Chicken or the egg?

[Dr Bling]

That's K. I can live with people not being able to take a joke and/or infer that unedumacated means uneducated. really, it looks a lot more like "uneducated" than

Why can't you spell right all the time...?

[Ad Bot]

[Mateo]

Why can't you spell right all the time...?

When you aren't in an argument or if you don't entirely want to be taken seriously, why should you act serious?

EDIT: Also, fine. I beg for your forgiveness, m'lord. For I was so obviously in the wrong. I will try harder not to bring humor/irony into any more conversations.

[Dr Bling]

Because Blockland Off Topic is serious business.

[Thorax]

It's not called "Natural Seletion", it's called genetics. Even though the physical traits of the animals change over time, it doesn't change them into another species. Dogs are a great example of this. We've had dogs for ages and they've changed, but we still have dogs. There hasn't been one documented change of one species to another. The fossil record doesn't support this either. Darwin himself wrote: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Natural selection basically says that the things with better traits live more. Also the reason things can or can't live simultaneously depends on how much the things that evolve from the earlier creatures changed for the better. If you have a fish living on a mountain that can only eat flies and then it evolves into a goat that can eat bunches and bunches of flies at a time the goat would eventually overrun the fishies by not letting the fish get food. (This is only an example, of course. I can nearly guarantee this would never happen.)

Now, what your saying here is the survival of the fittest. But if the animals that are weaker are always dying out quickly, how do they have millions of years to evolve into something that will survive?

And for the common ancestor idea:

The presence of homologous structures can actually be interpreted as evidence for a common designer. Contrary to the oversimplified claim in this figure, the forelimbs of vertebrates do not form in the same way. Specifically, in frogs the phalanges form as buds that grow outward and in humans they form from a ridge that develops furrows inward. The fact that the bones can be correlated does not mean that they are evidence of a single common ancestor.

[Mateo]

Now, what your saying here is the survival of the fittest. But if the animals that are weaker are always dying out quickly, how do they have millions of years to evolve into something that will survive?

Not everything that was around a long time ago is around now. Things evolve and things go extinct, it's how life works. Also a better version of a creature doesn't mean that that creature is the only one to be able to survive there. So over millions of years small changes to benefit species end up helping creatures survive a lot.

And the "weaker" animals don't always die out quickly. In fact just because they were around longer doesn't always mean they are weaker. If you have one a car, then you take another car of the same type and glue a box to the top of it it doesn't really mean either one is much much worse than the other, aside from one being more aesthetically pleasing.

There is also (forgot the name, "separated evolution" I will call it.) separated evolution, in which one species is split into 2 groups because of a natural formation. I.e. a group of squirrels are split up because a river forms between the 2. The 2 squirrel species cannot mate with each other because of the river, so over time both types of squirrels adapt differently to their surroundings, resulting in 2 different species of squirrel.

EDIT: Also, it doesn't have to be where the new, better suited species has to whipe out the other species. But the traits it has generally get passed on more because of their increased survival rate, eventually making the older ones more rare.

[Thorax]

There is also (forgot the name, "separated evolution" I will call it.) separated evolution, in which one species is split into 2 groups because of a natural formation. I.e. a group of squirrels are split up because a river forms between the 2. The 2 squirrel species cannot mate with each other because of the river, so over time both types of squirrels adapt differently to their surroundings, resulting in 2 different species of squirrel.

That's not evolution. That's the variation of a species. Thery're both squirls. Not much else happened to change them into anything else. Also, what makes you think that there is millions of years of time involved. Can you tell me one way in which you can prove with evidence that millions of years have happened?

[Mateo]

That's not evolution. That's the variation of a species. Thery're both squirls. Not much else happened to change them into anything else. Also, what makes you think that there is millions of years of time involved. Can you tell me one way in which you can prove with evidence that millions of years have happened?

That happened at the grand canyon. The squirrels on both sides of it can't mate with each other now. Also clarify the question please.

If you're asking how I know millions of years have happened, well I don't. You can't really prove anything without actual visual proof.

[Thorax]

I was asking how you knew millions of years happened. You kind of answered that. So you're making the assumption that millions of years have happened to form these new species, yet you don't know for sure if millions of years have happened. Kind of a flawed argument.

[Mateo]

I never said I believed in evolution. You asked how evolution worked, so I explained how I was taught it worked.

[Thorax]

You sounded like you were defending it. My mistake.

[Packer]

This question to me is, if you bible in the Bible or common sense.

[Brickman]

Ever notice how everything just seems to fall inplace with evolution? I mean geeze, seroiusly "Why are monkeys here today?" "Because there where three different things that evolved" "Why don't we see the other one?" "Because it died" "What mutated them?" Etc. It's just plain nonsense, if you ask one offensive thing about evolution there's a new answer that a scientist just pulled out of his ass.

[Mateo]

Every answer brings more questions. Scientists could say the exact same thing about christianity. :/

[Brickman]

Every answer brings more questions. Scientists could say the exact same thing about christianity. :/

Before this topic gets about religion, there's no way to prove Christianity, it's all faith, thus people beleiving it's not real and such.

[Mateo]

Fine, then how about this:

Just because you didn't know it, doesn't mean it isn't a viable answer.