Dolphin reveals an extra set of


Recommended Posts

Fred Derf

1. LOL. Yeah, I knew that, but I was commenting on the comment itself. Maybe I should have put a smiley there.

But I thought that in "science", there are no coincidences and everything "happens for a reason"?

2. I understand the concept. Even I believe that there have been minor evolutionary changes in humans aswell, but as such to the extent that the size of the actual person or it's limbs have changed. We believe that Adam used to be over 70ft tall. We cannot reject evolution on this basis, but we can reject the concept of humans having common ancestors with apes.

Things happen for a reason even if that reason is chaos.

Who do you mean by "we"? I hope you are not trying to speak for all Muslims.

The Qu'ran specifially says:

[24:45] And Allah has created every animal from water...

That seems to be an endorsement of evolution right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Angelic Marge

I wish I had an extra set of legs cause mine are killing me :pinch:

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

Things happen for a reason even if that reason is chaos.

Who do you mean by "we"? I hope you are not trying to speak for all Muslims.

The Qu'ran specifially says:

That seems to be an endorsement of evolution right there.

Erm, ok, I apologise for the "we".

In what way is this an endorsement?

And are you implying, endorsement for evolution of human or all species?

EDIT: If you take the verse fully, you may come under the impression that God has made everything from water, saying that every living thing is made up of water. I think you are purposefully trying to construe an explanation for evolution, yet I do not see it. :

24.45 "And Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things."
Edited by ZAnwar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Vykranth

My point is, if this evolution process takes millions of years for these species, how would this work? Just because this species was first adapted to land, but now has to change to water, WHAT DICTATES that they will produce characteristics to survive in their new habitat?

The simplest way to put it would be "adapt or die". Habitat and climate changes gradually: seas, atmosphere (level, temperature) changes gradually and slowly.

Food supplies too. Let's say you have a closed sea with a fish species which is the top predator of placton of smaller fishes. Suddenly (geologically speaking of course), the closed sea is connected to an ocean in which roam marine dinosaurs who takes a fancy of eating the fishes.

So, don't you think that the fishes will evolve and become faster and escape the dinosaurs?

If you're looking for a purpose or a grand design or something esoteric, don't ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

And are you implying, endorsement for evolution of human or all species?

Personally, I don't see a difference but I gather that while some Muslims will accept evolution, most Muslims will not accept that it has affected humans. To me, humans are just a more cerebral animal. Roman Catholicism accepts human evolution but throws in a provision that God created the human soul to make it distinct and special.

In what way is this an endorsement?

Evolution says that all life originated in the oceans and that land-based life are evolutionary mutations of sea-based life. The statement from the Qu'ran would seem to suggest this is what happened as well

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

Food supplies too. Let's say you have a closed sea with a fish species which is the top predator of placton of smaller fishes. Suddenly (geologically speaking of course), the closed sea is connected to an ocean in which roam marine dinosaurs who takes a fancy of eating the fishes.

So, don't you think that the fishes will evolve and become faster and escape the dinosaurs?

Theoretically, that would happen. But practically I think the species would get killed before it has those evolutionary changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

EDIT: If you take the verse fully, you may come under the impression that God has made everything from water, saying that every living thing is made up of water. I think you are purposefully trying to construe an explanation for evolution, yet I do not see it. :

I try to look beyond the literal translations. God/Allah creating all life from water need not be literal. It might mean that every creation that slithers, crawls or walks originally came from (the) water.

Likewise, the Qu'ran says that Allah created Man from clay. I would choose to interpret this less literally rather than Allah created an effigy of man out of mud and then gave it life. That man instead came from the earth. This again, could be seen as an endorsement of evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

1. Personally, I don't see a difference but I gather that while some Muslims will accept evolution, most Muslims will not accept that it has affected humans. To me, humans are just a more cerebral animal. Roman Catholicism accepts human evolution but throws in a provision that God created the human soul to make it distinct and special.

2. Evolution says that all life originated in the oceans and that land-based life are evolutionary mutations of sea-based life. The statement from the Qu'ran would seem to suggest this is what happened as well

1. Muslims that agree on the idea that humans came from a "break-off" process from apes cannot be called Muslims, because they are going against the principle that Adam was first man.

2. See edit.

I try to look beyond the literal translations. God/Allah creating all life from water need not be literal. It might mean that every creation that slithers, crawls or walks originally came from (the) water.

Likewise, the Qu'ran says that Allah created Man from clay. I would choose to interpret this less literally rather than Allah created an effigy of man out of mud and then gave it life. That man instead came from the earth. This again, could be seen as an endorsement of evolution.

I don't think that the Qur'an is open for interpretation, because then everyone will conjure up their own ideas or beliefs on each verse. Now that would cause chaos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

1. Muslims that agree on the idea that humans came from a "break-off" process from apes cannot be called Muslims, because they are going against the principle that Adam was first man.

On those that would believe that Adam was made out of an actual lump of clay. I find that prospect even less appealing than evolution.

2. See edit.

I don't think that the Qur'an is open for interpretation, because then everyone will conjure up their own ideas or beliefs on each verse. Now that would cause chaos.

Clearly the Qur'an is open to interpretation or you wouldn't have veil-less and hajib-less Persian women and fully veiled/burqua'd Saudi women. You wouldn't have Shiias, Sunnis and Ismalis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

On those that would believe that Adam was made out of an actual lump of clay. I find that prospect even less appealing than evolution.

Clearly the Qur'an is open to interpretation or you wouldn't have veil-less and hajib-less Persian women and fully veiled/burqua'd Saudi women. You wouldn't have Shiias, Sunnis and Ismalis.

1. Whatever floats your boat.

2. As to the women, the former do not believe in it AT ALL. Go and ask them if they can verify their actions with the Qur'an, they can't.

As for the sects, that is EXACTLY why we shouldn't interpret holy books on our own accord. If we believed in the straight meaning and didn't put our own opinions into it, we wouldn't have all these sects and problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vykranth

Theoretically, that would happen. But practically I think the species would get killed before it has those evolutionary changes.

This is why the "geologically speaking" is important.

I have another examples, the various extinction events found in fossil records. Let's take the Permian/Triasic extinction.

Around 251 Millions years ago, almost 90% of the species were wiped out from the Planet on a short span of time: 1 million years. That was a global event.

Yet, some species survived and adapted to the new conditions: they must have evolved somehow, no?

The article on wikipedia

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

This is why the "geologically speaking" is important.

I have another examples, the various extinction events found in fossil records. Let's take the Permian/Triasic extinction.

Around 251 Millions years ago, almost 90% of the species were wiped out from the Planet on a short span of time: 1 million years. That was a global event.

Yet, some species survived and adapted to the new conditions: they must have evolved somehow, no?

The article on wikipedia

Was it direct evolution or just inter-mating between species though, if possible?

And, currently, scientists think that in this era, will happen the fastest extinction event in history (because of our destruction to the biosphere) causing a wipeout of around half of the worlds species. If this does occur, how soon do you think this world will be able to regain pace again, if ever?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vykranth

Was it direct evolution or just inter-mating between species though, if possible?

Inter-mating between species is possible but there are limitations to that: only species closed to each other can be inter-mated: for example, tigers and lions can be mated and produced ligers or tigons. Yet, Ligers and Tigons cannot be considered as a separate species as ligers and tigronsmales are sterile. Species are defined as a group capable of reproduction.

And, currently, scientists think that in this era, will happen the fastest extinction event in history (because of our destruction to the biosphere) causing a wipeout of around half of the worlds species. If this does occur, how soon do you think this world will be able to regain pace again, if ever?

It depends on how much damage we will do to the biosphere and it's a combination of geologic and biologic factors which tends to have an equilibrum on the food chains.

Let's say we are relocated to an another planet and observe what happens on Earth.

For sea life, I would say recovery can be fast: thousands of year (cough!): food chains are rather simple for marine life: phytoplancton is eaten by herbivorous zooplankton which is eaten by small fish which is eaten by predators. So, if small fishes are scarce, their predators will have their numbers reduced as the predators population cannot be sustained. If small fishes survived, zooplankton will have developed since their predators (the small fishes) are less numerous so small fishes will have a large supply of food and they will develop again. And so will the big predators too since they have a large supply of food.

Of course, if the small fishes become extinct, the big predators becomes extinct too and the zooplankton is the top of the food chain because food chains are cascading

For land life, that would be slower: first, food chains are more complex. Second, the base of the land food chains are vegetals and to have vegetals: a fertile soil is needed.

Take rainforests: where the rainforests have been destroyed, the soil has been washed out by rain or humane activities: so to reclaim a forest, that would have to be colonized by mushrooms or moss, which would create a thin soil that can be colonized by herbs which would create a bigger soil which can be colonized by trees.

For that, I would say that can be counted in tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jackwanders

Exactly what are the chances that "any" mutation will occur?

And, if people are stranded in sea and learn to eat raw fish and other minerals, can they survive in the sea forever (well, until their life ends)? And when they die, will they look like fish? :laugh:

My point is, if this evolution process takes millions of years for these species, how would this work? Just because this species was first adapted to land, but now has to change to water, WHAT DICTATES that they will produce characteristics to survive in their new habitat?

I personally believe that this is not possible. If these things take millions of years, it is far too long for species to survive in time for these mutations to occur. That is why they evolve/change habitat don't they? To survive? They would never survive like this.

You're not allowing yourself to think on a large enough time scale. Evolution occurs over immense periods of time and consists of the accumulation of many tiny, incremental adaptations and mutations.

As for the chances that ANY mutation will occur? Pretty good actually. Especially when you understand what a "mutation" is. In the case of the evolution of the dolphin, a mutation isn't a baby being born with a blowhole instead of a nose. It's a baby being born with a nose that sits ever so slightly higher on the head than average. This sort of thing is common, it's called variation. Look at humans. We're all different. Some are taller, some are thinner, some have bigger heads, some have larger eyes, etc etc. If humans existed in an environment where any one of these features was beneficial and increased that person's chance of survival, evolution shows that the trait would be more likely to be passed to his offspring. Over a long enough time span, an entire population would develop that trait. Look at how much variation there is in different human populations after only two million years. Africans, Europeans, Asians. The evolutionary process created the races as we see them today.

I digress. Back to dolphins. Concerning what dictates that a species would acquire attributes that make survival in the ocean easier, well, a few things dictate the changes. First, random mutations and variations. Second, evolutionary pressure, by way of predators, food sources, and environmental conditions. I don't know how to state it any clearer than I did in my previous post. If you find it that hard to grasp, I would suggest taking a step back and starting with some more basic materials.

If you want to disbelieve, knock yourself out. But understand that your disbelief isn't a result of lack of evidence, but rather your inability to understand and process the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

1. You're not allowing yourself to think on a large enough time scale. Evolution occurs over immense periods of time and consists of the accumulation of many tiny, incremental adaptations and mutations.

2. As for the chances that ANY mutation will occur? Pretty good actually. Especially when you understand what a "mutation" is. In the case of the evolution of the dolphin, a mutation isn't a baby being born with a blowhole instead of a nose. It's a baby being born with a nose that sits ever so slightly higher on the head than average. This sort of thing is common, it's called variation. Look at humans. We're all different. Some are taller, some are thinner, some have bigger heads, some have larger eyes, etc etc. If humans existed in an environment where any one of these features was beneficial and increased that person's chance of survival, evolution shows that the trait would be more likely to be passed to his offspring. Over a long enough time span, an entire population would develop that trait. Look at how much variation there is in different human populations after only two million years. Africans, Europeans, Asians. The evolutionary process created the races as we see them today.

3. I digress. Back to dolphins. Concerning what dictates that a species would acquire attributes that make survival in the ocean easier, well, a few things dictate the changes. First, random mutations and variations. Second, evolutionary pressure, by way of predators, food sources, and environmental conditions. I don't know how to state it any clearer than I did in my previous post. If you find it that hard to grasp, I would suggest taking a step back and starting with some more basic materials.

4. If you want to disbelieve, knock yourself out. But understand that your disbelief isn't a result of lack of evidence, but rather your inability to understand and process the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists.

1. Granted.

2. So you are saying that more races will develop as time goes on? And there was me thinking that these races came from people living in different parts of the world, with different climates. :rolleyes:

3. So everything happens by "chance"? It's just that these mutations randomly occur that you're basing a whole theory over it and calling it fact?

That is what I'm saying, there is nothing that DICTATES why it will happen, it JUST happens. Just because they settle into a new environment because of these mutations and variations is a mere coincidence then.

4. Overwhelming evidence or just mere coincidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

1. Granted.

2. So you are saying that more races will develop as time goes on? And there was me thinking that these races came from people living in different parts of the world, with different climates. :rolleyes:

3. So everything happens by "chance"? It's just that these mutations randomly occur that you're basing a whole theory over it and calling it fact?

That is what I'm saying, there is nothing that DICTATES why it will happen, it JUST happens. Just because they settle into a new environment because of these mutations and variations is a mere coincidence then.

4. Overwhelming evidence or just mere coincidence?

2. Evolution works very slowly. Humans (as a species) won't like long enough to notice significant changes.

3. Evolution does not have a master plan. There is no guiding force. There is no concept of "devolve". Things do happen randomly and it either works or it doesn't.

4. Overwhelming coincidences that leave no other logical explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

2. Evolution works very slowly. Humans (as a species) won't like long enough to notice significant changes.

3. Evolution does not have a master plan. There is no guiding force. There is no concept of "devolve". Things do happen randomly and it either works or it doesn't.

4. Overwhelming coincidences that leave no other logical explanation.

Thanks Fred. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jackwanders

1. Granted.

2. So you are saying that more races will develop as time goes on? And there was me thinking that these races came from people living in different parts of the world, with different climates. :rolleyes:

3. So everything happens by "chance"? It's just that these mutations randomly occur that you're basing a whole theory over it and calling it fact?

That is what I'm saying, there is nothing that DICTATES why it will happen, it JUST happens. Just because they settle into a new environment because of these mutations and variations is a mere coincidence then.

4. Overwhelming evidence or just mere coincidence?

2. I never said MORE races would develop. You're absolutely right, various races are a result of populations living in different geographies for thousands and thousands of years. We're in total agreement here. This is evolution at work. It's precisely what I was saying earlier. Will it ever result in a different species? No, because the ease of worldwide travel has made the world a "smaller" place.

3. Mutations DO happen by chance. Their propogation through a population does not. Mutations happen all the time. Good ones, bad ones. Big ones, small ones. This is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains what forces act upon populations to force the propogation of beneficial mutations through said population. If a sufficient number of mutations propogate through a given population, it can no longer produce offspring with members of a separate population without those mutations. This is called speciation.

So yes, mutations happen "by chance". However, everything after that happens by anything BUT chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.

so what if you just dont give two ****s about evolution? i find it hard to believe that we all evolved from hardly nothing, but at the same time i find it hard to believe we just "poofed" from nowhere :unsure:

what about the theory that God created life and started evolution himself? best of both worlds :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gunslinger

a more appropriate analogy would be kids born with tails.

Please dont insult my Saiyan Heritage... :shifty: :shiftyninja: :shifty:

Link to post
Share on other sites
dreamz

i'm surprised by the opposition i see here, especially given all the evidence for cetacean evolution, e.g.:

-the fact that mammals evolved as small, warm-blooded creatures on land that give birth to live young

-that some species show signs of vestigial structures, as joel pointed out, e.g., hind legs

-the wealth of transitional fossils detailing the lineage

-morphological analyses relating cetaceans to terrestrial mammals

-analysis of bone structures (e.g., pelvis, wrist, muzzle, etc.)

-results from molecular biology

and so on.

if you ask me, i think evolution and nature are way more spectacular than divine intervention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor

...

if you ask me, i think evolution and nature are way more spectacular than divine intervention.

Same with me, i can see the beauty in flowers and such that it seems a lot of people can't

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.