10th December 2005, 10:20 AM
lmao you called me an iconoclast in the wrong thread. Do you even know what it means? Last time I looked it means someone who tries to destroy religion. (a word created by the Romans...haha, almost every word in the english language was forulated from latin :D) Also it should be noted that I state specifically what is theory as the rest is well known study. But you choose to ignore that.
mu·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (my-tshn)
n.
The act or process of being altered or changed.
An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
Genetics.
A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
A mutant.
ev·o·lu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
natural selection
n.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
Now since you're not actually reading my posts anymore or being open to my ideas (to subjects that contain no ultimate facts and are all theorized) and you're arguing my opinions and ideas with your opinions and ideas which you think are fact and completely ignoring any valid point I made and i was really hoping you would take a stab at the reasons why animals will become foliage-like in their appearance (other than saying they change color which has nothing to do with the fact that they actually look JUST LIKE a leaf, or stick, or stick with leaves, specific leaves, a type of marine plant, etc) I will simply ask you: Show me how natural selection, mutation OR evolution (yes, they are two different things, one is a theory and the other is something we have actually witnessed) can create an animal that looks like a specific plant. To say it was evolution makes no sense, to say it was random mutation makes no sense (they just randomly happened to become stick-like and actually gain qualities that make them look like ONE specific plant?) and to say that it was natural selection makes no sense because you are again saying that by random events the entire genus suddenly became plant like.
There are no records, for example, of a human being suddenly having a trait that makes it more bug-like in appearance by gaining 8 eyes. For thousands of years, we have helped the retarded and the deformed and we will try to keep them alive and healthy in our society - so since some of these creatures have only been around for a few million years longer than human beings, how is it that we dont have people that look like other random objects? Since as you say, it is a proven fact that we simply change for no reason and the ones that survive become the new norm, how come we look so much alike eachother for the past 4 million years? How come we dont have people that look like plants? Or look like bugs? You say its random and is constantly changing, so... where's the random changes? Everything seems to be pretty streamlined and within a set scale of logical design. The same can be said about every single animal on the planet based on fossil records (there's no sabretooth cat that looks like a plant my friend)
If a bug randomly changes in to different forms and whatever works 'sticks' (punny :D) then how come we have not acheived any of these radical changes in the same time period? How come there is nothing that points to the ideal of randomness? Why is it that cats have always looked like cats, elephants have always looked like elephants etc with only slight modifications with absolutely no record of some random mutation? Why dont some apes look like trees? why is it that that all apes, as far back as the evolutionary tree allows us to see, have always been 'ape-like' in a slow, streamlined direction of logical purpose? Since, as you say, that mutation has to exist and be born in to the world so it can either die out or flourish, it would leave some evidence of its existence.
Based on what you say, all living things (including man) basically have no set boundries of DNA, and we will randomly look like different things every once in a while. You can point to midgets, you can point to tall people, you can point to fat people, you can say 'What about people born with one eye!' or what about 'Cats with no tail!" and the fact will remain that these changes are not random and that the whole of the structure remains intact in that it looks like a man with one eye or that it looks like a cat without a tail, not a cat that looks like a plant.
mu·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (my-tshn)
n.
The act or process of being altered or changed.
An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
Genetics.
A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
A mutant.
ev·o·lu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
natural selection
n.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
Now since you're not actually reading my posts anymore or being open to my ideas (to subjects that contain no ultimate facts and are all theorized) and you're arguing my opinions and ideas with your opinions and ideas which you think are fact and completely ignoring any valid point I made and i was really hoping you would take a stab at the reasons why animals will become foliage-like in their appearance (other than saying they change color which has nothing to do with the fact that they actually look JUST LIKE a leaf, or stick, or stick with leaves, specific leaves, a type of marine plant, etc) I will simply ask you: Show me how natural selection, mutation OR evolution (yes, they are two different things, one is a theory and the other is something we have actually witnessed) can create an animal that looks like a specific plant. To say it was evolution makes no sense, to say it was random mutation makes no sense (they just randomly happened to become stick-like and actually gain qualities that make them look like ONE specific plant?) and to say that it was natural selection makes no sense because you are again saying that by random events the entire genus suddenly became plant like.
There are no records, for example, of a human being suddenly having a trait that makes it more bug-like in appearance by gaining 8 eyes. For thousands of years, we have helped the retarded and the deformed and we will try to keep them alive and healthy in our society - so since some of these creatures have only been around for a few million years longer than human beings, how is it that we dont have people that look like other random objects? Since as you say, it is a proven fact that we simply change for no reason and the ones that survive become the new norm, how come we look so much alike eachother for the past 4 million years? How come we dont have people that look like plants? Or look like bugs? You say its random and is constantly changing, so... where's the random changes? Everything seems to be pretty streamlined and within a set scale of logical design. The same can be said about every single animal on the planet based on fossil records (there's no sabretooth cat that looks like a plant my friend)
If a bug randomly changes in to different forms and whatever works 'sticks' (punny :D) then how come we have not acheived any of these radical changes in the same time period? How come there is nothing that points to the ideal of randomness? Why is it that cats have always looked like cats, elephants have always looked like elephants etc with only slight modifications with absolutely no record of some random mutation? Why dont some apes look like trees? why is it that that all apes, as far back as the evolutionary tree allows us to see, have always been 'ape-like' in a slow, streamlined direction of logical purpose? Since, as you say, that mutation has to exist and be born in to the world so it can either die out or flourish, it would leave some evidence of its existence.
Based on what you say, all living things (including man) basically have no set boundries of DNA, and we will randomly look like different things every once in a while. You can point to midgets, you can point to tall people, you can point to fat people, you can say 'What about people born with one eye!' or what about 'Cats with no tail!" and the fact will remain that these changes are not random and that the whole of the structure remains intact in that it looks like a man with one eye or that it looks like a cat without a tail, not a cat that looks like a plant.