scitsofreaky Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Nowadays we have this "Upper limit" that stops at around 1 foot.For all invertebrates (not just insects) you can't forget about the robber crab, aka the coconut crab which has a maximum leg span of about 3 ft, and maximum weight of about 9 lbs. Just being picky. I explained those in my post they have a few novel tricks up their sleeve with the way they breathe and the fact their exoskeleton is reinforced. Sorry, I think I'm retarded today What gets to me is that creationists talk about how "complex" animals are when most don't seem to grasp just how complex they actually are. Not too long ago I read Journey to the Ants by Bert Hölldobler and Edward O. Wilson, and it gives a good demonstration of just how complex ants are. And it also shows (although rather briefly IMO) how it could have evolved (in the case of ants, from wasps). They just can't get anything right, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Thank you, dd5, for your presentation. I see I'm still missing major amounts of education necessary to connect all the dots. I know this is a really primitive way of looking at things but I wonder if the theory correlates with the reality of evolution. This is a response to the fundy argument about complexity, and that chance (their word for evolution) could not possibly have produced the creatures of high complexity that exist in our world today. I have been fascinated with the beautiful designs carved in sand or snow by wind and water. I think people who have studied rock would say that applies also to rock. My theory is that if a simple storm or flooded river can create such beautiful designs in a few short days or hours, then surely a couple billion years of time (and what all that entails) could create or evolve the complex creatures, including humans, that we see on earth today. Is that a realistic argument to present or does it stretch reality to far? One argument my father likes to use to prove the validity of the argument for evolution is that of breeding dairy cows. I think this applies to all controlled animal breeding. Animals are used for breeding whose characteristics the breeder hopes to reproduce or enhance. Since various breeds of the same animal (with common ancestors) can be produced within one human lifetime, it stands to reason that the same could happen via natural selection over larger periods of time. That is his argument. Does it correspond to what actually did happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 One argument my father likes to use to prove the validity of the argument for evolution is that of breeding dairy cows. I think this applies to all controlled animal breeding. Animals are used for breeding whose characteristics the breeder hopes to reproduce or enhance. Since various breeds of the same animal (with common ancestors) can be produced within one human lifetime, it stands to reason that the same could happen via natural selection over larger periods of time. That is his argument. Does it correspond to what actually did happen? That is basically it. The dairy farmer chooses which animals to keep, in nature it's selection pressure, for instance, anything that runs faster than a tiger survives the selection pressure of living around tigers. Most evolutionary theory (if I'm not mistaken) also includes sexual selection, generally meaning whoever can mate (either through impressing the female, as in most species, or less "romantically", i.e. forceable copulation like cheetah's). There's other stuff too, but it's mainly just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Thanks, neverclear, you're fairly clear in that post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Hey DD5, A little off topic, but if you ever want to add anything to a kids group let me know, if not no worries, and I hope I'm not bugging you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 You know, that IS a good point about Creationism. Most, if not all Young Earth Creationists will readily admit that changes have occured in species, often very drastic ones, such as major changes in size, skin color, or the development of morphological diversity from a few ancestors to repopulate the world (such as after the supposed flood). They admit this shit happens, but on the order of just a few hundred years. It's a scale so rapid it has to be fucking MAGICAL. Why not just fucking accept an Old Earth instead of saying MAGICAL ADAPTATION is the cause of change? I mean, just the thought of this suddenly makes YEC both very very funny and very very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts