Printable View
Alright so I know it isn't evolution, but amphibians like frogs show the physical manifestation of correct evolutionary traits in their own lifetime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GGuEr-MQf4
This doesn't show the survival aspect of evolution, or natural selection. However it shows how something can go from one thing (underwater breathing) to something entirely different, (air breathing)
Is a frog not an example of how intermediate species can exist?
No. At every stage of it's life it remains the same specie.
Eh oh well. The only part i'm pointing out is the fact that the little underwater creature can become an above water creature.
The part of evolution people have problems with, the complete change factor.
and i'm not talking about the intermediate species in its own life, i'm talking about a species that it was before its own in comparison. In other words people ask why isn't there a species that is half and half etc, well, here is a species that could breathe in water, and then one that can not, both in the same species.
I don't think it will do you much good. Even a creationist is unlikely to be so robbed of education on the workings of life to not already know the gist how a frog's life cycle goes. The problem is they're expecting you to show them an example of a crocodile giving birth to a crocoduck.
Oh /sigh I get it. They don't want an example of something becoming different, they want an example of something that doesn't happen to happen. The changes are smaller though so it sucks you can't ever do that for them. Its much like watching a pot boil. that changes are so small that you barely notice, but eventually it does boil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
That's exactly it since their objections stem from misconceptions of evolution. They don't believe in this thing they call evolution. The thing is that no one does because it doesn't happen like that. This thing they're calling evolution isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Do you have a video of a gorilla giving birth to a human? I don't think you do.
I rest my case.
Oh this is interesting because there is this new theory aptly named "Marveloution" created by the prominent scientist Professor Heis Stanleigh in Germany concerning human evolutionary development. He says that we are slowly turning into mutants as seen in microcosmic form in films like Xmen and Spiderman. In reality the process is much slower. He believes that we are currently approaching the early stages as can be practically seen in the recent obesity epidemic. Although he is insistent that it is unlikely that we will notice any substantial development or practical support for his theory for the next 3.2568 billion years. But hey it is plausible so thats good enough for me. :)
On a personal note I hope this will bring an end to those religious junkies, following their pre-dated dogmatic, universal religious rules, operated general laws or their trusting of various deities on blind faith, who have no proof whatsoever as to whether they exist. I think that Professor Heis Stanleigh is a beacon: not only in his rigorous scientific endeavour and tenacity (as can be clearly seen in his recent work into the cross-species artificial insemination of the common garden domestic bull) but through the observation that his work is thought motivated, independent and invocative of cachinnation from persons from all walks of life. Infact I believe that all should follow him, or they should be castrated and thrown into the fiery chasm of nothingness, that obviously follows life (although do not mistake this for hell, I certainly and undoubtedly will not have any religious dogmatism or restrictedness in life; atheism and science only). Hail the almighty Professor Heis Stanleigh; may all tremble in the wake of his scientific majesty.
What about the Axolotl?
It spends a majority of its life in shallow water. It has four legs with long toes, something most fish don't have. It has gills, like you would expect from a water-born animal. But it also has lungs that it can breath with on land (albiet, laboured breathing, but it will live).
The axolotl is a neoteny species, meaning its life-cycle is actually cut short. It becomes sexually mature without the need to metamorphasize like a frog does. Through thyroid hormonal therapy, an axolotl can be coaxed into entering the 'chopped off' phase of its life that evolution (for some reason) deemed unnecessary, and it will morph into a land-dwelling salamander.
A normal axolotl can live for anywhere from 10 to 25 years. One that has been artifically coaxed into its adult-form will only live for 5 years. The metamorphasis process either takes a very heavy toll on the creature, or the genes responsible for self-regulation of bodily processes in the adult form may have been mutated and corrupted over time.
So here you have an animal thats part fish, part land-dweller, and has dormant DNA that allows it to become a fully adapted land-dweller. How does this stand up to Creationist scrutiny? (Did I mention they're totally adorable when they 'smile' for a camera?)
It's that same smile deers often give to speeding semi trucks.