While I recognize species' need and ability to adapt to their evironment and group, as well as various combinations occuring from breeds, I'm quite unsure of the need for a millions-of-years evolutionary process (as also questioned by EU theory in other regards). Sometimes, it seems, individuals/species just figure things out during their lifetime, and it doesn't reguire mutations or millions of iterations towards a gradual solution.
Gorilla Walks Like A Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrQf6cogMuI
Perhaps not the best proof/illustration of the subject, but curious and amusing anyhow.
Evoultion? - Walking Gorilla
- Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
- Aristarchus
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am
Re: Evoultion? - Walking Gorilla
That was a pretty cool video. The NeoDarwinists have failed to supply any evidence for macromutation. In the Galápagos Islands, the NeoDarwinists try to use a particular finch as an example of macromutation, but it was obvious that they were simply extrapolating their conclusion when the evidence was investigated.
During a decades old drought, the finches adapted by producing longer beaks that were capable for foraging for food; however, when the drought ended, the finches readapted to shorter beaks - thus there was no changing into a new species by these finches.
When confronted with this evidence, the NeoDarwinists conflate the two terms of micromutation & macromutation - defying the fact that the science of biology distinguishes these as two distinct definitions. This is sorely disingeneous to scientific methodology.
During a decades old drought, the finches adapted by producing longer beaks that were capable for foraging for food; however, when the drought ended, the finches readapted to shorter beaks - thus there was no changing into a new species by these finches.
When confronted with this evidence, the NeoDarwinists conflate the two terms of micromutation & macromutation - defying the fact that the science of biology distinguishes these as two distinct definitions. This is sorely disingeneous to scientific methodology.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: Evoultion? - Walking Gorilla
I wonder whether it got the idea from us. We do have our imitators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVV_HXtEbLo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7lFvfRj ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVV_HXtEbLo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7lFvfRj ... re=related
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests