Science, Creation & Evolutionsubstitute biology teacherI'm jumping in the middle of this thread. I read the entire first page, and decided to jump to the last page. I might not have read all the stuff on this page, but the I find this a topic of some interest. You are saying here that because everything evolves (I'm not sure if this is an actual quote from the original text) it should not be possible to find fossiles of sponges AND see living sponges today. This is however, WRONG. As you yourself stated on page 1, the fittest survive. Who are the fittest? The ones that survive. Have you ever considered that the sponge might be so well-adapted to their surroundings that no change is necessary for this creature to be successful? The same we see in sharks and crocodiles. Their physiology has hardly changed the last 100 million years. My point is: Evolution is not FORCED upon animals. There is no one saying 'you haven't changed the last million years! Go on and be something else now!'. Evolution is the name of the process that allows the 'better' genes to triumph over 'not so good' genes. (There is a good deal of chance involved here as well. Animals with 'good genes' can die a premature death as well, without passing on their genes. It is better to talk about 'survival of the fittest' , where 'fittest' means 'the one that reproduces') If we take a look at the fossil record, we can conclude that sharks have hardly changed anything since long before the time of the dinosaurs. This does not mean that evolution is a myth, it simply means that shark are creatures with a successful physiology. Their capabilities have always provided them food. There are over a 100 species of shark world wide, which does indicate that evolution changed the basic design slightly over the years (adaptations to life in the deep sea, of a mouth that is very capable of eating crustaceans). With this piece of text, I would like to make clear that the argument 'sponges haven't evolved in millions of years' does not disprove evolution. P.S. About the part that fungi are our cousins: In a VERY early state, our ancestors split from what we now know as fungi. We are both life forms (forms of life) and we did start of in the same way. We are part of a whole group of life forms (we can them animals) that have evoled/adapted to an active physical form (we run and gather food). Other forms of life, including fungi have found a more passive way of life very successful (successful means in this context = being productive. Yes, the fungi also were 'fruitful, multiplied and populated the Earth'.) They rely on growing long threads that gather food, like plants. Animals only CHANGE (adapt, evolve) if another sequencing of their genes proves more successful. In nature, the unsuccessful die without breading. Or actually: Those who do not bread, ARE UNSUCCESFUL. That means that those who DO multiply, must have had something (sheer luck, or genes that allow them to handle their environment better) that allows them to reproduce. These genes are then implemented in the next generation. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame