100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creatures That | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Seamonster
on
Sun 02/08/09 03:50 PM
|
|
Jean-Baptist Lamarck on the evolution of the giraffe.
In Lamarck's view, we must imagine a situation in the past where the best food for browsing mammals was higher up in trees, the lower vegetation having been eaten by other animals. The ancestors of the giraffe—which we should imagine like antelopes or deer—needed to adapt their behavior to this changing environment. As Lamarck wrote, "variations in the environment induce changes in the needs, habits and modes of life of living beings ... these changes give rise to modifications or developments in their organs and the shape of their parts". So Lamarck imagined that over generations the habit of continually reaching for the higher browse produced in the giraffe's ancestors a lengthening of the legs and neck. In many respects this is a classic formulation of how Darwin viewed evolution: every species consists of individuals that show considerable variations. Under certain environmental conditions particular variations will be most advantageous. Natural selection weeds out the unadapted and the best-adapted survive. These variations become dominant in the species and so it evolves. In the case of giraffes, times of drought and arid conditions give an advantage to those animals that can out-compete others by reaching the higher, untouched leaves. They form the ancestral stock of the animals that evolve into giraffes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But again you forgot to take into consideration while Lamarck is saying why it happen...With all that a giraffe is while it is evolving it would never work it would die.....So therefore all that makes up a giraffe was needed from the get go.....for the reason I stated on my original OP...And I read this when I was researching to do this thread....How convenient you left out why Lamarck theories were blown out of the water.
Jean-Baptist Lamarck on the evolution of the giraffe. In Lamarck's view, we must imagine a situation in the past where the best food for browsing mammals was higher up in trees, the lower vegetation having been eaten by other animals. The ancestors of the giraffe—which we should imagine like antelopes or deer—needed to adapt their behavior to this changing environment. As Lamarck wrote, "variations in the environment induce changes in the needs, habits and modes of life of living beings ... these changes give rise to modifications or developments in their organs and the shape of their parts". So Lamarck imagined that over generations the habit of continually reaching for the higher browse produced in the giraffe's ancestors a lengthening of the legs and neck. In many respects this is a classic formulation of how Darwin viewed evolution: every species consists of individuals that show considerable variations. Under certain environmental conditions particular variations will be most advantageous. Natural selection weeds out the unadapted and the best-adapted survive. These variations become dominant in the species and so it evolves. In the case of giraffes, times of drought and arid conditions give an advantage to those animals that can out-compete others by reaching the higher, untouched leaves. They form the ancestral stock of the animals that evolve into giraffes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But again you forgot to take into consideration while Lamarck is saying why it happen...With all that a giraffe is while it is evolving it would never work it would die.....So therefore all that makes up a giraffe was needed from the get go.....for the reason I stated on my original OP...And I read this when I was researching to do this thread....How convenient you left out why Lamarck theories were blown out of the water. Jean-Baptist Lamarck on the evolution of the giraffe. In Lamarck's view, we must imagine a situation in the past where the best food for browsing mammals was higher up in trees, the lower vegetation having been eaten by other animals. The ancestors of the giraffe—which we should imagine like antelopes or deer—needed to adapt their behavior to this changing environment. As Lamarck wrote, "variations in the environment induce changes in the needs, habits and modes of life of living beings ... these changes give rise to modifications or developments in their organs and the shape of their parts". So Lamarck imagined that over generations the habit of continually reaching for the higher browse produced in the giraffe's ancestors a lengthening of the legs and neck. In many respects this is a classic formulation of how Darwin viewed evolution: every species consists of individuals that show considerable variations. Under certain environmental conditions particular variations will be most advantageous. Natural selection weeds out the unadapted and the best-adapted survive. These variations become dominant in the species and so it evolves. In the case of giraffes, times of drought and arid conditions give an advantage to those animals that can out-compete others by reaching the higher, untouched leaves. They form the ancestral stock of the animals that evolve into giraffes. They were changed when Darwin added to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 02/08/09 03:58 PM
|
|
Feral it would have happened the same way a horse evolved. It would have been much smaller but one would have been born with a slighter longer neck for whatever reason. That animal would have better access to foliage so it would reproduce. Its young would have slightly longer necks. So on and so forth and over the course of millions of years you would have the giraffe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The horse is posted.... Ok so you say a horse...and so the I suppose the giraffe branched off from the horse.... By rights the blood flow should blow its brains out when it bends to drink water, but the lofty animal has a delicate series of spigots and a sponge that dissipate and absorb the rush of blood. "How could that evolve?" He needs all these parts there all the time, or he is dead. So where are the pictures that show the giraffe at different stages. And like it says above the Giraffe needs all of this from the beginning or it would die....so please explain that. 'feral', I feel for you!!! You need to think, read, inform yourself from other sources than apologetics and creationist sites. You're an intelligent person. You owe it to yoursef. Get the information right before you throw out these totally inept, silly, and profoundly ignorant apologetics and creationists 'cut & paste' questions and answers. It just doesn't honor the intelligent and articulate person you are, and it makes for a royal (or divine if you prefer) and confused mess of grossly misleading information. And by the way, why don't you answer that simple question I asked you a few posts back about YOUR formidable claim that 'EVOLUTION' is absolutely correct on the one hand (micro), and yet not correct at all on the other (macro). What material do YOU have to support that evolution IS ont he one hand, and ISN'T on the other hand. Any scientifically credible and valid papers you could submit to us on that formidable claim??? Must be very fresh, 'cuzz I sure haven't come across any such evidence in the course of my research. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which Darwin was also blown up with his theories....I did my research....
But again you forgot to take into consideration while Lamarck is saying why it happen...With all that a giraffe is while it is evolving it would never work it would die.....So therefore all that makes up a giraffe was needed from the get go.....for the reason I stated on my original OP...And I read this when I was researching to do this thread....How convenient you left out why Lamarck theories were blown out of the water. Jean-Baptist Lamarck on the evolution of the giraffe. In Lamarck's view, we must imagine a situation in the past where the best food for browsing mammals was higher up in trees, the lower vegetation having been eaten by other animals. The ancestors of the giraffe—which we should imagine like antelopes or deer—needed to adapt their behavior to this changing environment. As Lamarck wrote, "variations in the environment induce changes in the needs, habits and modes of life of living beings ... these changes give rise to modifications or developments in their organs and the shape of their parts". So Lamarck imagined that over generations the habit of continually reaching for the higher browse produced in the giraffe's ancestors a lengthening of the legs and neck. In many respects this is a classic formulation of how Darwin viewed evolution: every species consists of individuals that show considerable variations. Under certain environmental conditions particular variations will be most advantageous. Natural selection weeds out the unadapted and the best-adapted survive. These variations become dominant in the species and so it evolves. In the case of giraffes, times of drought and arid conditions give an advantage to those animals that can out-compete others by reaching the higher, untouched leaves. They form the ancestral stock of the animals that evolve into giraffes. They were changed when Darwin added to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW Voil to think you know me so well. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
I research and do a lot before I just put something out there.....So far nothing has come up that I haven't already checked and re-checked. And sorry doll but I didn't and don't take what I put out lightly......so maybe others might want to do the same before they answer. And really truly look in the mirror at yourself before you accuse others....Are you that perfect voil...Because I have never claimed to be...I put out what interest me, and my truth. If I believe that Creation is that....Then sorry i am not going to believe in evolution to pasify your or anyone else. I say and I stick by this....evolution within a species I will by.....that's it.....and I have said that all along. As far as your research voil what can I say the research is only as good as the researher who is finding it....I have been dealing with people like you for almost 10 years...My library of information would blow your mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 02/08/09 04:22 PM
|
|
Which Darwin was also blown up with his theories....I did my research What does that mean?.... And really truly look in the mirror at yourself before you accuse others....Are you that perfect voil...Because I have never claimed to be...I put out what interest me, and my truth. If I believe that Creation is that....Then sorry i am not going to believe in evolution to pasify your or anyone else. You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs. Who has ever questioned your own authority to believe in any of this Creationism stuff? But when you create a thread in GENERAL RELIGION essentially daring us all to put the Theory of Evolution to the test, what do you expect us to do? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Sun 02/08/09 04:37 PM
|
|
WOW Voil to think you know me so well. NOT EVEN CLOSE. I research and do a lot before I just put something out there.....So far nothing has come up that I haven't already checked and re-checked. And sorry doll but I didn't and don't take what I put out lightly......so maybe others might want to do the same before they answer. And really truly look in the mirror at yourself before you accuse others....Are you that perfect voil...Because I have never claimed to be...I put out what interest me, and my truth. If I believe that Creation is that....Then sorry i am not going to believe in evolution to pasify your or anyone else. I say and I stick by this....evolution within a species I will by.....that's it.....and I have said that all along. As far as your research voil what can I say the research is only as good as the researher who is finding it....I have been dealing with people like you for almost 10 years...My library of information would blow your mind. I hate to break it to you 'Feral', but your information sources lead you to make claims that are just, let's say ... profoundly misleading. Speaking of Girafffe evolution, and suggesting that 'Darwin's hypothesis around that one was, as you put it ... '... Darwin was blown up with is his theories...' What do you imply with this rather 'nuanced' and graphic statement??? What Darwin's theories are you talking about??? What does your 'Darwin blown up' claim suggest about the evolution of the Giraffe??? Are you suggesting and willing to let people believe that the Giraffe did not evolve because as you put it '... Darwin was blown up with is theories...'??? Please answer these simple questions, and we will compare notes. I trust our exchanges on this one alone will help forward this debate tremendously. P.S.: I can't wait to be blown by your library of information!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feral so far nothing in the existing fossil record has been anything other than what Darwin had predicted it would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The evolution/creation argument will go on forever. God works in mysterious ways. Only in laymen's circles. In science there is no argument. Evolution is scientific fact. The masses always take their good old time before accepting scientific fact. There are still a lot of people who don't like the idea that they evolved from monkeys. But they'll get over it eventually.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its only because they hurl their own feces and they only do that when they are very upset and depressed in captive zoo conditions so humans provoke that behavior.
Just for the record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh cmon how long have they been denouncing Ddarwin's theory of evolution. Even taking back teaching it in the schools....Cmon polls taken right now are showing that most people don't believe Darwin's theory on evolution.
Same applies to Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading and this is from other scientist. And my claim misleading to who...you voil...well that right their speaks volumes. WOW Now upon closer inspection it was seamonster who first copied and pasted about Lamarck who of course I also have research that claims he is full of it...And when I brought this point up to seamonster then of course he stated that changed the research when Darwin added to them....Well both people don't hold water with me......And imo try again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I expect you to show me proof of your precious evolution....which I have yet to see. Pictures that people make showing the horse with brances to other animals...sorry that doesn't cut it for me....show me iron clad proof not theories that the horse was and then eventually turned into a giraffe even though both are still here...and then fill it in with branches of evolution which of course for what purpose.....Why did the giraffe start off as a horse but still they both are here....and then throw in well the giraffe had to do that over 10 million years so it could reach food that was out of reach....but in that 10 million years what the hell was it doing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 02/08/09 04:55 PM
|
|
The only people that denounce Darwin's theory are evangelical Christians who insist on taking every single word of the bible as innerant, literal truth. They reprisent about 2% of the poulation and they are normally classified as "loose canons."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feral so far nothing in the existing fossil record has been anything other than what Darwin had predicted it would be. Absolutely. What do people think scientists are? Scientists are interested in TRUTH. Period. In fact, if any scientist could disprove evolution they would JUMP at the chance! It would mean WORLD FAME for them as well as a Nobel Prize and MONEY! In order for Feral to be right, all scientists would need to be in a conspiricy to hide the truth in favor of supporting a myth. For any layman to attempt to discredit evolution is truly an insult to scientists throughout the world. And no "scientist" who has opposed evolution has been able to provide any convincing evidence for that opposition. For if they did, they would be awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery. Science isn't an organized conspiracy to reject a particular religion. That's absurd. In fact there are many Christian scientists who have fully accepted evolution. Even the Catholic Pope has accepted evolution. Leave it up to the Protestants to continue to protest.  I see nothing wrong with a God who created us from lower animals. In fact, animals also have spirits. To think that they don't is nothing short of human arrogance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EVOLUTION IS A THEORY NOT A FACT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only people that denounce Darwin's theory are evangelical Christians who insist on taking every single word of the bible as innerant, literal truth. They reprisent about 2% of the poulation and they are normally classified as "loose canons." Truly. The only people who question evolution are religous fantatics who's religion will fall apart if the real world doesn't match their obviously false dogma. Sorry Feral. No match. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I constantly hear the Evangelicals saying that "science is out to get them". Why do you think this? They can’t substantiate any of the claims made in the bible because they aren’t real. They have to just experiment and work within the parameters of logic. Trust me, they don’t care about Christians. Most of them are not interested or even notice you exist. They spend their entire lives working on these theories and studying and making discoveries. Right now its all about DNA and genomes. They aren’t even looking for bones as much because they have enough and archeological digs are too expensive often times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EVOLUTION IS A THEORY NOT A FACT Evolution BEGAN as a theory Feral. Today evolution is an established fact based on observational evidence. The ancient idea that it's "Just a theory" not longer holds true. Today it's an established fact. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. |
|
|
|
|
