Hammerhead shark is slowly evolving into a smaller fish and man appears to be getting bigger!

(December 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Haipule Wrote:

(December 27, 2017 at 9:52 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Trouble is "adaption" doesn't cover it.  We're not talking about same generation changes, you're thinking of Lamarckism.  (Long discredited.)  Evolution is multigenerational and involves random mutation which rarely (but regularly over large enough samples of generations and/or time) out competes the status quo.

Yes but, to explain everything as "evolution" is too general.

And you would know that how? I really think you underestimate the power of evolution. The mutations are blind but the survival derby is not.

(December 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Haipule Wrote: Like the Hammerhead Shark which is not here by any standard evolutional thinking such as "Change Though Time" or "Adaption", but is an example of a dramatic morphological change/appearance that just appeared!

Every mutation "just appears", those with survival value have an advantage to pass on their DNA. That's it .. and it's enough.

(December 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Haipule Wrote: I could say that a hammerhead shark is a part of the whole of evolution but that word indicates something of a slow process that is not sudden. IOW's, I think evolution is a poor word to explain a sudden change.

How sudden was it and how do you know that? Frankly I doubt it and yet changes in the size of parts can be accomplished fairly easily in terms of just a small change in the directions for the embryo's assembly.

(December 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Haipule Wrote: And the so called, "Evolution of Man" appears to be the same way to me. The fossil record only shows sudden changes with out millions of missing link bones. Just one dramatic morphological change after another.

How do you know what is in the fossil record? A few million years is enough time to differentiate one species of chimp from another.

(December 28, 2017 at 1:40 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(December 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Haipule Wrote: Yes but, to explain everything as "evolution" is too general.

And you would know that how?  I really think you underestimate the power of evolution.  The mutations are blind but the survival derby is not.

(December 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Haipule Wrote: Like the Hammerhead Shark which is not here by any standard evolutional thinking such as "Change Though Time" or "Adaption", but is an example of a dramatic morphological change/appearance that just appeared!

Every mutation "just appears", those with survival value have an advantage to pass on their DNA.  That's it .. and it's enough.

(December 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Haipule Wrote: I could say that a hammerhead shark is a part of the whole of evolution but that word indicates something of a slow process that is not sudden. IOW's, I think evolution is a poor word to explain a sudden change.

How sudden was it and how do you know that?  Frankly I doubt it and yet changes in the size of parts can be accomplished fairly easily in terms of just a small change in the directions for the embryo's assembly.

(December 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Haipule Wrote: And the so called, "Evolution of Man" appears to be the same way to me. The fossil record only shows sudden changes with out millions of missing link bones. Just one dramatic morphological change after another.

How do you know what is in the fossil record?  A few million years is enough time to differentiate one species of chimp from another.

Referring to man, the differences are dramatic! There is no fossil record of forms slowly evolving over time! Just BAM, time, BAM, time, BAM, time! Form, form, form! Duh! There is no missing links between any forms! The most dramatic form of man is the current one! No tweener bones Dude--not one!

(December 28, 2017 at 2:00 am)Haipule Wrote: Referring to man, the differences are dramatic! There is no fossil record of forms slowly evolving over time! Just BAM, time, BAM, time, BAM, time! Form, form, form! Duh! There is no missing links between any forms! The most dramatic form of man is the current one! No tweener bones Dude--not one!

Please read up on the evolution of man because you seem to be a bit out of date.
There are a plethora of intermediate forms many co-existing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution