Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:52:50 -0500,
Suzanne <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Richard Clayton" <pockZIGetnZIGerd@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Frrrk.397$482.321@xxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"Richard Clayton" <pockZIGetnZIGerd@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vYJqk.298$Ro1.15@xxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

What a giraffe thinks has no bearing on whether its offspring will be
taller or shorter. Evolution doesn't work that way; what you need or
want has no bearing on what your offspring look like. But every new baby
born is a fresh recombination of genes (with a few novel mutations
thrown in for good measure), so some giraffes will have longer necks
than others. The giraffes born with longer necks (regardless of what
their parents wished) can reach more food, while those with shorter
necks can reach less food.

Wait...back to your first sentence in paragraph above this...
I was told in here that the reason for evolution is survival.
I don't agree with your disagreement because if evolution
were true, then surely there would a reason for an animal
to want to reach those high leaves they surely can smell.
But the way you are saying this, there is no reason for the
variation at all other than just that it happens.

That's about right. Variation just happens. Do you have children? If so,
you may have noticed that none of them are genetically identical to you;
each one is a new combination of genes from you and your husband. Each
will also have some completely new genes, the result of errors in the
process of duplicating DNA.

Well, sure, but hopefully they will have two legs,
two eyes, two ears, etc.

This comment rather neatly demonstrates your basic lack of understanding. I
suspect what was on the tip of your tongue was "fish don't become humans" or
something of the kind.


The same process works for animals. A giraffe's offspring will each be
different. Variation "just happens" because of the way sex works, with
half of chromosomes from each parent combined into a single organism who
is similar to, but distinctly different from, all of his parents and
siblings.

Variation is different though, than turning into
another species slowly over time. That's a big
change.

Is it? Two closely related species, like coyotes and wolves, don't really
look or act all that different. Certainly there are differences, and that's
why they're generally classified as two species.

Big Change is something that only happens over long periods of time, and
even worse, it's hard to define what you might even mean by Big Change.
Pretty much all vertebrates, whether a pink salmon, a bullfrog, a whale or a
human, follow the same basic body plan. My dog and I share a great deal of
commonality; similar digestive systems, similar reproductive organs (except
for what the vet took off my poor pup), similar immune systems, similar
brains and nerves. The chief differences are in the details, and while that
may seem like a Big Change, the fact is that body plans appear to be very
highly conserved. We vertebrates are all variations on a theme.

In fact, it's this long-term conservation of basic layouts of organisms,
whether it's trees, primates or fish, that allowed their categorization
before Darwin began formulating natural selection. Linnaeus developed his
taxonomic system decades before Darwin, and I'm sure our resident
philosopher Dr. Wilkins could provide a list of examples of people back to
Classical times who recognized relationships between various plants and
animals.


The longer-necked giraffes are better-fed and have more success avoiding
predators, finding mates, and reproducing; most importantly, *their
offspring can inherit the longer necks.* The genes are shuffled again
with the next generation, but long-necked parents tend to beget
long-necked offspring, and short-necked parents tend to beget
short-necked offspring. Over many successive generations, the
longer-necked giraffes are more successful and increase in number, and
eventually short-necked giraffes are no more-- they simply weren't as
successful as their long-necked cousins.

You don't need to sell me on the reasons why it is
advantageous for a giraffe to be tall. I only am asking
how an evolutionist thinks they got to be that way, and
I am saying that they didn't choose to do that, but the
choice was made for them by the Creatior. But the
evolutionist approach is usually for survival purposes,
as though the animal chose to become different if he
could.

What a living thing wants is irrelevant to evolution. Antelopes don't want
to be eaten by lions, but it happens. Those who run faster might be less
likely to wind up as lunch, but wishing won't make it so-- no matter how
desperately an antelope wants to escape the hungry cat chasing it down.
Alas, our genes don't take orders from our brains.

This brings us back to survival as a reason for speciation,
perhaps?

There's no "reason" to this beyond the fact that, on average, a slow
antelope is far more likely to get eaten than a faster one, thus natural
selection is a result of pressure from predators, at least as far as
antelope running speeds are concerned.

--
Aaron Clausen mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages
Loading