02GF74
|
 posted on 1/5/10 at 04:33 PM |
|
|
Is there a flaw in evolutions?
... been watching stuff about lions, gorillas, baboons and deer and these type of animals have the dominant male mate exclusively with a group of
females.
Now to be the dominant male usually means it is the one that is biggest and strongest so you would expect his offspring to have some of the
characteristics i.e. big and strong.
So when the dominant is deposed, it would be by another bigger and stronger male than him and so on.
Can you see where this is going?
Basically, they have been at it for millions of years so why aren't those animals the size of dinosaurs and bigger as the offrsping woulld tend
to increase in size unless evolution is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 1/5/10 at 04:52 PM |
|
|
Because the female doesn't have to be biggest or best so good genes are diluted.
And also too big needs too many resources.
Also new male doesn't have to be bigger than old - just younger and hence faster and fitter and more desperate to get to the females.
Oh - and people hunt the biggest and best for trophies so they don't last long enough to impact on species.
[Edited on 1/5/10 by Ivan]
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 1/5/10 at 04:55 PM |
|
|
What on earth are you on about man???
The earth was created by GOD and HE alone dictates how things develop! If HE doesn't want the lions to become jumbo-sized cat beasts, then HE
won't make it so!
Evolution... ??? Pah... !!!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 1/5/10 at 08:43 PM |
|
|
Like a lot of things in science, evolution is a theory, as such there are parts of it that can have holes picked in it.
Only that it gets stated as a fact all the time that people dont want to question any aspect of it, in case they get called "thick" or a
"creationist".
Same is true of lots of theories, the popular ones get heralded as facts by lay people and the media.
|
|
|
Guinness
|
| posted on 1/5/10 at 08:46 PM |
|
|
I am led to believe there is a species of bird in South Africa, where the females select a male on the size of his tail feather. Hence little baby
birds with longer and longer tail feathers.
Until they stop being able to fly and start becoming food for something else.
|
|
|
Macbeast
|
| posted on 1/5/10 at 09:41 PM |
|
|
Bigger is not necessarily better.
Having a good chat up line is important.
[Edited on 1/5/10 by Macbeast]
I'm addicted to brake fluid, but I can stop anytime.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 1/5/10 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
So when the dominant is deposed, it would be by another bigger and stronger male than him and so on.
Alternatively, a younger and fitter male. You can't stay young all your life.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 1/5/10 at 10:53 PM |
|
|
And sometimes even the freaks get lucky
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 1/5/10 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
Natural selection works on more than just sexual selection (as implied by Guinness) a bigger animal needs a lot more food and will starve in bad years
giving the smaller males an advantage.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 11:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
Like a lot of things in science, evolution is a theory, as such there are parts of it that can have holes picked in it.
you're using the wrong definition of theory I'm afraid bud. A scientific theory is a general priniciple which summarises a body of
empirical evidence. I.e. its a way of grouping facts.
"The Sun will rise tomorrow" is a scientific theory. "The Earth is spherical" is a scientific theory.
A theory is the most factual something can be without being pure maths.
The definition you're using is from philosophy where it means "speculation" and in noway relates to scientific theories.
To clear up the misunderstandings you're clearly having I recommend you read the new Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth".
Craig
|
|
|
Badger_McLetcher
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 06:26 PM |
|
|
As someone said before, it's not just about being big and mean, it's about food supplies etc.
Still like the old Bill Hicks take on creationists
If disfunction is a function, then I must be some kind of genius.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 06:31 PM |
|
|
Evolution is a theory as much as gravity is. I don't look to an old book of stories to tell me why my arse is on the sofa.
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
'Survival of the fittest', doesn't mean the strongest, as in physically fit. It means fittest to suvive in the current
circumstances. That's why little mammals suvived when big agressive dinosaurs didn't.
scudderfish; Your arse is on the sofa because it's comfy.
Thereforer , because we like them and look after them, sofas will survive.
[Edited on 2/5/10 by Confused but excited.]
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 11:23 PM |
|
|
My theory is that Dawkins would be in less hot water everywhere he goes, if he didn't declare himself to be an atheist.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 3/5/10 at 08:10 AM |
|
|
hmmm, I see your points about biggest is not bestest .... but most animals, maybe not the nutjob males, would size up themselves against an oponent
before considering a fight - so they would need to be comparable in size.
the availability of food would mean the smaller beasties that need to eat less are favoured but still, over millions of millions of years, I still
would have expected the size to increase.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 3/5/10 at 10:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RK
My theory is that Dawkins would be in less hot water everywhere he goes, if he didn't declare himself to be an atheist.
I reckon most people are atheist, they just don't realise it. They're too busy enjoying the pressies at xmas, the chocolate at easter but
they don't bother with church the rest of the year. The only reason people have weddings in church is for some decent photo's unlike the
one you'd get in some civic building.
God was created by man as an answer to those questions that he is working towards answering, to give comfort to weak souls and to allow (in the past)
educated people to control the plebs.
I quite like the idea of an afterlife, but suspect it'll be reusing the atoms, molecules and dna to feed a worm.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
Madinventions
|
| posted on 3/5/10 at 11:11 PM |
|
|
Couldn't have put it better if I'd tried!
Ed.
Mojo build diary: http://www.madinventions.co.uk
Solo music project: Syrrenfor http://www.reverbnation.com/syrrenfor
View my band website:
http://www.shadowlight.org.uk
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk/
|
|
|
YQUSTA
|
| posted on 7/5/10 at 05:55 PM |
|
|
We were created by aliens.
End of
"If in doubt flat out"
Colin McRae
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 7/5/10 at 06:06 PM |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4
The mental gymnastics a landlord will employ to justify immoral actions is clinically fascinating. Just because something is legal doesn't make
it moral.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 7/5/10 at 06:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
I reckon most people are atheist, they just don't realise it. They're too busy enjoying the pressies at xmas, the chocolate at easter but
they don't bother with church the rest of the year.
Christmas - formerly the pagan mid-winter solstice festival, when you know that the days are getting longer
again.(Wiki ref)
Easter - formerly the pagan festival celebrating the goddess Eostre (Wiki ref)
So, sod all to do with Christianity.
We don't know the exact date when Jesus was born, nor do we know the date when he was crucified. The Romans forced these dates to make them
acceptable to the plebs.
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 7/5/10 at 06:23 PM |
|
|
I meant exactly what I wrote. But thanks for trying to tell me what I meant....
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
Like a lot of things in science, evolution is a theory, as such there are parts of it that can have holes picked in it.
you're using the wrong definition of theory I'm afraid bud. A scientific theory is a general priniciple which summarises a body of
empirical evidence. I.e. its a way of grouping facts.
"The Sun will rise tomorrow" is a scientific theory. "The Earth is spherical" is a scientific theory.
A theory is the most factual something can be without being pure maths.
The definition you're using is from philosophy where it means "speculation" and in noway relates to scientific theories.
To clear up the misunderstandings you're clearly having I recommend you read the new Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth".
|
|
|
hillbillyracer
|
| posted on 7/5/10 at 06:54 PM |
|
|
I agree with you Dangle, it is a theory, it is Darwin's theory of evolution, not the philosopy or speculation of evolution!
Darwins ideas fit very well with the definition of theory, I see no better word to describe what they are.
I also agree that you could pick holes in it but while there are areas that are not yet understood you dont hear many scientists that are taken
seriously doubting the theory, that's because they think it's pretty much right.
|
|
|
YQUSTA
|
| posted on 7/5/10 at 09:29 PM |
|
|
I think there are huge holes in darwins theory.
I agreee with evolution as some thing that happens in life we can see it all around us
but
if darwin was correct where are the in betweens by that i mean half monkey half human surly no one can believe that evolution just decided that we
have humans we can stop the monkeys from evolving.
As for religion i dont have the time to start on that subject apart from what a load of BS.
but all in all, live and let live and if it makes your life more enjoyable crack on
"If in doubt flat out"
Colin McRae
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 7/5/10 at 09:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by YQUSTA
if darwin was correct where are the in betweens by that i mean half monkey half human surly no one can believe that evolution just decided that we
have humans we can stop the monkeys from evolving.
you assume that humans are more "evolved" than monkeys just because we're intelligent.
In truth a monkey in a zoo and you have evolved equal amounts from its nearest common ancestor.
We didnt evolve from the animals you see around you. Stand in an imaginary line with your father on your right hand side, and his father on his right
hand side and so on and so on. Then have a separate imaginary line with a chimpanzee and all its fathers and fathers fathers. Eventually you will
reach a point where there is an individual who is a father for both lineages.
that is evolution.. you don't expect or need "middlemen" in between the animals that are currently alive.
Craig
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 7/5/10 at 09:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
Like a lot of things in science, evolution is a theory, as such there are parts of it that can have holes picked in it.
Only that it gets stated as a fact all the time that people dont want to question any aspect of it, in case they get called "thick" or a
"creationist".
Same is true of lots of theories, the popular ones get heralded as facts by lay people and the media.
Sorry dangle i must have misunderstood your post.
you seemed to be suggesting scientific theory was different to scientific fact, but that musn't be the case.
Craig
|
|
|
