I was just wondering how the Porcupine happened to EVOLVE it's sharp quills. And how the Bat happened to grow its wings.

The story probably goes like this:
In the rat family, there was commotion as snakes, dogs, hyaenas, cats and all the small carnivores began to feast on them.

So, they had a meeting and the vote was should they evolve into a Bird by turning their silky hairs to feathers OR turn the silky hairs into weapons of mass stabbing.

The argument raged on for a long time and only the porcupine tribe of rat decided to evolve their hairs into spears. The Ratonia tribe of rats decided to maintain status-quo while the Batilia tribe decided to grow wings and become birdlike.

According to the law of selection: by now, the Ratonia family should be extinct but they are not.

Scientific effort is still on to see how such feat was made possible. I would want to use the same means to evolve myself into Obama or Trump.

Any good idea will do. Thanks

shadeyinka:
I was just wondering how the Porcupine happened to EVOLVE it's sharp quills. And how the Bat happened to grow its wings.

The story probably goes like this:
In the rat family, there was commotion as snakes, dogs, hyaenas, cats and all the small carnivores began to feast on them.

So, they had a meeting and the vote was should they evolve into a Bird by turning their silky hairs to feathers OR turn the silky hairs into weapons of mass stabbing.

The argument raged on for a long time and only the porcupine tribe of rat decided to evolve their hairs into spears. The Ratonia tribe of rats decided to maintain status-quo while the Batilia tribe decided to grow wings and become birdlike.

According to the law of selection: by now, the Ratonia family should be extinct but they are not.

Scientific effort is still on to see how such feat was made possible. I would want to use the same means to evolve myself into Obama or Trump.

Any good idea will do. Thanks

This is an interesting historical piece of some people's ancestors. Interesting indeed.

At the emboldened: your own evolution might take more trillion years in that case. When people of evolution are already thinking of evolving into super humans like the X-men and the Avengers.

aadoiza:

This is an interesting historical piece of some people's ancestors. Interesting indeed.

At the emboldened: your own evolution might take more trillion years in that case. When people of evolution are already thinking of evolving into super humans like the X-men and the Avengers.

Hello my dear friend: quite a long time.

I was trying not to be too greedy o! And as I don't think I'll have the patience to wait for hundreds of millions of years to become "an Avenger", I therefore took a safer path. LOL

What else do you expect from this generation of ours

Rom 1:28-30:
"So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him , God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip. They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents."

shadeyinka:

Hello my dear friend: quite a long time.

I was trying not to be too greedy o! And as I don't think I'll have the patience to wait for hundreds of millions of years to become "an Avenger", I therefore took a safer path. LOL

What else do you expect from this generation of ours

Rom 1:28-30:
"So it was that when [b]they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him , God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip. They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents."

Hi. Long time indeed.
'God gave them up to doing everything their minds could think of': I have had similar thought lately and concluded that God probably meant for us to lead a simple life but in the quest for superfluous sophistication, we cast aside God and divine blueprint, and follow the whisperings in our hearts, thus unwittingly ccementing an unprecedented bleakness on our future.
Covid19 would be a child's play to the impending cataclysm, my friend, which will be wrought by our own doing. Good morning.

aadoiza:

Hi. Long time indeed.
'God gave them up to doing everything their minds could think of': I have had similar thought lately and concluded that God probably meant for us to lead a simple life but in the quest for superfluous sophistication, we cast aside God and divine blueprint, and follow the whisperings in our hearts, thus unwittingly ccementing an unprecedented bleakness on our future.
Covid19 would be a child's play to the impending cataclysm, my friend, which will be wrought by our doing. Good morning.

I totally agree with you.

The liberty God has given us is making us feel like the alpha and omega of life and existence. The little knowledge of science of understanding the workings of things God had made has puffed us up to replace the Almighty God with the "god of science"

Of course COVID-19 is just a sneak preview into what is to come towards the end of the world.

Have a beautiful day bro!

It's not surprising to see people who love fairytales telling tall tales. LMFAO!

LordReed:
It's not surprising to see people who love fairytales telling tall tales. LMFAO!

So you can see how nonsensical the theory of evolution is with respect to this rodent family!

shadeyinka:

So you can see how nonsensical the theory of evolution is with respect to this rodent family!

You told a story that had nothing to do with evolution, just a fairytale of your own devising.

LordReed:


You told a story that had nothing to do with evolution, just a fairytale of your own devising.

Since you know the story of the evolution of the rodent family into bats and porcupines, you can oblige us.
Don't forget to explain how they evolved into different species rather than kinds

shadeyinka:

Since you know the story of the evolution of the rodent family into bats and porcupines, you can oblige us.
Don't forget to explain how they evolved into different species rather than kinds

I don't know the story of the evolution of rodent family into bats and porcupines but I am sure we can find out instead of making up fairy tales.

LordReed:


I don't know the story of the evolution of rodent family into bats and porcupines but I am sure we can find out instead of making up fairy tales.

Waiting for you.!?

shadeyinka:

Waiting for you.!?

Start here:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution

shadeyinka:

Waiting for you.!?

For porcupine start here:

https://animaldiversity.org/collections/spinesquills/

LordReed:


For porcupine start here:

https://animaldiversity.org/collections/spinesquills/

LordReed:


Start here:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution

I've read your two links and there is one thing that is completely missing.

It's the question WHY?
Why did the hair suddenly specialised to become quills?

Why did the forelimbs suddenly specialised to form wings?

And why are the ancestors who did not evolve seem to still be alive? If the wings and the quills are for survival, how come those with un-evolved hairs and arms still living in the year 2020?

shadeyinka:



I've read your two links and there is one thing that is completely missing.

It's the question WHY?
Why did the hair suddenly specialised to become quills?

Why did the forelimbs suddenly specialised to form wings?

And why are the ancestors who did not evolve seem to still be alive? If the wings and the quills are for survival, how come those with un-evolved hairs and arms still living in the year 2020?

First of all there is nothing sudden about evolutionary timescales. We are usually talking of changes that occur over a couple of millennia. As natural selection is the usual driving force, the conditions that precipitate these changes are varied and not static thus it might not be readily apparent what they were.

That other species continue to evolve without evolving into some particular form is a testament to the branching nature of the evolutionary tree. The theory does not assert that all animals must evolve into the most superior form, rather it says that changes occur in populations for various reasons and the most successful at breeding go on to pass those changes. You can see it in the way some animals evolve to rely less on vision if their environment does not require vision to be successful in breeding.

If you want a more in depth look at bat evolution check here:

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/dvdy.90

To be frank, in the almost incomprehensible case that evolution were scientifically reversed tomorrow, I'd still be an atheist as I see no evidence commensurate to the claims of creationism and/or the existence of a deity. Just putting it out there.

If I hear say I no evolve into Superman, make evolution do lineal atavism for atheists

aadoiza:
If I hear say I no evolve into Superman, make evolution do lineal atavism for atheists

Wetin concern atheism with evolution now?

LordReed:


First of all there is nothing sudden about evolutionary timescales. We are usually talking of changes that occur over a couple of millennia. As natural selection is the usual driving force, the conditions that precipitate these changes are varied and not static thus it might not be readily apparent what they were.

That other species continue to evolve without evolving into some particular form is a testament to the branching nature of the evolutionary tree. The theory does not assert that all animals must evolve into the most superior form, rather it says that changes occur in populations for various reasons and the most successful at breeding go on to pass those changes. You can see it in the way some animals evolve to rely less on vision if their environment does not require vision to be successful in breeding.

If you want a more in depth look at bat evolution check here:

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/dvdy.90

The keywords in this writeup is Natural SELECTION. But you presented your speech as if
1. The changes are random and only after a long time do we see the beneficial aspect of the changes. In other words the millions of years is more important than the external causes

If the external pressure that favour a change is minor, would force of natural selection still begin to operate?

Like, we can argue that porcupines quills evolved because of a life threatening event to the rodents population that made having quills a solution.
But then, don't we expect their cousins who didn't evolve to die out?

2. Is it not easier based on the fact that so many kinds and species of animals and plants have gone EXTINCT to assume, that all these different species just look alike: this is even more plausible because they can't interbreed. If they can interbreed, the theory of evolution would have been on a solid footing.
Like African elephants should be able to interbreed with Indian elephants even though they look slightly physiologically different. Cheetah and Leopard look alike but are of different species: hence they can't interbreed.

3. The one you'll hate to hear is this:
All animals basically have the same internal design. A kind of fluid(blood), a kind of liver, a kind of oxygen harvester(lungs/gills), a kind of filter(kidney) etc. This point to the fact that all animals come from the SAME SOURCE! From nematodes to human beings

I see design!
You see evolution!

shadeyinka:

The keywords in this writeup is Natural SELECTION. But you presented your speech as if
1. The changes are random and only after a long time do we see the beneficial aspect of the changes. In other words the millions of years is more important than the external causes

If the external pressure that favour a change is minor, would force of natural selection still begin to operate?

Like, we can argue that porcupines quills evolved because of a life threatening event to the rodents population that made having quills a solution.
But then, don't we expect their cousins who didn't evolve to die out?

I really don't understand what you mean here but on the aspect whether we will expect the rodents to die out because they didn't evolve quills, the answer is no, we don't expect them to die out because the theory does not say if you don't evolve a certain way you will die out. The theory says when an animal changes, if it cannot continue to successfully breed then it dies out. The change the animal experiences is not the key, the key is can it continue to successful breed.

2. Is it not easier based on the fact that so many kinds and species of animals and plants have gone EXTINCT to assume, that all these different species just look alike: this is even more plausible because they can't interbreed. If they can interbreed, the theory of evolution would have been on a solid footing.
Like African elephants should be able to interbreed with Indian elephants even though they look slightly physiologically different. Cheetah and Leopard look alike but are of different species: hence they can't interbreed.

Again, I don't understand what you mean. Successful interbreeding or lack thereof is a criteria used for categorizing species. I don't know why you think its a problem for the theory.

3. The one you'll hate to hear is this:
All animals basically have the same internal design. A kind of fluid(blood), a kind of liver, a kind of oxygen harvester(lungs/gills), a kind of filter(kidney) etc. This point to the fact that all animals come from the SAME SOURCE! From nematodes to human beings

Again, I don't get your point. Different animals take different paths in the evolutionary tree, some of the way we recognise relatedness is by how similar physiological structures and functions are.

I see design!
You see evolution!

Is that the point of this thread?

LordReed:


I really don't understand what you mean here but on the aspect whether we will expect the rodents to die out because they didn't evolve quills, the answer is no, we don't expect them to die out because the theory does not say if you don't evolve a certain way you will die out. The theory says when an animal changes, if it cannot continue to successfully breed then it dies out. The change the animal experiences is not the key, the key is can it continue to successful breed.

The point I'm making is this:
If an animals existence is not threatened in anyway, would it still evolve?

LordReed:

Again, I don't understand what you mean. Successful interbreeding or lack thereof is a criteria used for categorizing species. I don't know why you think its a problem for the theory.

If the external morphology changes as a form of adaptation, do you think the internal/genetic morphology should also change?

For me, a change of species is an IMPOSSIBILITY! If there was an external motivation for change in external morphology, is there also an external motivation for change in genetic morphology leading to a change in species?

LordReed:

Again, I don't get your point. Different animals take different paths in the evolutionary tree, some of the way we recognise relatedness is by how similar physiological structures and functions are.
Is that the point of this thread?

Changes in kinds are demonstrable scientifically. It's a form of selection that is true.
BUT
Is there a single scientific evidence for a change in species through evolution you know?

shadeyinka:

The point I'm making is this:
If an animals existence is not threatened in anyway, would it still evolve?

Yes it would.

If the external morphology changes as a form of adaptation, do you think the internal/genetic morphology should also change?

It depends on what is changing. Eg the internal morphology of previously aquatic species becoming amphibious or terrestrial will necessitate internal morphological changes as well as external ones.

For me, a change of species is an IMPOSSIBILITY! If there was an external motivation for change in external morphology, is there also an external motivation for change in genetic morphology leading to a change in species?

Not only not an impossibility, it happens right before our eyes. Look up ring species.

Genetic diversity is driven by both internal and external factors.

Changes in kinds are demonstrable scientifically. It's a form of selection that is true.
BUT
Is there a single scientific evidence for a change in species through evolution you know?

Kinds is not a scientific term so maybe rephrase?

Yes, the aforementioned mentioned ring species is one. I have posted before about a unicellular organism becoming multicellular without having multicellular genes previously, that's another evidence. Then you have the evolution of tetrapods as a whole https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_tetrapods?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVvoSRtf7oAhU7XhUIHX-NA_4Q9QF6BAgFEAI

LordReed:


Yes it would.

On what bases?
In what direction?
Key word to note: adaptation to what?

LordReed:

It depends on what is changing. Eg the internal morphology of previously aquatic species becoming amphibious or terrestrial will necessitate internal morphological changes as well as external ones.

Is this a speculation or there is a real life example?

LordReed:

Not only not an impossibility, it happens right before our eyes. Look up ring species.

Genetic diversity is driven by both internal and external factors.

Do is think it is possible for gills to evolve into lungs or vise-versal?

We can understand what external factors could be, like adverse climate, lack of suitable food, presence of predators etc.

What are some internal factors that could lead to genetic mutations?

LordReed:

Kinds is not a scientific term so maybe rephrase?

Kinds are distinguishable members of the same species. Like we have the dog family having kinds from Alsatian, Terrier, Bulldog etc.

LordReed:

Yes, the aforementioned mentioned ring species is one. I have posted before about a unicellular organism becoming multicellular without having multicellular genes previously, that's another evidence.

Then you have the evolution of tetrapods as a whole https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_tetrapods?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVvoSRtf7oAhU7XhUIHX-NA_4Q9QF6BAgFEAI

I think your example is like using the "evolution" of the tadpole to frogs as an example of evolution of species.

A unicellular organism becoming multicellular and this characteristics is not already written into its DNA?
So, where did the information come from?

Evolution of tetrapods (400 million years ago) as evidence? !!
This is no evidence: it's a theory!

Does the fact that we have monocycles, bicycles, motorcycles, cars and lorries prove that mutations started from the wheel?

Isn't the theory of evolution similar to "the God of gaps fallacy" that you accuse theists of propagating?

shadeyinka:

On what bases?
In what direction?
Key word to note: adaptation to what?

It depends on which selection pressures are acting on the organism.

Is this a speculation or there is a real life example?

The evolution of tetrapods is an example.

Do is think it is possible for gills to evolve into lungs or vise-versal?

We can understand what external factors could be, like adverse climate, lack of suitable food, presence of predators etc.

What are some internal factors that could lead to genetic mutations?

Gills and lungs were present in some early fish so it is hard to say if they evolved from one another.

Mutation and growing genetic diversity of breeding pairs are some internal factors that can lead to genetic diversity.

Kinds are distinguishable members of the same species. Like we have the dog family having kinds from Alsatian, Terrier, Bulldog etc.

It is not a scientific term so I don't see how it applies.

I think your example is like using the "evolution" of the tadpole to frogs as an example of evolution of species.

It is not. How can you compare a tadpole growing into a frog to the arrival of a completely new species unable to breed with its parent species?

A unicellular organism becoming multicellular and this characteristics is not already written into its DNA?
So, where did the information come from?

Yes it is was not wriitten into its DNA, it came from selection pressures making it evolve.

Evolution of tetrapods (400 million years ago) as evidence? !!
This is no evidence: it's a theory!

We have the fossils of these animals so yes it is evidence.

Does the fact that we have monocycles, bicycles, motorcycles, cars and lorries prove that mutations started from the wheel?

Don't make baseless comparisons, you are better than that.

Isn't the theory of evolution similar to "the God of gaps fallacy" that you accuse theists of propagating?

No it is not because the theory does not propose a mystery to explain a mystery. The evolution of animals is well evidenced by the fossil record and by DNA. If you feel you can disprove evolution you stand the chance of winning a Nobel prize, in fact you'll be hailed as the scientist of the century.

LordReed:


It depends on which selection pressures are acting on the organism.

The initial question was:

The point I'm making is this:
If an animals existence is not threatened in anyway, would it still evolve?

You said:

Yes it would.

Then I said:

On what bases?
In what direction?
Key word to note: adaptation to what?

Now, your answer is:

"It depends on which selection pressure s are acting on the organism"

Check the bolded.
Threats are pressures aren't they?
Doesn't this contradict your initial position?

LordReed:

The evolution of tetrapods is an example.

Gills and lungs were present in some early fish so it is hard to say if they evolved from one another.

Mutation and growing genetic diversity of breeding pairs are some internal factors that can lead to genetic diversity.

Your tetrapod example is like saying human beings evolved from pigmies, to negroids, then to mongoloids and then to Caucasians is there a conclusive genetic mapping to say Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, and Nectridea are related in anyway to any modern tetrapod.

It's just a speculation isn't it?

Check the italics: yes gills in early fish but not lungs.

LordReed:

It is not a scientific term so I don't see how it applies.

You asked for what kinds means and I gave you with examples.

The Specie: Dog's binomial nomenclature is Canis Familiaris and this include all Dogs. The Specie of dog has BREEDs: the breeds are the KINDS.

Breed is a scientific word isn't it?

LordReed:

It is not. How can you compare a tadpole growing into a frog to the arrival of a completely new species unable to breed with its parent species?

So, with the bones of the early tetrapods, how are you sure they can interbreed?

For the transformation of tadpoles into frogs, is it not already written in their DNA?

LordReed:

Yes it is was not wriitten into its DNA, it came from selection pressures making it evolve.

You've just said something like: it's not written in the DNA but somehow selection made it evolve. Is this not a contradiction?

It must be written in the DNA for it to be passed along during reproduction. Cutting my limbs do not affect my DNA, so all my offsprings must have what is written in my DNA!

LordReed:

We have the fossils of these animals so yes it is evidence.

Fossils are NO evidence of evolution!

LordReed:

Don't make baseless comparisons, you are better than that.

No it is not because the theory does not propose a mystery to explain a mystery. The evolution of animals is well evidenced by the fossil record and by DNA. If you feel you can disprove evolution you stand the chance of winning a Nobel prize, in fact you'll be hailed as the scientist of the century.

The @bolded is completely untrue.

The Mammoth is less than 400,000 years ago in frozen state yet only fragments of their DNA have been recovered intact. Compare with the similarity between the human DNA and a Pig: it's close enough to not accept anything other than complete DNA.

So evidence by DNA is false.
Of course, fossils are no evidence.

Tamaratonye1:

Wetin concern atheism with evolution now?

Atheists seem to be the No 1 peddlers of the evolution nonsense, and they never present any concrete proofs for it.

aadoiza:

Atheists seem to be the No 1 peddlers of the evolution nonsense, and they never present any concrete proofs for it.

Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

LordReed:


Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

As long as it cannot be found in their respective scrpitures, the positions of certain members on this are insignificant.

Besides, the article only talks about its acceptance by different religious bodies not peddlers of it

aadoiza:

As long as it cannot be found in their respective scrpitures, the positions of certain members on this are insignificant.

Besides, the article only talks about its acceptance by different religious bodies not peddlers of it

Did you read this:

Both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

Are these not "peddlers"?

shadeyinka:

Since you know the story of the evolution of the rodent family into bats and porcupines, you can oblige us.
Don't forget to explain how they evolved into different species rather than kinds

There's a fallacy for this. The making up of outlandish assumptions then asking others for their defense.

Where did you get your "evolution of the rodent family into bats" from if you did not just make it up?

https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-rodents

shadeyinka:

The keywords in this writeup is Natural SELECTION. But you presented your speech as if
1. The changes are random and only after a long time do we see the beneficial aspect of the changes. In other words the millions of years is more important than the external causes

If the external pressure that favour a change is minor, would force of natural selection still begin to operate?

Like, we can argue that porcupines quills evolved because of a life threatening event to the rodents population that made having quills a solution.
But then, don't we expect their cousins who didn't evolve to die out?

2. Is it not easier based on the fact that so many kinds and species of animals and plants have gone EXTINCT to assume, that all these different species just look alike: this is even more plausible because they can't interbreed. If they can interbreed, the theory of evolution would have been on a solid footing.
Like African elephants should be able to interbreed with Indian elephants even though they look slightly physiologically different. Cheetah and Leopard look alike but are of different species: hence they can't interbreed.

3. The one you'll hate to hear is this:
All animals basically have the same internal design. A kind of fluid(blood), a kind of liver, a kind of oxygen harvester(lungs/gills), a kind of filter(kidney) etc. This point to the fact that all animals come from the SAME SOURCE! From nematodes to human beings

I see design!
You see evolution!

Why does a designer design a chameleon to eat it baby when searching for food?

Or why do some specie die after mating or reproducing like octopus, mantis, glowworm?

A design?

tintingz:


Why does a designer design a chameleon to eat it baby when searching for food?

Or why do some specie die after mating or reproducing like octopus, mantis, glowworm?

A design?

Is the design not successful for those Species? How come they haven't gone EXTINCT and some other "so called better efficiently designed species" have gone extinct?

All animals are EXPENDABLE!