Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Disclaimer: If you believe in creation, that's fine. I'm not saying you're wrong. This is a compacted explanation of evolutionary theory , and not meant to be taken as a anything more than as a possible explanation for certain phenomenon seen in the natural world.

Okay, I'll start with the basic explanation of Darwin's theory of 'natural selection'. Whoever said that the fossil record disproved this theory, please provide a link to where you got that information, because that doesn't make sense to me.

According to the textbook "Animal Behavior", by John Alcock, eighth edition:
Darwinian Theory: evolutionary change is inevitable if just 3 conditions are met:
1) Variation (having different genes has a noticeable effect on behavior, color, etc)
2) Heredity (the variation is genetic and can be passed down from generation to generation)
3) Diffferences in reproductive success (Having the different genes enables the organism to reproduce better or worse than others of the same species)

It is important to note: Selection cannot create the best of all possible genes for a particular task, but has to wait for mutations to occur by chance; only then can it winnow out the less effective alleles (genes). If a "better" allele does not appear, there is nothing selection can do about it, because selection is a consequence of the confluence (converging influence) of certain conditions, NOT a controlling force that acts for the good of the species.

So, using logic based on this, we can assume a few things about ball pythons:
* their evolutionary history produced the snakes we see today. The ancestors of ball pythons survived longer and reproduced more if they more closely resembled the snakes we see now.
* The fact that morphs are not more prevelant means that either they are not more successful in finding mates or that their appearance is relatively recent

I would like to point out - white animals stick out at night against any backdrop that is not snow, sand, or rock. Test this - have a friend put on a black shirt and go outside and hide at night. You probably won't find them. However, have them change into a white shirt...Predators that rely on sight to hunt would spot the white easily (which is why you so rarely see adult albinos in the wild). Albinism would not matter if the predator used difference senses to hunt with.

So, maybe in 10,000 years, all ball pythons will be pastels or spiders. Maybe, though, being a pastel or spider provides no real reproductive advantage, and in 10,000 years balls will still look like they do today.
In any case, we're not likely to see much of a change in the general appearance of the wild version of the species in our lifetime.

~jenny
-----
"Polysyllabism in no way insures that what you're saying is actually worth being heard." - Blake (an e-friend of mine)

"I have never made but one prayer to god, a very short one: "O lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And he granted it." - Voltaire

Darwin admitted to "making up" all of his theories of natural selection on his death bed! No one wants to publish this information because people as a whole want to feel that they are in control of their lives and not someone Like a creator. If anyone believes that something can come from nothing, "Evolutionary theory", they need a serious wake up call.

This is not intended to cause an arguement, it is just some good knowledge to know and common sense.
Thanks

darwin's theory , which by the way i too learned in public school , has more holes in it than a wheel of swiss cheese.
we all know what happens when you add cheese to the equation...

"mom , i don't want this cheese , it has holes in it !"
"don't worry about the holes zeke , eat the cheese and leave the holes in the dish"

ck

Something from nothing huh? That is the real miracle isn't it. god or no god, if you go back far enough you have to ask the question "then where did that/he/she come from don't you?
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

>>Something from nothing huh? That is the real miracle isn't it. god or no god, if you go back far enough you have to ask the question "then where did that/he/she come from don't you?
>>-----
>>I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

Which came first?...was it the chicken..or was it the egg?

Once you apply the same thinking..Then there becomes another option besides creation and evolution/natural selection theorys.
Perhaps our creator is simply a superior being that is as such due to natural selections in its/their own history..... ha!

nah...it was the moons gravity
-----
Charles Glaspie

good point! Could that mean that evolution is more of a religion than science? The foundation of evolution (specially with regards to the big bang) assumes there was something to begin with...

Regards,
Bristen.

>>Something from nothing huh? That is the real miracle isn't it. god or no god, if you go back far enough you have to ask the question "then where did that/he/she come from don't you?
>>-----
>>I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?
-----
___________________________
www.RoyalGemReptiles.com

I didn't say that the fossil record disproved anything, let alone natural selection. What I did say is that the fossil record does not support Darwin's theory of evolution. This is true. What Darwin thought based on his discoveries was that evolution is a slow process that takes many generations to turn one species into a totally different species. What the fossil record shows is a slow series of changes that lead to modified versions of a species but not a new species. New species appear out of thin air in the fossils that have been discovered thus far leading proponents of Darwin's theory to look for "missing links". As for the ease of spotting things that are white, you are absolutely correct. They stick out like a sore thumb. But does a predator see white and think, "yum, food"? I am not suggesting that they don't but I don't see any evidence to support that they do either. Some ball pythons are very picky about what colour rodent they will eat and they aren't even sight reliant predators. Regardless, the colour white could be a free food sign and still not be the reason that mutations like albino are rare. On a side note, I am not a creationist. Actually I am a very happy atheist.
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

I hope my posts aren't coming off as argumentative, it is so hard to convey tone on-line. Also I forgot to mention (and I really hope I don't sound like a jerk here) you can't argue for an idea by reiterating it. It's a lot like saying that Christianity is THE TRUTH because the Bible says so. Honestly I am much more interested in what you (or anyone else) actually thinks. Theories and ideas can not be proven, only dis-proven. So, how do you reconcile the theory outline above with the observed rarity of mutations in humans where there really shouldn't be any rarity (based on my own probably easily dis-proven ideas)
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

I think i see what your getting at...On that note,maybe some of the leaps were simply hybrids of some sorts.
Or perhaps there are yet discovered arrangements of genetic materials that would propigate mutations(,or maybe they have already been eliminated as well.)

The devil is in the details...
-----
Charles Glaspie

because some new research someone posted a link to on here a few months ago shows that hybrids do happen in nature and in the case of the butterflies in the study led to a new butterfly with different adaptations and environmental needs from either parent species. Personally, I think hybridization may be the unifying element needed to plug the holes in Darwin's theory.
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

>>because some new research someone posted a link to on here a few months ago shows that hybrids do happen in nature and in the case of the butterflies in the study led to a new butterfly with different adaptations and environmental needs from either parent species. Personally, I think hybridization may be the unifying element needed to plug the holes in Darwin's theory.
>>-----
>>I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

Yes i think so too....When it comes to our own development,all one has to do is properly interpret the historical records left to us in old world religious beliefs.Such as "Enoch" and his giants for one....It speaks of fallen angels and human women procreating to produce these said giants.
I'm obviously of the opinion that we are the product of several different species of hominoids interbreeding over the years.Not just one line of hominoids that evolved on its own,etc...but numerous species.Of which some were much more advanced than others(hence the reason some were thought of as angels..aka enlightened ones.),,,did i go to far? lol
-----
Charles Glaspie

YES, BUT THE BUTTERFLIES PRODUCED MORE BUTTERFLIES, NOT AN ELEPHANT OR A TURKEY OR A FISH!! IT WILL N E V E R PRODUCE ANYTHING BUT A BUTTERFLY BECAUSE IT CANNOT, AND NO EVOLUTIONIST CAN SHOW EVEN ONE EXAMPLE (after 184 years of intense effort!) OF ONE KIND OF ANIMAL PRODUCING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ONE (RAT PRODUCING A JAGUAR, FOR EXAMPLE)

Human behavior and animal behavior can't be lumped together. People think; it's what makes us people. For example...animals do not have the concept of "money", they would not make themselves bankrupt to support a gambling problem. This kind of destructive behavior doesn't have an equivalent in the animal kingdom. Human nature excludes us from having that particular theory applied to us. Do women really choose their mates based on their fitness? Do the choices women make on this really affect our species on a grand scale? Do you REALLY know based on methodical research or are you just going to take your best guess?

I paid the money to take the class on the subject, and not only did I enjoy the class, everything I learned in it makes complete logical sense. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you because I only outlined the very bare bones. Whatever.

I don't want to argue beliefs. I gave you what the textbook says - a fairly recent edition published in 2005. What information, what articles, by an authority on the subject, do you have to put against that? If we're going to have a debate you should back up your statements with quotations and proof that you actually might know what you're talking about, or at least you read literature by someone who does.

If that doesn't happen, that's okay. It seems like we're all pretty set in our own beliefs.

~jenny
-----
"Polysyllabism in no way insures that what you're saying is actually worth being heard." - Blake (an e-friend of mine)

"I have never made but one prayer to god, a very short one: "O lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And he granted it." - Voltaire

Sure, Jenny, for starters, try:

Darwins Leap Of Faith
Darwins Black Box
Refuting Evolution

PS....I dont know if you have ever given birth, but seeing that miracle of my children being pulled from my wife's womb makes it hard to believe that great-great-great grandpa was a rock! The fact that your class was interesting and the prof was an "expert in evolution" doesnt make him any for correct than the college prof who still teaches that JFK was killed in some massive conspiracy (probably Bigfoot shot him and escaped in a UFO!)

Thought and a concept of money do not separate us from animals. A few years back a study was done with chimps to see what would happen if they were introduced to the concept of money. The chimps were given tokens in exchange for performing small tasks. They could then exchange the tokens for snacks. After a while some of the female chimps started to accumulate more tokens than their level of productivity could account for. It seems that the instant they had a concept of money, they invented prostitution. This along with a growing body of research suggests that animals do think. I have done way too much reading to site off the top of my head and have no time to go through my schools database. Having graduated I don't think I could even get in. I am not sure which school you go to but mine uses a database called ebsco-host and I am sure yours has a similar info library. If you look in the psych section you shouldn't have any problems double checking the above. As for the main part of what I have been saying, these are my own inferences, based on a great many articles and books that I have read over a period of decades. The very first book I read was Origin of the Species when I was Four (my mother thought teaching me to read early would make me smarter. 2 2=chair?) Regarding this and my thesis that natural selection doesn't have that much to do with the colour of nocturnal animals, there is nothing to site. These are my thoughts. Stan, you are correct about college professors and books. If they knew it all there would be no reason to do research and we would still think plate tectonics was a ridiculous idea. As for species becoming other species, it seems to me that there is ample evidence in the fossil record and in living specimens to show that fish became amphibians and that lizards became snakes. You don't think so?

P.S. JFK was totally killed by the CIA. Am I kidding? No?
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

NO, the fossil record does not show "a slow series of changes"; that is just the EVOLUTIONARY THEORY of what is shows. What the fossil record DOES show is the bones of ALOT of DIFFERENT ANIMALS, and it is man (ie, evolutionary scientists) that have a theory that "here, this one led to that one, and that one led to that one, etc;", when all we really know is that are bones in the dirt; in fact, we really dont know if most individual animal ever even gave birth or not!! So, as far as "micro-evolution" (commonly referred to as "survival of the fittest" you are correct, animals adapt and inherit some traits from previous generations. But MACRO-evolution, (the theory / religion that has man evolving from a rock and random chemicals over 4.6 billion years) is pure fantasy. No reptile breeder has ever hatched out a chicken from a pastel x spider breeding, and they never will, because animals can only produce offspring OF THEIR OWN KIND. And besides, the evolution "theory" calls for IMPROVEMENTS (eg, ape turns into man), but all the changes we see would be LOSSES of information (eg, man losing his tail (that would actually be handy!!), whale losing its legs, snake losing its legs (hello, those spurs are to get their groove on, not their last 2 remaining toenails....and where's their hip!), etc,etc,etc). And if evolution improves things over time, why is it that the Trilobite, one of the earliest known animals, has an eye the is MORE COMPLEX than the human eye, even though they were around for "billions" of years before us? I may be wrong, but I have to agree with most of the others who have posted on this topic.......

In the case of horses the slow series of changes is irrefutable. Over many thousands of years horses went from a foot with many toes like other animals to three toes, then two toes and finally to the modern one toed version. This is a slow series of changes that, as I stated above led not to a new animal but a different version of an animal. As for hips in a snake, boids do not have "hips" but if I remember correctly they do have a pelvis and there are a number of elements such as the monitor like structure of early snakes heads that link them with lizards.
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

I like your thinking....

" Test this - have a friend put on a black shirt and go outside and hide at night. You probably won't find them. However, have them change into a white shirt...Predators that rely on sight to hunt would spot the white easily ..

Human predators....

Is that the new TV show I keep hearing about?

Just throw on a white shirt at night...run around and hide in the bushes and BAM, on the show?

Cool, SATAN has a new favorite show!

It is about time people actually suffer from the hands of some predator
-----
"Satan™" is a registered trademark of NERD, Inc. Any copyright infringement is punishable by ETERNAL DAMNATION and some other terrible stuff.

>>It is about time people actually suffer from the hands of some predator
>>-----
>>"Satan™" is a registered trademark of NERD, Inc. Any copyright infringement is punishable by ETERNAL DAMNATION and some other terrible stuff.

...what...you heard something?
-----
Charles Glaspie

If we evolved from apes and monkeys, why are there still apes and monkeys? If I put you in a bathtub for a long time, would you turn into a hippo?

I believe in creationism, and what the Bible teaches us about it. However, I do velieve that hybridization could be part of what has created new species. But, I digress, and look for where the original species came from, and then I acknowlege my God for all the beautiful animals he created for us.

The funny thing about this whole argument is, we know not the hour nor the day, but we will all find out the answers when our life on Earth is done. If there is no God, at least I could say I lived my life for and with a purpose and if there is, I will live in glory forever.

AMEN, and well put.......

This doesn't offend us creationists at all, it sounds pretty logical. Actually, it kind of affirms creationism!

Stevo

No offence but how does any of this affirm creationism? Also, out of shear curiosity, why are you guys so opposed to Darwin's or any other version of evolution? It doesn't really seem to contradict creation unless you take the Bible literally but if you take the Bible literally it becomes a mass of contradictions. Just for instance, the four gospels disagree on Jesus' age at the crucifixion and tell very different versions of the same events like Mary's adoration of the Christ. I'm not trying to make waves here, just interested in understanding the other side's point of view. If any one wants to shoot me an email about this or start a new thread, cool but please I would like to reserve this thread (an extension of my original thread) for those of us who think that evolution does run biodiversity to argue about the particulars of that idea not for a debate on creation vs. evolution. That is a fine topic but to keep thinks simple it is a fine topic for a new thread.
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?