Current Events > Is there any scientific evidence at all, that does not support evolution?

(+) Yeah! (+)

AloneIBreak posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

Oh I did not get that reference at all

Toonstrack posted...

Either way you use the word we've won that lottery many times over. Theres a pretty big gap between us and whatever is the next most advanced thing

There's a pretty big gap in size and strength between dinosaurs and everything else. They were the peak of evolution but it turns out that size was a detriment when asteroid came. The smaller animals were better suited for what came next. Yea nothing comes close to us in terms of intelligence, but should nuclear armageddon happen, maybe we survive as a species, but the cockroaches are definitely making it.

Our brains work really well in our niche, but they don't work in every spot. The antelope that needs extra time to learn how to walk because it's brain is doing so much extra is the antelope that's eaten. The lion that needs it's mom to feed it for 10 years before it can hunt on it's own is the lion that dies at age 5 when their dad loses control of the pride. The bear cub that needs extra meat to run their larger brain is the cub that doesn't survive the winter hibernation. There's a lot of evolutionary factors discouraging developing intelligence, but yea we hit the lottery and had just the right conditions where the brain helped more than it hurt: we needed creativity in finding food but weren't overly concerned about predators. Or if it makes you feel better, you can view the Apple Bible story as an analogy for us getting pushed into advanced intelligence.

bfslick50 posted...

There's a pretty big gap in size and strength between dinosaurs and everything else. They were the peak of evolution but it turns out that size was a detriment when asteroid came. The smaller animals were better suited for what came next. Yea nothing comes close to us in terms of intelligence, but should nuclear armageddon happen, maybe we survive as a species, but the cockroaches are definitely making it.

Our brains work really well in our niche, but they don't work in every spot. The antelope that needs extra time to learn how to walk because it's brain is doing so much extra is the antelope that's eaten. The lion that needs it's mom to feed it for 10 years before it can hunt on it's own is the lion that dies at age 5 when their dad loses control of the pride. The bear cub that needs extra meat to run their larger brain is the cub that doesn't survive the winter hibernation. There's a lot of evolutionary factors discouraging developing intelligence, but yea we hit the lottery and had just the right conditions where the brain helped more than it hurt: we needed creativity in finding food but weren't overly concerned about predators. Or if it makes you feel better, you can view the Apple Bible story as an analogy for us getting pushed into advanced intelligence.

yeah great post, i couldn't have said it better myself. But were the dinosaurs really the peak , of animals being big? Supposedly everything larger than a horse was wiped out by the dinosaurs asteroid. But after the dust settled animals quickly became huge again. The blue whale is larger than any dinosaur ever was and megalodon was larger than most dinosaurs too.

Thought of another one. The insect that runs the risk of dying with every single birth has no chance of competing with their neighbor that laid a hundred eggs without breaking a sweat. A social structure of taking care of your young has to come first before intelligence even has a chance of developing. Too much information to be innate, it has to be taught at that point, so someone has to be around to teach it.

Yea I guess I overgeneralized with regards to the dinosaurs.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

see also: shoebill

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/2/9/AAEhCpAAEnPx.jpg

MisterPengy posted...

It's not so much that "survival of the fittest" is wrong, it's just not really accurate.

Sloths are a good example. They're sure as hell not fitter than any thing else. They survive by basically being unappealing; They smell bad and don't have enough meat for a large predator to target. But evolution-wise, they're successful, because they are able to survive and reproduce.

I always thought a better way of stating it was "survival of the barely able"

Because I've seen types of people that think "evolution says we should have wings and built in armor, and hawk eyes, because... evolution. Therefore evolution isn't real"

The technical definition of "fitness" is survival/reproducing, rather than the more normal colloquial sentiment of fitness.

Yeah. Bc evolution supposedly happens slowly over a long period of time via natural selection. But eyeballs didn't appear in a single generation, some creature first developed like eye cavities or something, but what's the benefit of those? Why would those genes continue on?

lilORANG posted...

Yeah. Bc evolution supposedly happens slowly over a long period of time via natural selection. But eyeballs didn't appear in a single generation, some creature first developed like eye cavities or something, but what's the benefit of those? Why would those genes continue on?

We're still figuring that out. It's especially hard to figure out because eyes and other soft tissue is rarely left behind in the fossil. However if you're genuinely curious on the latest scientific understanding then this article would be a good place for you to start.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/

Notti posted...

I always thought a better way of stating it was "survival of the barely able"

Because I've seen types of people that think "evolution says we should have wings and built in armor, and hawk eyes, because... evolution. Therefore evolution isn't real"

"Survival of the fit enough" was how my evolutionary biology professor phrased it back in university. Just had to survive to reproduce.

bfslick50 posted...

We're still figuring that out. It's especially hard to figure out because eyes and other soft tissue is rarely left behind in the fossil. However if you're genuinely curious on the latest scientific understanding then this article would be a good place for you to start.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/

isn't the eye , something that many creationists point to , to kinda disprove evolution? like what good is a half-made, eye? Yeah, but iirc , scientists have completely debunked that.

Isnt there a distinct lack of bodies for the ancestors between monkeys and cavemen? Like they only ever found like 1 or 2?

Youd have thought theyd have been thousands.

SHRlKE posted...

Isnt there a distinct lack of bodies for the ancestors between monkeys and cavemen? Like they only ever found like 1 or 2?

There isn't.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/5/0/AAE9Z7AAEn6S.png

bfslick50 posted...

There isn't.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/5/0/AAE9Z7AAEn6S.png

Sorry. I didn't meant they hadn't found examples at all. I meant more they didn't find many examples of each step along the way.

SHRlKE posted...

Sorry. I didn't meant they hadn't found examples at all. I meant more they didn't find many examples of each step along the way.

Only 6 Spinosaurus fossils have been found. T-rex is at a more impressive 50-ish specimen found. Thousands of woolly mammoth tusks have been found but a giant bone in cold climate preserves well. Smaller things in hot wet climates don't fare so well, which is why Panthera Blytheae (the common ancestor of lions, tigers, jaguars, and leopards) only has a single fossil and an incomplete one at that. Why would expect humans evolving in Africa to have exponentially more fossils than most other species?