PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 22 23 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:30 PM on December 19, 2009 :
So for a fish that lives in water, would not a mutation that allows it to live in water more efficiently be beneficial rather then one that takes it away from water?

You have to look at the environment the fish is in.  At the time fish started to evovle lungs, the earth was getting warmer so the lakes and streams they were living in were getting smaller and warmer, and the warmer water gets the less oxygen it can hold.  Evolving lungs allowed them to better survive in the smaller, warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers.  They could now, in addition to their gills, gulp oxygen directly from the air.  We see lungfish that do this today.  So these mutations allowed the fish to live in the water more efficiently but when some of these environments changed even more, some of these fish could now live longer on land also.  It was initially beneficial to the fish.


That sounds like alot of mutations to have to occur to effect that. And these were all mistakes?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 09:46 AM on December 20, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 09:46 AM on December 20, 2009 :

That sounds like alot of mutations to have to occur to effect that. And these were all mistakes?


They were all mutations, so what?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:53 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact they were all mistakes and the fish went from water breathing to land-air breathing, with arms, legs, the ability to defend itself on land, ability to eat land food. This is quite a feat based on mistakes. You think?





-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 2:48 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What did it have to defend against?  It was the first animal on land.  It would have had access to a much wider range of food on land without competition.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:53 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is my question not sensible? I am trying to figure out how a fish goes through certain mutations & how many to become a land animal and what needs to be accomplished for that to happen. Now I am told it is by mistake.
No, you were not.

Mutations could be called "mistakes". Evolution cannot.

It's as if you said you could make a sculpture by throwing rocks to a big rock.

No, by mistake is not how it happens.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:32 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That sounds like alot of mutations to have to occur to effect that. And these were all mistakes?

You seem to be hung up on semantics.  These changes were caused by mutations, copying errors, changes, in the DNA sequence of a cells genome.   We know what mutations do and that they do occur.  So I don't see what your objections are.  What do you propose to explain how fish became amphibians?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:36 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pretty amazing at the number of "perfect storms" (beneficial mutations)that must have occurred for the fish to evolve into a land animal. How many would we be talking about roughly? thousands, millions? (experts out there, anyone?)




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:07 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:07 PM on December 20, 2009 :
Pretty amazing at the number of "perfect storms" (beneficial mutations)that must have occurred for the fish to evolve into a land animal. How many would we be talking about roughly? thousands, millions? (experts out there, anyone?)


Again, no one knows how many mutations occurred. Probably billions of mutations happened between fish and reptiles, the vast majority of them were neutral. The process took millions of years, with billions, if not trillions, of organisms, each with mutations of their own.

It is not one single line of parent to child, but thousands of organisms each generation. The less fit to survive die out and those that are more fit to their environment pass on their genes to the next generation. There are really no problems with the number of mutations needed.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 6:11 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:07 PM on December 20, 2009 :
Pretty amazing at the number of "perfect storms" (beneficial mutations)that must have occurred for the fish to evolve into a land animal. How many would we be talking about roughly? thousands, millions? (experts out there, anyone?)




As I already mentioned, the estimate is somewhere around 63 million years...

Evolution is a constant process so you are attempting to find times for evolution between 2 undefined points. Tiktaalik, the transitional species between fish and amphibians lived around 375 mya, the first reptile is believed to be Hylonomus which is dated to around 312 mya, so you have an evolutionary period of about 63 million years.


We're talking potentially ten's of millions of generations each with slight variations to the parent. At around 100 mutations (or recombinations) per generation, it leaves the possibility of billions of genetic changes in the given time.

The biggest factors pushing evolution of terrestrial vertebrates was food sources and lack of predators. Invertabrates had been living on land for millions of years and the food supply for a large predator was almost endless. Early tetrapods were all carnivorous and took advantage of the plentiful arthropod and worm life.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:14 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pretty amazing at the number of "perfect storms" (beneficial mutations)that must have occurred for the fish to evolve into a land animal.

Not really since the harmful mutations are eliminated and beneficial mutations are retained.  It's called natural selection.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:08 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But aren't fish supposed to live in water? How would a mutation going the other way help a fish that needs water to survive?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:33 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:33 PM on December 20, 2009 :
But aren't fish supposed to live in water? How would a mutation going the other way help a fish that needs water to survive?


Wouldn't a fish that could also breath air have an advantage?  Isn't that how the walking catfish is invading Florida?  It is replacing native fish by walking from pond to pond out of the water.  Doesn't that give it an advantage that you can see right now?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:48 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:33 PM on December 20, 2009 :
But aren't fish supposed to live in water? How would a mutation going the other way help a fish that needs water to survive?


Any mutation that increases an animals environmental range has to be beneficial. These early air breathing fish could live both in and out of water, how is that not an advantage over an animal that can live only IN water? The Anabantoid fishes still have the early remnants of what became lungs. The labyrinth organ allows them to breath air that they take from the surface but their ancestors never gained the necessary mutations to take them comletely out of water.

(Edited by firechild 12/20/2009 at 9:09 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:08 PM on December 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But aren't fish supposed to live in water? How would a mutation going the other way help a fish that needs water to survive?

The water these fish lived in was getting shallower and less oxygenated.  A fish that could take oxygen from the air and crawl along the bottom of these shallower streams and lakes had a better chance of survival than those who couldn't.  What does "supposed" have to do with anything?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:11 AM on December 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
Pretty amazing at the number of "perfect storms" (beneficial mutations)that must have occurred for the fish to evolve into a land animal.
No "perfect storm" needed. Mutations that improve the fitness of a particular organism are few, but not prohibitively so. They are just positively selected.

Like Poker. You can select a good hand.

Would you say a perfect storm made that hand, or did it change and the cards that got along with the rest got selected somehow?

porkchop
But aren't fish supposed to live in water? How would a mutation going the other way help a fish that needs water to survive?
Seems like your fish got caught in a false dilemma.

(Edited by wisp 12/21/2009 at 08:40 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:38 AM on December 21, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 2:48 PM on December 20, 2009 :
The fact they were all mistakes and the fish went from water breathing to land-air breathing, with arms, legs, the ability to defend itself on land, ability to eat land food. This is quite a feat based on mistakes. You think?


Do you eat seafood?
How is it different from 'landfood'?  Did you experience mutations prior ot being able to eat it?  How many, and how do you know?  Were they all beneficial, or did you lose information?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:36 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 05:11 AM on December 21, 2009 :
The water these fish lived in was getting shallower and less oxygenated.  A fish that could take oxygen from the air and crawl along the bottom of these shallower streams ...


Is this second guessing? There are gazillions of fish still in the water today. After it rained & tributaries flowed into the water you spoke of , it got re - oxygenated , right? Then the fish were ok again.

I still give evolution a chance but I am not convinced in this scenario. It's too far fetched.



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:45 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:45 PM on December 21, 2009 :
Is this second guessing?


We see it happening for the lungfish and walking catfish today, why is it so far fetched?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:50 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have already stated the case. For a fish to become a land mammal would require countless beneficial mutations for no other reason then the fish no longer "wants" to live in water where they are best adapted for. Note the quotation marks.


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:17 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It doesn't "want" anything, it is better off expanding it's ability to survive.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:51 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:17 PM on December 21, 2009 :
I have already stated the case. For a fish to become a land mammal would require countless beneficial mutations for no other reason then the fish no longer "wants" to live in water where they are best adapted for. Note the quotation marks.


There is certainly no wanting involved. You have to remember that for all intents and purposes, the fish's offspring look exactly the same as the parent. As far as the fish knows (and this goes for creationists as well) the species is not changing. As you know, unless an organism reproduces by cloning, they are genetically slightly different to the parent. Multiply this slight change by a billion and you can see how much an organisms line can change over time.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:03 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
Apoapsis
porkchop
Is this second guessing? (...) It's too far fetched.
We see it happening for the lungfish and walking catfish today, why is it so far fetched?
I have already stated the case.
No, you haven't. There's no case. This thing you consider far fetched is happening today.

Are facts far fetched to you?

For a fish to become a land mammal
The fish didn't become a land mammal. Not directly.
would require countless beneficial mutations
Which you have if you give it lots of time.

Give it enough time and you'll always get a good hand.


The difference is that, when playing cards, you can imagine the future (and Evolution can't), and in Evolution you have millions of years (playing cards you don't).

for no other reason then the fish no longer "wants" to live in water where they are best adapted for. Note the quotation marks.
Quotations or no quotations you have no basis. There was a new ecological niche and the fish filled it.

You talk about a very long process (from fish to mammal). Why? Let's dissect the issue.

When you take into account that the fish actually evolved from fish to fish it suddenly isn't that improbable anymore.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:06 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I dunno, I am having a hard time swallowing this one. Fish are best suited to live in water. I would say that any mutations considered beneficial would only allow it to be a better adapted fish and swim better/faster. Don't you think so?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:45 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:45 PM on December 21, 2009 :
I dunno, I am having a hard time swallowing this one. Fish are best suited to live in water. I would say that any mutations considered beneficial would only allow it to be a better adapted fish and swim better/faster. Don't you think so?


No. We see this thing happen all the time; a new niche appears and an animal changes/adapt to it and forms a new species. What if a fish got a mutation where it could breathe both in the water and on land? Would that not be beneficial, especially in a climate where oxygen was decreasing in the water and the water itself was getting shallow?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 7:55 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution doesn't work in a single straight line it is constant divergence which is why we see so many species today. Some fish evolved better adaptations to the aquatic environment while others evolved to take advantage of terrestrial environments.

For example, if 2 closely related species of fish are living in a lake, one evolves to be substantially larger than the other and begins to prey on the other species. Some individuals of this species then evolve the ability to climb out of water and find food on land where there are no predators, which individuals are most likely to survive? Of course the smaller species could simply evolve to be as large as the other species but the problem is, the genetic mutations don't take it in that direction, there is no set path.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:55 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:17 PM on December 21, 2009 :
I have already stated the case. For a fish to become a land mammal would require countless beneficial mutations for no other reason then the fish no longer "wants" to live in water where they are best adapted for. Note the quotation marks.


Note the bolded part.

How do you know this?  How many mutations would it take, and how did you figure this out?






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:18 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from firechild at 7:55 PM on December 21, 2009 :
Evolution doesn't work in a single straight line it is constant divergence which is why we see so many species today. Some fish evolved better adaptations to the aquatic environment while others evolved to take advantage of terrestrial environments.

For example, if 2 closely related species of fish are living in a lake, one evolves to be substantially larger than the other and begins to prey on the other species. Some individuals of this species then evolve the ability to climb out of water and find food on land where there are no predators, which individuals are most likely to survive? Of course the smaller species could simply evolve to be as large as the other species but the problem is, the genetic mutations don't take it in that direction, there is no set path.


Why wouldn't the fish "evolve" to swim faster and keep away from the bigger fish like you see today with plenty of fast fish? Why not beneficial mutations for better fins to move more efficiently?
There are countless predators on the land!!!!

As for mutations to become a mammal, no one here has offered a ballpark number. Would it be in the millions? you have lungs, weight bearing legs, and multitude of other factors to consider to get the job done.



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:22 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:22 PM on December 21, 2009 :
Why wouldn't the fish "evolve" to swim faster and keep away from the bigger fish like you see today with plenty of fast fish? Why not beneficial mutations for better fins to move more efficiently?


Exactly as I said, it is a possibility, but only if the mutations allow for it. Evolution is not planned, it has no path that it has to follow.

There are countless predators on the land!!!!


Like what? At this time there were no mammals, no reptiles, no birds and not even any amphibians. What was going to prey on them?

As for mutations to become a mammal, no one here has offered a ballpark number. Would it be in the millions? you have lungs, weight bearing legs, and multitude of other factors to consider to get the job done.



Actually, you initially asked about the transition from fish to land dwelling. I responded to that and said that there was a time frame of roughly 63 million years and potentially several billion genetic changes based on a generation length of a few years (could have been substantially less in some cases and substantially more in others but a few years is a good average based on what we see in animals today) and based on the previous suggestion of 100 genetic variances in each generation.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:33 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:22 PM on December 21, 2009 :
Why wouldn't the fish "evolve" to swim faster and keep away from the bigger fish like you see today with plenty of fast fish?


What if the water is hot, muddy and all the predators are dead?

Why not beneficial mutations for better fins to move more efficiently?
There are countless predators on the land!!!!


Not for the first ones out, they would have the advantage and no predators.







-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:48 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You probably realize the scenario you have painted is purely conjecture, mere guesswork with examples such as the water getting shallower and less oxygenated forcing the fish to seek land. It is hard to take this seriously.

How many fish died leaving the water for the first time?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:52 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:52 PM on December 21, 2009 :
You probably realize the scenario you have painted is purely conjecture, mere guesswork with examples such as the water getting shallower and less oxygenated forcing the fish to seek land. It is hard to take this seriously.

How many fish died leaving the water for the first time?


Geological evidence shows us the conditions at certain points in history. But even without that assumption, there were predators in the aquatic environment but there were none on land. There is absolutely no reason it would not be beneficial to evolve to make use of a large, essentially untapped combination of resources that the terrestrial life offers.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:03 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:52 PM on December 21, 2009 :
You probably realize the scenario you have painted is purely conjecture, mere guesswork with examples such as the water getting shallower and less oxygenated forcing the fish to seek land. It is hard to take this seriously.

How many fish died leaving the water for the first time?



Not much conjecture needed when we can observe it happening right now.
Lungfish video

How many fish that couldn't breath air died in drying out water holes?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:44 PM on December 21, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is this second guessing? There are gazillions of fish still in the water today. After it rained & tributaries flowed into the water you spoke of , it got re - oxygenated , right? Then the fish were ok again.

No, this isn't second guessing, this is supported by geological evidence from the Devonian period.  The overall temperature of the earth was getting hotter, and while this wouldn't affect the oceans, the fresh water streams, lakes, tributaries were all getting shallower and less oxygenated.  Rain would have no affect on the oxygen content of these waters.  We see that wetlands were increasing, where water covered tangled vegetation.  So we know that these kind of habitats, the kind where a fish with secondary lungs and strong leg like fins would thrive.  Once again, these changes didn't occur to help the fish survive on land initially, they occurred because they helpled them survive in there present environment.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:54 AM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

have already stated the case. For a fish to become a land mammal would require countless beneficial mutations for no other reason then the fish no longer "wants" to live in water where they are best adapted for. Note the quotation marks.

And we've shown you where you're wrong.  "Want" has nothing to do with this, The mutations that were naturally selected aided the fish in better surviving in it's present environment, shallow streams and lakes.  
What evolution does is co-opt structures and organs an animal has that are already useful in it's present environment for use in a new environment when the old environment changes.  
I think your problem is that you think fish suddenly changed from living entirely in the water to living entirely on land.  This didn't happen.  Like walking catfish of today, initial trips onto land were short, maybe to escape a predator (there were NO predators on land), or to move a few feet of yards to another stream when theirs dried up.  Gradually, over millions of years, just as the fossil record shows us, some of these fish mutated more and could stay on land longer and longer and some didn't.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:08 AM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why wouldn't the fish "evolve" to swim faster and keep away from the bigger fish like you see today with plenty of fast fish? Why not beneficial mutations for better fins to move more efficiently?
There are countless predators on the
land!!!!


Because swimming faster was not an advantage in that environment!  And in the Devonian, there were NO predators on land, they hadn't evovled yet!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:14 AM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You probably realize the scenario you have painted is purely conjecture, mere guesswork with examples such as the water getting shallower and less oxygenated forcing the fish to seek land. It is hard to take this
seriously.


It's not conjecture or guess work, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence.  From here:
LateDevonian

"If this model is correct, the Middle and Late Devonian was warm and carbon dioxide rich, but with almost continuous relative oxygen deprivation. Even if further work suggest that the earlier estimates are more accurate, oxygen levels would still be relatively low in the Middle and Late Devonian. The Middle and Late Devonian were times of unprecedented change in the appearance of land surfaces across the planet. It saw the expansion of size (both height and average axis diameter), taxonomic and morphological diversity, habitats, and area of ground cover occupied by land plants. This had a profound effect upon the entire global system (Algeo et al. 1995, 2001; Algeo and Scheckler 1998)."

No guess work, conclusions drawn from the evidence.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:39 AM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm back (once again).

I would like to clarify that for a mutation to be beneficial, it has to have a positive effect in its current environment. Mutation in general is random (and most mutations are neutral), and in specific environments, some mutations are beneficial, because they help the fish survive better. Some of them are damaging, and are usually rooted out because those fish have less chance of surviving and mating.

Now, everyone has been talking about a specific time line, namely a possible scenario in which the fish would slowly be put in a scenario that provided more food and survival possibilities above water vs underwater. And in these conditions, "IF" that species of fish mutates in a way to be able to utilize this environment, it has a higher chance of success.

But you have to realize that this isn't the only thing going on. We're not talking about "one species of fish" that evolved as a whole. When you talk about fish that would probably be better suited with swimming faster in the water and being able to eat more there. You have another scenario that might have evolved to a group of fish in a different part of the world.
Because the environment isn't the same anywhere. It changes, constantly, so if in one environment, water is ebbing away very slowly, leaving the the water life there to adapt or die. Somewhere else, water might actually be rising, giving an environment where if fish evolve to utilize it, they might survive better?

Do you understand this?

There is no "single scenario" that is chosen and is the "only one" that happened. There are multiple scenarios and multiple of those may have happened in different regions of the world due to differing environments and pressures.


To sum it up:
The harmfullness of a mutation depends on the environment. Good, bad or neutral depends on the mutation in a specific environment. A good mutation in one environment might be bad in another.

Environments are different and change constantly all over the world, giving rise to many chances and possibilities for species around the world to adapt, get fitter (stronger in that environment) or less fit (weaker in that environment).

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 5:32 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can choose to only address specific posts, too many of you and too little of me.

"Environments are different and change constantly all over the world"

About these constantly changing environments: if a fish finds itself in one, how would a good mutation rectify itself when the environment changes again eventually? IOW, if the environ is constantly changing what good is a beneficial mutation for the old environment?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:57 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A lungfish can happily live in water without needing to dry out in a mud puddle, it is not a disadvantage.  But if it's pond does dry up, the mutations that were selected earlier will let it survive and other fishes won't.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:03 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But how long was his pond dried out for? I can split hairs here to prove a point. It's rather silly to dream up the "would be" scenarios because no one knows for certain. If the pond were dried up totally, mr. Lungfish would have been a pile of bones long ago. If the pond did not dry up, he would not be able to breathe out of water.


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:19 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Huh?  I'm talking about seasonal aridity that we see today.  No need to make up scenarios, they exist now.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:25 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:19 PM on December 22, 2009 :
But how long was his pond dried out for? I can split hairs here to prove a point. It's rather silly to dream up the "would be" scenarios because no one knows for certain. If the pond were dried up totally, mr. Lungfish would have been a pile of bones long ago. If the pond did not dry up, he would not be able to breathe out of water.


Would you agree that a lungfish is more likely to survive being dried up in a mud puddle than a rainbow trout?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:31 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:25 PM on December 22, 2009 :
Huh?  I'm talking about seasonal aridity that we see today.  No need to make up scenarios, they exist now.



If the pond were dried up totally, what would happen to the poor lungfish?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:33 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:33 PM on December 22, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 9:25 PM on December 22, 2009 :
Huh?  I'm talking about seasonal aridity that we see today.  No need to make up scenarios, they exist now.


If the pond were dried up totally, what would happen to the poor lungfish?


The lungfish would wait for the next rain.  A walking catfish could walk to another pond.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:44 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:19 PM on December 22, 2009 :
But how long was his pond dried out for? I can split hairs here to prove a point. It's rather silly to dream up the "would be" scenarios because no one knows for certain. If the pond were dried up totally, mr. Lungfish would have been a pile of bones long ago. If the pond did not dry up, he would not be able to breathe out of water.


Your hair splitting is just an exercise of making up scenarios.  Do you consider your scenarios to be universally true and those of others to be universally false?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:51 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:57 PM on December 22, 2009 :
I can choose to only address specific posts, too many of you and too little of me.

"Environments are different and change constantly all over the world"

About these constantly changing environments: if a fish finds itself in one, how would a good mutation rectify itself when the environment changes again eventually? IOW, if the environ is constantly changing what good is a beneficial mutation for the old environment?



You're not thinking these through far enough, you make it seem like there's only one pond, and it'd drying up too quick to adapt.
And although there surely might have been ponds that dried up too quickly for any mutation to have an effect.
We're talking about a scenario about a pond that takes a lot longer. As others point out, this is not an "unreal" scenario, things like this are happening in the world.

We're talking about a pond that could take thousands of generations to dissapear.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 05:22 AM on December 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or thousands of ponds. Those who walked between them should have more offspring.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:12 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:17 PM on December 21, 2009 :
I have already stated the case. For a fish to become a land mammal would require countless beneficial mutations for no other reason then the fish no longer "wants" to live in water where they are best adapted for. Note the quotation marks.


Note the bolded part.

How do you know this?  How many mutations would it take, and how did you figure this out?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:26 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 1:12 PM on December 23, 2009 :
Or thousands of ponds. Those who walked between them should have more offspring.


How did a fish get the ability to walk in the first place? Would they not have had to breathe out of water after evolving arms and legs  first? How long that would have taken? How did the fish know there were other ponds "down the road"? How about how many died trying to breathe out of the water, was that a good idea to attempt that? I thought water habitating fish struggle to get back into the water when they find themselves out by flopping to do so.




(Edited by porkchop 12/23/2009 at 5:25 PM).


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:08 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How did a fish get the ability to walk in the first place?

Their fins evolved to crawl around underwater in the vegatation strewn wetlands and swamps that dominated the landscape.  Stronger, leglike fins were an advantage in that environemnnt but they also worked as rudimentry legs on land.

Would they not have had to breathe out of water after evolving arms and legs  first?

And as I've said before, they already could breath air, that was another advantage that evolved while they were living totally in the water.

How long that would have taken?

I don't know....why does that matter?  The evidence shows it happened.

How did the fish know there were other ponds "down the road"?

They didn't know anything.

How about how many died trying to breathe out of the water, was that a good idea to attempt that?

Probably alot died, but enough survived to pass on the mutation.  And we've alreadu told you, they evolved lungs while they were still completely aquatic, it helped them while they were living in  the water.

I thought water habitating fish struggle to get back into the water when they find themselves out by flopping to do so.

Yep, they do and leg like fins and lungs would help them get there.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:44 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 22 23 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.