Eyes-Wide-Open wrote:
Mrindigo wrote:
Eyes-Wide-Open wrote:
But can Evolution be trusted did Dinasaurs really get wiped out by meteors or was it "the flood" that nearly every ancient culture and religion refers too did Annunaki splice us hence we all are somewhat humanoid e.g Aliens, Humans etc for a start they have found dinasaurs bones with flesh still on that date them too be alive not so long ago and footprints I will find source later...
Personally I don't believe in Evolution for a start carbon dating doesn't hold it's own
The base model can be trusted, though it is a theory that needs some modern reevaluation. There have been some cases where species were witnessed adapting and changing right before the eyes of the Scientific and Naturalist communities. I'm reminded of a species of Anole (Small insectivore lizards) from the Bahamas. They were wiped out on some small islands during 2004, after some harsh hurricanes. Scientists thought it would be interesting to test the evolutionary model by dropping a few on each island, and seeing what happened. To their surprise, they adapted rather quickly. Some adapted smaller hind legs to deal with the dense foliage. Having done so, they were more agile. It's not the first documented case of something like this happening. Shifts in species and adaptation in some cases is faster than traditional evolutionary models.
It makes sense that animals would have the ability to rapidly adapt. The climate of the planet is never a constant. It always changes, and always will. Factor that in with natural disasters, and shifts in geophysical formation, and they would have to be able to do that, or go extinct.
What you are talking about is known as micro-evolution also regarded as Natural Selection that in no way proves Evolution if they could prove macro i.e one species changing into a complete other then Evolution would be true... It's like the DNA of humans and how some are superior they had better DNA from the parents the same way we inhertit colours of eyes and hair... If there is a pack of tigers that can run really fast and among it are a few slow ones the slow ones will inevitabley be easier to be killed for example and so the faster ones will breed leading too stronger muscles etc wether slow twitch or fast but you get my basic jist...
I'm aware of what it's called, but thank you. Evolution doesn't work the way you're describing it. In the base model, none of the creatures just change into a completely new and unique creature. It's a change that occurs over several generations. Almost always, there there are residual/vestigial organs, appendages, bones, etc. For example, humans still have a tailbone leftover from a common ancestor of the great ape that once had a tail.
On a genetic level How a creature develops, depends on several variables (Climate, food/water, competition, predators, disease, etc). Not all of the creatures of that particular species changes or evolves either. Some could be in an environment where their physiological and psychological forms are perfectly suited, hence why there are still ancient armored fish, and newer, faster, sleeker fish today. Others of that same species could have left that environment, which forced them to begin to adapt to new territory. Those adaptations begin to get singled out through natural selection as you've gone over. At that point it's down to the allele frequencies of individuals within a given population, as to whether the new genetic variations propagate or not. If it works out, the process which creates a new species could be started.
I still think the base model of the theory is a good place to start from, but like I stated previously, it needs some modern reevaluation.
, a doob 
, and perhaps some magic mushrooms.... 
