Evolution in.....REVERSE! AND REALLY FAST !
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
Let's see. [taping my fingers]
How many times have I read that evolution takes a lot of time, NS and GM?
Frankly, Many times. I think the NS, GM and Time factors are the holy grail
of evolutionary theory.
Well, not anymore. That's right. It no longer takes a lot of time for
evolution to work. In fact, rapid evolution can happen; AND, we can also
have evolution in reverse! In fact we can even have rapid evolution and
backward evolution at the same time! How about THAT.
What a wonderful theory evolution is. In fact, I would say evolution can be
all things to everyone! Just pick your favorite color, model, and style of
evolution that suits your fancy and you are ALL set! Hell, you can mix and
match your theory of evolution too!
<quote>
"Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish
But the lake's recovery put at least one species in a pickle: the
three-spine stickleback.The small fish, formerly hidden in the murky depths,
found itself swimming in plain view of predators like cutthroat trout.
Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into _rapid
evolution_ toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.
Today's Lake Washington sticklebacks are a throwback to their ancestors,
which grew armored plates as a defense, according to Katie Peichel, a
biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
"We call it _'reverse evolution'_ because the sticklebacks are reverting to
an ancestral phenotype [or appearance], that of the marine sticklebacks,
which originally founded the lake populations," she said.
</quote>
You people do not have evolution here, or anywhere for that matter. What you
have here is a variation within the same species in order for that species
to survive.
Which is all you ever had.
Which is also all you will ever have.
It really is THAT simple.
I suggest: Get. Over. It.
H.T.H.
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
�.�Adman�.�
^^^^^^^^^^^
Friar Broccoli
Well, now that I've gotten over it (whatever "it" was).
I'm thinking.
If they're evolving BACKWARD now.
They must have evolved FORWARD (with NEW characteristics)
in the past.
wf3h
>
> How many times have I read that evolution takes a lot of time, NS and GM?
> Frankly, Many times. I think the NS, GM and Time factors are the holy grail
> of evolutionary theory.
well let's see....your reference does not state a time period so
there's a disconnect between what you're saying and what the article
says
>
> Well, not anymore. That's right. It no longer takes a lot of time for
> evolution to work. In fact, rapid evolution can happen;
'rapid evolution' is an old idea. hell, i'm not an evolutionary
biologist and even i came across the term several years ago when
reading about the evolution of fishes. so why are you
surprised...unless, of course, you're a creationist and have no idea
what science says
AND, we can also
> have evolution in reverse! In fact we can even have rapid evolution and
> backward evolution at the same time! How about THAT.
gee. backward evolution also shows up in the "NY Times" article i
posted about h. floresensis. IOW it's not a new or unique idea.
>
> What a wonderful theory evolution is. In fact, I would say evolution can be
> all things to everyone! Just pick your favorite color, model, and style of
> evolution that suits your fancy and you are ALL set! Hell, you can mix and
> match your theory of evolution too!
except, of course, evolution can't "POOF" things into existence like
the magic of creationism can....and which is NEVER seen.
you'd think that, after 2000 years, creationists would have a SINGLE
example of creation....but nope. still looking!
IOW creationism is
USELESS USELESS USELESS
>
> You people do not have evolution here, or anywhere for that matter. What you
> have here is a variation within the same species in order for that species
> to survive.
?? uh....now you've gone and confused yourself. does the article
mention SPECIATION? if it DOES you've clipped it out. if it DOESNT
then it doesnt support your conclusion
IOW you're reasoning like a creationist....no logic at all.
>
> It really is THAT simple.
>
> I suggest: Get. Over. It.
>
why? you haven't gotten over your 2000 year failure of creationism.
it's USELESS
[M]adman
the more you squeel, the more i know that i am correct
Dr. Acula
Which is evolution, even if worded improperly.
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
> :
> : why? you haven't gotten over your 2000 year failure of creationism.
> : it's USELESS
>
> the more you squeel, the more i know that i am correct
squealed the creationist, after 2000 years of failure
John Stockwell
Please explain the law of faunal succession.
Chris
> Let's see. [taping my fingers]
If you think we're impressed because you're trying to act like a
football player or a boxer, that's really sad.
> How many times have I read that evolution takes a lot of time, NS and GM?
> Frankly, Many times. I think the NS, GM and Time factors are the holy grail
> of evolutionary theory.
I really can't begin to guess how many times you can read something
without comprehending it. My guess is...many, many times.
> Well, not anymore. That's right. It no longer takes a lot of time for
> evolution to work. In fact, rapid evolution can happen; AND, we can also
In fact, we've known that for a long time. Remember speciation in
_Spartina_?
> have evolution in reverse! In fact we can even have rapid evolution and
> backward evolution at the same time! How about THAT.
<yawn>
> What a wonderful theory evolution is. In fact, I would say evolution can be
> all things to everyone! Just pick your favorite color, model, and style of
> evolution that suits your fancy and you are ALL set! Hell, you can mix and
> match your theory of evolution too!
Yep. You can even make straw men out of it. Won't help advance your
case any, but you can do it.
> <quote>
>
> "Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish
>
> But the lake's recovery put at least one species in a pickle: the
> three-spine stickleback.The small fish, formerly hidden in the murky depths,
> found itself swimming in plain view of predators like cutthroat trout.
>
> Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into _rapid
> evolution_ toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.
> Today's Lake Washington sticklebacks are a throwback to their ancestors,
> which grew armored plates as a defense, according to Katie Peichel, a
> biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
>
> "We call it _'reverse evolution'_ because the sticklebacks are reverting to
> an ancestral phenotype [or appearance], that of the marine sticklebacks,
> which originally founded the lake populations," she said.
>
> </quote>
<yawn>
Old news. Really, really old news.
> You people do not have evolution here, or anywhere for that matter. What you
> have here is a variation within the same species in order for that species
> to survive.
Well, I will see your three spines and raise you three speciation
events in 100 years.
> Which is all you ever had.
<yawn>
> Which is also all you will ever have.
<yawn>
> It really is THAT simple.
>
> I suggest: Get. Over. It.
Do you have to pass through low doorways on a regular basis or
something? It seems like you keep hitting your head.
Chris
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Let's see. [taping my fingers]
>
>How many times have I read that evolution takes a lot of time, NS and GM?
>Frankly, Many times. I think the NS, GM and Time factors are the holy grail
>of evolutionary theory.
>
>Well, not anymore. That's right. It no longer takes a lot of time for
>evolution to work. In fact, rapid evolution can happen; AND, we can also
>have evolution in reverse!
No, you can't. Honest.
> In fact we can even have rapid evolution and
>backward evolution at the same time! How about THAT.
Wrong again Mudbrain.
>
>What a wonderful theory evolution is. In fact, I would say evolution can be
>all things to everyone! Just pick your favorite color, model, and style of
>evolution that suits your fancy and you are ALL set! Hell, you can mix and
>match your theory of evolution too!
>
><quote>
>
>"Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish
>
>But the lake's recovery put at least one species in a pickle: the
>three-spine stickleback.The small fish, formerly hidden in the murky depths,
>found itself swimming in plain view of predators like cutthroat trout.
>
>Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into _rapid
>evolution_ toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.
>Today's Lake Washington sticklebacks are a throwback to their ancestors,
>which grew armored plates as a defense, according to Katie Peichel, a
>biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
>
>"We call it _'reverse evolution'_
even though it isn't.
> because the sticklebacks are reverting to
>an ancestral phenotype [or appearance], that of the marine sticklebacks,
>which originally founded the lake populations," she said.
>
></quote>
>
>You people do not have evolution here, or anywhere for that matter. What you
>have here is a variation within the same species in order for that species
>to survive.
That is the basis of evolution Mudbrain.
>
>Which is all you ever had.
>
>Which is also all you will ever have.
>
>It really is THAT simple.
>
>I suggest: Get. Over. It.
>
>H.T.H.
No, it didn't, it just exposed your stupidity.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>the more you squeel, the more i know that i am correct
It may happen one day Mudbrain - but I will not hold my breath
waiting.
--
Bob.
Will in New Haven
Whatta maroon.
--
Will in New Haven
Gary Bohn
> You people do not have evolution here, or anywhere for that matter. What you
> have here is a variation within the same species in order for that species
> to survive.
>
Variation within the same species, hmm. Yup that's evolution, at least
as defined by science for a whole pile of years.
> Which is all you ever had.
>
> Which is also all you will ever have.
From this I assume you believe there is a process or a function that
will stop the change within a species before it becomes an
identifiably new species.
And just what might this mechanism be?
What mechanism is there that can stop a raccoon's genome becoming
exactly like a bear's? Is there a limit to the number of changes
allowed in DNA? What determines that number? What limits changes to
that number?
Maybe you prefer think of it as information. If so, what is the
difference in information between a bear and a raccoon? Can the amount
of information be changed? Can it be lost? Gained? What mechanism
disallows new information from passing the species barrier?
Or are bears and raccoons the same species?
Please, I'm waiting with baited breath. (I tried holding my breath
once but I passed out, so I now have worms)
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et>:
>Let's see. [taping my fingers]
Try taping your mouth. And insert plugs in your nostrils. In
less than 5 minutes your intelligence will increase.
<snip idiocy>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ye Old One
Yes. He did.
>
>Whatta maroon.
Yes, he is :)
--
Bob.
Erwin Moller
> Let's see. [taping my fingers]
>
> How many times have I read that evolution takes a lot of time, NS and GM?
> Frankly, Many times. I think the NS, GM and Time factors are the holy grail
> of evolutionary theory.
>
> Well, not anymore. That's right. It no longer takes a lot of time for
> evolution to work. In fact, rapid evolution can happen; AND, we can also
> have evolution in reverse! In fact we can even have rapid evolution and
> backward evolution at the same time! How about THAT.
Old news Maddie.
>
> What a wonderful theory evolution is. In fact, I would say evolution can be
> all things to everyone! Just pick your favorite color, model, and style of
> evolution that suits your fancy and you are ALL set! Hell, you can mix and
> match your theory of evolution too!
Much unlike your God?
He can do anything too.
Wonderful theory you have there according to your own standards (that
change with each posting to suit your needs, as we all know).
At least TEO has evidence to support it.
<snip>
>
> You people do not have evolution here, or anywhere for that matter. What you
> have here is a variation within the same species in order for that species
> to survive.
???
And how excactly does 'variation within the same species' debunk TEO?
>
> Which is all you ever had.
>
> Which is also all you will ever have.
>
> It really is THAT simple.
Many things look simple untill properly explored.
>
> I suggest: Get. Over. It.
Get over the shame I feel when I meet a fellowhuman who refuses to use
his brains properly?
Not quickly: it keeps irritating me.
>
> H.T.H.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Erwin Moller
Maddie: You know you are correct anyway.
No well formulated argument, no evidence, *nothing* would make you
change your mind.
That is why you are a creationist and a fundamentalist: You are unable
to learn new things and correct previous mistakes.
And wf3h: please keep on squeeling. ;-)
Always a pleasure.
Regards,
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> Let's see. [taping my fingers]
May I interject a comment here, as a martial artist? In a street fight
(or martial sport, like boxing), a first straight right may not get
thru, but a subsequent one could. This is normal. Sometimes repeating
a particular punch (not necessarily sequentially) will have a
cumulative effect, and win the fight.
But truth doesn't work that way. If you offer an argument, and someone
explains why it's wrong it's WRONG FOREVER. Unless you come up with a
new variation, one which answers previous objections.
If you offer what you think is data, and someone demonstrates why it
is not, it is BOGUS, and stays bogus forever.
When you repeat something which has already been shown to be wrong, it
doesn't mean that there's a chance it will be right *this time. It
means that you are incapable of learning.
Now, on with your post...
>
> How many times have I read that evolution takes a lot of time, NS and GM?
We have said things like "it took two billion years to get from the
first micro-organisms to metazoans" or "it took a couple of million
years to get from the first homo erectus to modern humans",
Every time you say something like this you are told multiple times
that evolution is ongoing, and happens in every generation.
If you want to see big changes (e.g. the development of flying wings
in theropods), then you will have to wait a while, especially in
organisms that take a year (or more) per generation.
> Frankly, Many times. I think the NS, GM and Time factors are the holy grail
> of evolutionary theory.
>
Eh? WTF are you talking about?
We have discussed rapid changes (like observed speciation of
Mediterranean lizards in 20 years) and more profound and lengthy
changes (like primitive notochords in the Cambrian to modern kangaroos
and humans).
> Well, not anymore. That's right. It no longer takes a lot of time for
> evolution to work. In fact, rapid evolution can happen; AND, we can also
> have evolution in reverse! In fact we can even have rapid evolution and
> backward evolution at the same time! How about THAT.
>
You have been given examples of rapid evolution before.
> What a wonderful theory evolution is. In fact, I would say evolution can be
> all things to everyone! Just pick your favorite color, model, and style of
> evolution that suits your fancy and you are ALL set! Hell, you can mix and
> match your theory of evolution too!
Many features - such as teeth in birds - were simply turned off in
their genetic code. These can be turned back on with minimal mutations
(sometimes just one). Something like armor plating might slow the fish
down slightly, or require more food, but if it protects them from
predators, it would have a reproductive advantage.
This isn't hard to understand.
Humans are occasionally born with tails, or with fur. We are *never
born with feathers, or wings. Why? Because our recent ancestors had
fur, and tails, but wings and feathers are not in our lineage.
Features which are turned off can be turned on. Developing truly new
structures takes time.
>
> <quote>
>
> "Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish
>
> But the lake's recovery put at least one species in a pickle: the
> three-spine stickleback.The small fish, formerly hidden in the murky depths,
> found itself swimming in plain view of predators like cutthroat trout.
>
> Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into _rapid
> evolution_ toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.
> Today's Lake Washington sticklebacks are a throwback to their ancestors,
> which grew armored plates as a defense, according to Katie Peichel, a
> biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
>
> "We call it _'reverse evolution'_ because the sticklebacks are reverting to
> an ancestral phenotype [or appearance], that of the marine sticklebacks,
> which originally founded the lake populations," she said.
>
> </quote>
>
> You people do not have evolution here, or anywhere for that matter. What you
> have here is a variation within the same species in order for that species
> to survive.
Yes. This is called "evolution". When the species changes enough
(criteria differ for significantly different organisms) so that they
do not normally or cannot normally mate with the parent gene pool,
they are considered to be a different species. In time, they will
become very different, or perhaps extinct.
>
> Which is all you ever had.
>
Evidence and a testable model? Yes, that's all that science had ever
had.
Which has resulted in reattaching severed limbs, curing childhood
leukemia, the internet, the Hubble Space Telescope, genetically
engineered bacteria which produce human insulin, CDs and DVDs, and on
and on.
Which advances have come from literal interpretations of ancient
texts?
> Which is also all you will ever have.
>
Yes. Evidence, and explanations that work.
> It really is THAT simple.
And yet...
And yet...
You still don't understand it.
>
> I suggest: Get. Over. It.
Sure. As soon as you give up the stuff you use generated by science.
>
> H.T.H.
> --
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Kermit