{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/27/2015 5:00:31 PM
14
Evolution is not cyclical. Your entire argument rests upon a flawed assumption.
English
-
Wait till you hear what he thinks natural selection is.
-
He's stuck on the whole "micro vs macro" thing.
-
-
Go into Photoshop, Illustrator, or hell, even Paint. Any image editing program where you can select a color from a color spectrum. If you take a look at this spectrum, you'll see that the colors blend together seamlessly. You have a red, then another red that's almost but not quite identical to the first red, then another red that's almost but not quite identical to the second red, and so on. Eventually, you'll notice the red start to become slightly orange. Keep going, and it will be just as orange as it is red. Keep going even more, and you'll see it start to become lighter. At some, not even the slightest hint of red is visible, and you have yellow. Evolution works in a similar way. Each generation is extremely similar to the previous, with just a slight change. A fish won't just become a lizard, just like red won't just become yellow. The fish begins to resemble an amphibian, then it becomes more amphibian than fish, then becomes more reptilian than amphibian.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/31/2015 5:55:00 PMAnd as that fish develops a leg or a limb of some sort, it's streamlined body becomes no longer streamlined, making it susceptible to [become easier] prey on.
-
Edited by Banned n3rd: 5/28/2015 12:41:53 PMThere are two massive issues. First of all, a fish won't just sprout a [i]single[/i] arm, and have no other changes. Second, it's predators, not prey, that the fish would be susceptible to if your example were true, which it isn't. Stop making half-assed attempts.
-
[quote]There are two massive issues. First of all, a fish won't just sprout a [i]single[/i] arm...[/quote]I didn't say it would. It would of course occur slowly, but the outcome would obviously become inevitable. Do you understand the function of DNA and RNA? It is frequently used to copy an organism's DNA, and if copied incorrectly, a mutation occurs. Whatever manifests from an apparently physical mutation will inevitable reach an unproductive end. [quote]...and have no other changes. Second, it's predators, not prey, that the fish would be susceptible to if your example were true, which it isn't.[/quote]Sorry, I guess I was temporarily confused. I'll correct that.[quote]Stop making half-assed attempts.[/quote]Attempts at?
-
Alright, here's the thing about natural selection: The fish isn't going to develop limbs and a broader body if environmental factors favor the slender, streamlined body type. If a fish evolves to the point where it has developed primitive limbs, then environmental factors must be such that these limbs are either beneficial or make no difference. Limbs are going to make a pretty big difference, so they must have some benefit. So what factors would favor limbs? It's likely that the fish population had to spend brief amounts of time on wet land or in shallow water. This could be to get between two very close bodies of water that had been separated by drought or some other geographical factor. It could also be that there was a certain predator that could not reach them in those areas, so the fish would wait in shallow or no water while the creature moved away. These fish now need to be able to stay out of the water for certain periods of time without suffocating or dehydrating, and they would need to be able to propel themselves in little to no water. In this case, the squat, flat underbelly body type would have been better, as they could have remain upright while the streamlined fish would fall on their sides. Stronger fins and tails would also have been favored, because the fish would have needed to drag themselves in and out of the water, and their simple back and forth motion wouldn't have been enough. So, the limbs would have been an advantage to this particular population.
-
[quote]Alright, here's the thing about natural selection: The fish isn't going to develop limbs and a broader body if environmental factors favor the slender, streamlined body type.[/quote]Hence, the organism will not evolve to more complicated biology.[quote]If a fish evolves to the point where it has developed primitive limbs, then environmental factors must be such that these limbs are either beneficial or make no difference.[/quote]Whether you like it or not, limbs in water WILL slow you down and MAKE THE CREATURE SUSCEPTIBLE to be preyed on. [quote]Limbs are going to make a pretty big difference, so they must have some benefit. [/quote]Not always. Have you tried swimming out to open sea?[quote]So what factors would favor limbs? It's likely that the fish population had to spend brief amounts of time on wet land or in shallow water.[/quote]Slowly or instantly? And if slowly, it would have to be heriditary, but any physical gains for any organism does NOT give the offspring the same physical capabilities. Example? If you married a world-renown weight lifter as you yourself are, your children will not inherit your strength.[quote]This could...[/quote]Now we're being hypothetical?[quote]...be to get between two very close bodies of water that had been separated by drought or some other geographical factor.[/quote]That would no longer be present because it's consistency would have to remain constant throughout the entire life of an entire organism's generation.[quote]It could also be that there was a certain predator that could not reach them in those areas, so the fish would wait in shallow or no water while the creature moved away.[/quote]For it's entire life? It's food is obviously not in the shallows; hence, the predator waits.[quote]These fish now need to be able to stay out of the water for certain periods of time without suffocating or dehydrating, and they would need to be able to propel themselves in little to no water.[/quote]Now natural selection has to occur for a malnourished organism among its species. Keep in mind that you are implying that the experience will somehow become heriditary.[quote]In this case, the squat, flat underbelly body type would have been better...[/quote]Which developed by?[quote]...as they could have remain upright while the streamlined fish would fall on their sides. Stronger fins and tails would also have been favored, because the fish would have needed to drag themselves in and out of the water, and their simple back and forth motion wouldn't have been enough. So, the limbs would have been an advantage to this particular population.[/quote]Hypothetically.
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 6/3/2015 4:13:54 AM[quote][quote]Alright, here's the thing about natural selection: The fish isn't going to develop limbs and a broader body if environmental factors favor the slender, streamlined body type.[/quote]Hence, the organism will not evolve to more complicated biology.[/quote] It will if environmental factors favor such a change. [quote][quote]If a fish evolves to the point where it has developed primitive limbs, then environmental factors must be such that these limbs are either beneficial or make no difference.[/quote]Whether you like it or not, limbs in water WILL slow you down and MAKE THE CREATURE SUSCEPTIBLE to be preyed on. [/quote] Key words "in water". I explained this below. [quote][quote]Limbs are going to make a pretty big difference, so they must have some benefit. [/quote]Not always. Have you tried swimming out to open sea?[/quote] It's easier to swim with limbs instead of fins than it is to walk instead of limbs. I've explained this already, the limb-fish would not have evolved in open sea. [quote][quote]So what factors would favor limbs? It's likely that the fish population had to spend brief amounts of time on wet land or in shallow water.[/quote]Slowly or instantly? And if slowly, it would have to be heriditary, but any physical gains for any organism does NOT give the offspring the same physical capabilities. Example? If you married a world-renown weight lifter as you yourself are, your children will not inherit your strength.[/quote] Some organisms are stronger than others simply based on genetics. That strength is hereditary. A champion weight lifter likely has genes that make him good at lifting in addition to his intense training. [quote][quote]This could...[/quote]Now we're being hypothetical?[/quote] We've been hypothetical from the start. Your entire fish analogy is hypothetical. [quote][quote]...be to get between two very close bodies of water that had been separated by drought or some other geographical factor.[/quote]That would no longer be present because it's consistency would have to remain constant throughout the entire life of an entire organism's generation.[/quote] Climate change tends to be very gradual... [quote][quote]It could also be that there was a certain predator that could not reach them in those areas, so the fish would wait in shallow or no water while the creature moved away.[/quote]For it's entire life? It's food is obviously not in the shallows; hence, the predator waits.[/quote] Or, the predator goes after easier prey that can't escape onto land. Thus, the trait of being able to wait on land is selected for. [quote][quote]These fish now need to be able to stay out of the water for certain periods of time without suffocating or dehydrating, and they would need to be able to propel themselves in little to no water.[/quote]Now natural selection has to occur for a malnourished organism among its species. Keep in mind that you are implying that the experience will somehow become heriditary.[/quote] Where did malnourishment come in? I explained in another comment thread that experience can be passed from parent to child through observation. Also, instinct is hereditary. For example, I'm guessing nobody ever taught you to breathe or blink. You just knew how. [quote][quote]In this case, the squat, flat underbelly body type would have been better...[/quote]Which developed by?[/quote] Mutation can make changes. Sexual reproduction can also make changes, as the child organism's genes are changed even if all the parent DNAwas copied perfectly, which wouldn't happen. [quote][quote]...as they could have remain upright while the streamlined fish would fall on their sides. Stronger fins and tails would also have been favored, because the fish would have needed to drag themselves in and out of the water, and their simple back and forth motion wouldn't have been enough. So, the limbs would have been an advantage to this particular population.[/quote]Hypothetically.[/quote] Again, this is a hypothetical discussion. Your fish example is purely hypothetical. Explain how limbs could not be an advantage to a terrestrial or partially terrestrial population. Here's a hint: saying snakes and worms don't have limbs isn't a good example. I'd love to see the worm that can move faster than me.
-
You won't get a fish with a leg stuck on it, even by your standards that's a ridiculous strawman.
-
Of course, it will have two.
-
Or four, or even more, but most likely an even number. But you're discussing this point already, no point going over it twice.
-
