Proofs of Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Are we not men??

i was talking about the word within the context of what was being said. evolution knows no devolution. evolution is adaptation, adaptation doesn't necessarily mean more advanced in terms of intelligence etc.

The flaw in Haeckel's original theory was that it followed a logical progression, which is not always the case in nature. Turtles, for example, are chromosomally asexual. That's right: genetically, they are all female. However, they have evolved in its place a form of temperature-dependent sexual determination, thereby allowing for the transfer of genetic material. They may have evolved from an asexual ancestor who remained the last surviving member of her species, perhaps after some sort of environmental catastrophe. Much in evolutionary history is a subject of chance, and mutation does not follow any sort of program.

Unfortunately, Creationists enjoy touting the scientific community's rejection of Haeckel's original theory, and this just adds to the confusion. Naturally, they have a vested interest in confounding the issue, and their propaganda benefits from them not having the moral backbone of a hagfish.



However, it is actually true that there are relatively few differences between us and modern fish even in the present. Although it is a unique and very important adaptation, the thymus is still morphologically similar to fish gills, and little in its apparent structure has actually changed.




The Creationists aren't going to admit it, though, and, once again, I am embarrassed that I even bother.

Last edited by Griff on 01 Apr 2008, 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Not arguing that devolution is a correct notion with respect to modern theories of evolutionary biology. Mr Bogan's series of El Presidente were a joke, and my observation that it proves devolution was a joke. I can explain it to you further, but it probably won't be any funnier.

And most genetic change (the driving force behind evolution) is random ... 99+% of mutations are disadvantageous or offer no benefits. So we do see life forms changing to not adapt less well (though they tend not to be so successful and either turn-around and adapt, or dissappear).

In a sociological sense, devolution is real. Cultures develop, and eventually stagnate and collapse, which is definitely going backwards. Maladaptation is real.

sz, i know it was in joke, i was just arguing with someone on another forum who claims that falling iq scores and current affairs world wide are proof that the human species is physically regressing into a more primitive state and all the people who bought into it.

I think I should get the ten points, I just proved bugs are our long lost cousins.

Yes, structural similarities and symbiosis of microorganisms.
SilverProteus, Griff, and MR_Bogan all get ten points.
Keep going though, it is fairly interesting.

Look on page 2, man. You promised to discuss it, so let's discuss it!



This cnidocyte, here, bears a striking resemblance to modern protists. In jellyfish, these primitive, flagellate cells are preserved. They are preserved even in humans, though, in the form of neurons. The "flagellae" produced by nerve cells, however, can get quite long, stretching from motor neurons in the brain throughout the entire human body. There was no need for them to specially evolve from shapeless cells because they already had the basic equipment for what they needed to do. Natural selection doesn't plan ahead because primitive metazoans can't plan ahead: they work with the assets they have at their disposal, and even that's haphazard and doesn't work most of the time.



I think they have the same nose, actually. What do you think?

My, these two behaviors look similar!

*cough* Peppered Moth

I just noticed how much like a sperm cell that cnidocyte actually looks...eerie...

See if they can merge with an ovum then. A statue may look like a person, but they aren't the same.

Not sure what the context of this thread is. New to this forum, so, here's my question.
Is the context on finding proof of evolution as scientific fact, or is it to make fun of arguments over things that can't be proven (if ever) one way or another?

I enjoy this immensely and want to play too

Structurally nearly identical eyes emerging in two separate phyla





Pseudo-metamerism in class hirudinea a derived feature that separates it from other annelids



Identical trochophore larvae found in both annelids and mollusks

These 2 pics disprove evolution ...it proves rather a devolution: from a smart species of monkeys down to a species of fundamentalist Christians.

that post sucked. being proven wrong is enough of a hit to such egotism as the fundies have. don't gotta go lower than that.

hahahahahahahahha NICE!

lol