>>17868952
Atlanteans taught it.

>>17868952
How does a bowerbird know how to make ornate nests? All the pufferfish knows is that doing this will increase his odds of passing his genes on. He doesn't know that it's beautiful.

>>17869014
>>How does a bowerbird know how to make ornate nests?
Good question. So, how?

Are you saying it's just evolution through natural selection? Billions upon billions of generations of fish just made random lines in the sand until it was this circle? How many eons did this process take?

Can you make a mathematical calculation of this? Would it really fit into 4.5 billion years?

>>17869014
Bruh, pretty sure thats part of an octopus mating ritual to attract some love

>>17869030
It took around 3.7 billion years, give or take a few million. You don't need to make a mathematical calculation, either- you would need to make an analysis using behavioral science, general biology, environmental science/marine environment analysis, and and physiological studies of at least 6 generations of puffer-fish.

To be less snide, it probably only took millions of years within the closest common ancestor of the puffer-fish- I can't imagine that the puffer-fish would exist if something never gave birth to several proto-puffer-fish, some of whom that decided to make circles in the sand to attract mates.

But you don't have to go far to understand that animals have minds, that some at least have some form of sentience, and that some clearly do behave and remember things. The puffer-fish simply have a behavioral dispositon to do this- see >>17869014. It's said to be passed on through genes, which isn't an exactly planned thing, but it happens because those who did pass this pre-formatted information on made more children.

Human babies don't get this benefit anymore, because the head has to be squeezed through the vagina (lest we do a c-section). So, babies come out almost completely blank, save for their autonomous processes like breathing and a pulse. Then their brains develop, and we teach them things, and they hopefully learn.

(Replace puffer-fish with preferred creature).

>>17869030
I dunno if you're a /pol/ack, but there is a guy who makes alt-right parody songs who is 1/64 dindu according to 23andme. Six human generations (150-200 years) is how long it takes to go from a savage with a bone in his nose and an IQ of 65 to an edgy shitlord with a masterful grasp of language. If you could see what your descendants even 5,000 years from now looked and acted like, you might not even recognize them as human.

>>17869058
Fun fact: I'm 1.7% white according to genome analysis. But I have an IQ of 102, which I guarantee is probably an IQ of 107.

But, IQ doesn't mean what you think it means, either, so it's a moot point at best.

>>17869064
IQ is a fairish measure of how well you can expect to do in the First World. You don't need it to produce art. As pufferfish show.

>>17869058
>Six human generations (150-200 years) is how long it takes to go from a savage with a bone in his nose and an IQ of 65 to an edgy shitlord with a masterful grasp of language.
But would he know the alphabet if he wasn't taught it? Obviously not. Which is the rough equivalent of these circles. And you're assuming that the pufferfish was breeding with the uberpufferfish who already knows the circle pattern.

>>17869057 claims that there's some sort of a genetic memory which doesn't sound very scientific.

>>17869077
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the entirety of human civilization is essentially a collection of pufferfish circles. Our trying to assign meaning to it is the quirky, inexplicable part.

>>17869077
>genetic memory
>doesn't sound very scientific
What planet are you from? Do birds make elaborate nests there? Do literally any animals have a mating dance/ritual?

>>17869070
I take it back then, you know what IQ is really measuring for (which is fun because of what various parties associated with the overall operation of IQ tests are currently dealing with).
>>17869077
Uh huh. Do you want me to provide sources... ? I can do this, you know.

I mean, think about human beings for a solid second, should birds or fish be too far removed for you to consider. I want you to contemplate an alternative conclusion, that seems sensible to you, for as to how you can introspect, let alone pick up a stick and a stone, and say "Yes, this will do". Early-age humans were some kind of amazing, honestly.

>>17869095
Yes, but unless you're explaining it with some unscientific mumbo jumbo like genetic memory, it's unexplainable.

By that logic, if you cut off an animal's leg, and make them reproduce (experimentally, in captivity), and repeat it enough times, they will start being born with 3 legs.

Also, didn't Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) kill millions with this faulty reasoning?

Spiderwebs are way more impressive

>>17869109
>if you cut off
No, no, god no. That's not how it works. Stop. You're confabulating the very faulty reasoning you're making reference to with something I guarantee you don't understand. It's okay that you don't understand it, because it's not something that's immediately available and accessible to every singe person, ever, but what you are doing right now is far from alright.

If the fact that the proteins in your body right now are self-preserving and self-replicating, and carry rudimentary, unthinking "information" that causes two sexually-different gametes to produce a fetus and not a giant leg sounds like unscientific mumbo jumbo... then I don't know what to tell you.

>>17869109
The real missing link is the point where genes end and memes begin. Every living thing interacts with its environment. Certain interactions will make a given organism more or less likely to reproduce. Pufferfish circles develop the same way a piece of grit inside an oyster becomes a pearl.

>>17869126
>to produce a fetus and not a giant leg
What the hell are you even talking about.

Isn't it just like all other evolution? If a dinosaur with feathers gets more dino pussy, he'll evolve into a flying bird through evolution magic, and if he jumps up a lot while catching flying squirrels, he'll grow wings. So why wouldn't they start being born with one leg less if this gives them more pussy too? Do they have to spontaneously mutate with one leg less and then get more pussy? In which case, aren't those lottery chances rather detrimental to the theory of gradual evolution?

>>17869014
Lol I've been watching Life Story on Netflix too.

Cool shit man.

>>17869141
Netflix Instant master race here too. Good shit. I've gotten a strong sense of how constant a thing evolution is from watching it.

>>17869137
>Isn't it just like all other evolution?
No. This is not evolution.

>What the hell are you even talking about
I'm talking about the fact that your genome doesn't just immediately result in your children being giant masses of cancer instead of a vaguely human fetus. I'm suggesting that your DNA isn't what you think it is.

If a dinosaur with feathers gets more dino pussy, he won't evolve into a flying bird through "evolution magic". If you cut off each generations' legs, they will definitely not get laid more. They don't spontaneously mutate. I feel like your trying to pull my leg (off). You have... a severely warped sense of evolution if you're being genuine.

He will produce a mixture of his DNA, with the DNA of his mates, and whatever survives will have a somewhat stable genome, containing all the programming of both parents with some errors, and those errors combined with other environmental factors will encourage- not necessitate- change or mutation.

More than simple fucking between two raptors has to occur for there to be a chicken. Seriously. Powerful legs and a tail work just as well as wings when needing to catch flying squirrels- but genes don't observe this in the environment and go "Yeah, the 86th generation is going to have wings now".

Someone grows a stub on their hand, and for some reason or other (perhaps the mutation just allows for better grip unintentionally), their offspring does better than everyone else (e.g. catching/reaching food), so eventually those with more and more of a stub on their finger produce more and more children... and suddenly you have something with "fully developed" fingers/digits, who has been able to make good use of this mutation to cheat the rest of the population and survive better.

>>17869161
>if you're being genuine
You know they're not.

>>17869161
>>If a dinosaur with feathers gets more dino pussy, he won't evolve into a flying bird through "evolution magic".
So you don't believe in evolution?

>Someone grows a stub on their hand, and for some reason or other (perhaps the mutation just allows for better grip unintentionally), their offspring does better than everyone else (e.g. catching/reaching food), so eventually those with more and more of a stub on their finger produce more and more children... and suddenly you have something with "fully developed" fingers/digits, who has been able to make good use of this mutation to cheat the rest of the population and survive better.
Wait, you do, since you just described it here?

I'm confused. Why don't you believe in it when I describe it (dino with feathers becoming a bird) and you do when you describe it (sloth or whatever with paws growing fingers)?

>>17869077
>genetic memory
Ever heard of a little thing called instinct?

>>17869161
>If you cut off each generations' legs, they will definitely not get laid more.
I was talking about an experiment, where you artificially make them get laid more in experimental conditions. If they did, do you think this would work or not?

>>17868952
Underwater crop circles confirmed.

>>17868952
>what are magnetic sensors

>>17869184
I don't believe it would work... at best, you'd be "prompting" (allowing the existence for but not causing) some other change. Here, let me actually be less vague about it...

Let's say we do what you suggest. We've got 437 raptors in captivity. We cut one leg off of all of them, but they're perfectly fine otherwise.

We artificially breed them, and replace the original 437 with the new sets of offspring (preferably two offspring per couple each iteration).

Here's what happens. The dinosaurs, or generations of dinos that are born with thicker skin, tougher muscles, or denser bones, or more agents in the blood to encourage better clotting, etc... will "survive" more than their "normie" counterparts. Eventually, supposing that we do the bare minimum to ensure that the legless dinosaurs at least can eat/drink/defecate/be born... you will eventually end up with a mutation that presents thicker skin, tougher muscles, or denser bones, or more agents in the blood to encourage better clotting, etc... and not the lack of a leg. You could also, however, get the lack of a leg from breeding dinosaurs without cutting their legs off at all. It could happen that there's a serious mis-pairing problem (think cell division and replacement) with one of your alphas/groups of males, and that genetic defect just accompanies virility in the control group of dinosaurs. You may end up with dinos that have blue-er scales, or longer tongues as well, if it just so happens to be the kind of trait that occurs with the mutation you've artificially prompted by subjecting each successive generation of dinosaur to physical trauma (or the lack thereof). It's not a cut-and-dry thing.

They won't become chickens because of this, though.

>>17869210
Could you eventually get legless dinosaurs if you were breeding pairs with the shortest legs?

Isn't this just like dog breeding then, or domesticating animals, where you can't actually get macroevolution to happen at all, even with the great influence you're able to exert over it (and not just random natural occurrences)?

How would you get a bird then?

>>17869232
omfg this is why i hate u guys so much. i spend a billion billion years carefully adjusting the attractiveness of a bunh of animals to create new and different forms and u don't believe me because some asshole wrote a book about future morality. u don't dserve 2 worshp me. god out

>>17869232
>legless dinosaurs
>pairs with the shortest legs
Now you're getting it. It would be more likely, but you would have to do more than just look at a short-legged dinosaur, and assume that absolutely nothing could happen such that you end up with only fair-legged dinosaurs instead.

For all you know, the short-legs are not an actual genetic marker in of themselves, but a side-effect of having an interfering gene that allows them to have membranes over their eyes.

It is somewhat like dog breeding, should you put it that way- except without the nuances it'd be easy to confuse things as well.

Getting a bird is a process that simply wasn't just artificial- imagine 6,000 successive generations of a species, living in their own specific regions, mutating at different (yet small) rates because of their diet, or how much time they spend in the sun, or how long they have to search for food, or how many times they reproduce, or at what age they reproduce... and then imagine all 6,000 generations doing the same and giving rise to over tens of thousands of creatures.

Now imagine that one line of genes resulted in more hollow bones, thicker plumage, insulation, and change in size. Consider that these creatures could very well decide to become territorial, or decide to live in places where it may serve you better to be light, or have better eyesight, or even somewhat fly. Remember dog breeding, but throw in actual selection pressures. Throw in the entire shebang. Eventually... something is going to have traits that fills the niche of whatever needs to exist. Clearly... foul were something that either filled a niche or caused a niche to require fulfillment.

If you have better sight, you live and thrive. If you can fly, you can probably evade predators- but not because you kept trying to fly away, but because the one time you tried, you found that you happened to be light enough.

>>17869275
>Consider that these creatures could very well decide to become territorial, or decide to live in places where it may serve you better to be light, or have better eyesight, or even somewhat fly.
So a complex structure such as the wing just evolved randomly and then the creature discovered that it can fly with it?

Or did it evolve when the creature wasn't flying yet, knowing that it will fly in the future?

My question is why would a wing evolve if it doesn't know that the creature will fly, since a pair of wings is clearly less useful than a pair of hands for example, to a non-flying creature, which isn't really "survival of the fittest".

And if this is true, where are all the creatures that currently exist with half-formed organs that have no use yet?

>>17869289
This is seriously some 10/10 trolling here. Good job anon.

>>17869289
Well, it's more likely that the wing was in the process of being there, and the creature began to benefit from it... so those who couldn't half-glide began to die either by being eaten or not being able to reach places, or perhaps it was even that the proto-wings attracted more mates...

In short it's more likely that
>a structure such as the wing was eventually more prominent on one specific generation of creature, and it eventually learned how to benefit, or, in doing nothing novel or different, began to benefit by panicking when in danger or when excited/determined

Wings will and can appear if the creature doesn't know it will fly. Genes don't know anything- they're not aware. And the fun part is that you -don't- know if an organ is "half-formed", because the only measure of what an organ is or is supposed to look like, comes from either fossils, genetic mapping, or general vivisection/autopsies of dead things that are still in the process of progressing. But now your bait is getting low-quality, and I think it's time for me to feed off of something else.

>>17869110
/thread

>>17869137
> i am a faggot young earther who dont know how evolution work

Well you turn a bit, then keep going until you get back to where you started.

>>17869308
I just want a bird :(

But seriously, are these questions really so stupid that they don't even deserve to be answered, and you'll just accept the "lol darwin did it" mainstream canon?

Because seriously, macroevolution through random mutation is just silly. Microevolution, sure, but limited to very iffy things when not controlled by breeders.

If the concept of genetic memory was real and it could somehow decide for the creature what it's supposed to be evolving to, then it would make more sense, but playing the lottery, not really.

>>17869320
>>Wings will and can appear if the creature doesn't know it will fly.
But why, if they already have legs or hands? You're telling me that a "survival of the fittest" mechanism threw away perfectly good organs, so that the creature could live for millions of years as an invalid, until it finally soared to the skies?

>>17869330
On the contrary, I think that if evolution really worked as it's usually described, the Earth would have to be unimaginably *older* than it's usually claimed.

Everything we're discussing ITT kind of takes for granted the "breeding" approach but without the breeder - instead of something taking thousands of years with a breeder, it wouldn't take billions if it was random, it would take a LOT more. You have to stack one in a million chance upon one in a million chance upon one in a million chance practically indefinitely. What's the chance that a creature with one mutation will give birth to a creature with that same mutation except more pronounced? And they will find another creature with the same mutation to breed again, and so on? I'd really like to see the math on that.

>>17869332
>don't even deserve to be answered
There's no such thing as a question, asked politely enough, that isn't worth answering. Hence why it's 10/10.

>>17869348
>except more pronounced?
Pretty damn good, all things considered.

Are you familiar with dominant and recessive traits? Whether or not a given mutation gives rise to a dominant allele or recessive allele is dependent on how well that trait performs when it arises. The mutation build up in the gene pool as either dominant traits, recessive traits, or as complex trait gradients.

>>17869332
>you'll just accept the
But, see, that's what I've never done. I've looked at it for myself... what I've come across makes a ton of sense to me.

It really isn't silly. You yourself must understand that if "microevolution", i.e. small changes in things over large periods of times, can be caused by mutation that for all intents and purposes I haven't even really accurately described... then you must acknowledge that absolutely wacky mutations can occur- sometimes, that aren't directly related to heredity, but are inheritable. You must concede that, at the very least, there is a -rate- of mutation that can very well have a large margin of error/large chance of occurring.

I'm just finding that some of your questions begin to get circular, and I begin to answer the same thing over and over again. No one here has suggested that genetic memory has decided what the creature is evolving into- I am certainly not saying that. That isn't how it works.

They're not exactly playing the lottery either. It's not a random number generator that just generates- it's a generator that generates things, trying to stay within the guidelines and preserve it's results, with potential variance.

I need to say it, again, and with clarity this times.

Genes are not sentient. They are not aware. They are, in essence, just a mechanical process. Really, an electrochemical, biological process that sometimes involves mechanical energy. And they are far more fickle, and far less chaotic, than one would like to presume.

I'm this close to just whipping out sources and articles that better make the notions salient and approachable (yet refutable)... but I think an appeal to authority here would be bad, because I believe that they won't be read with an open mind at all.

>>17869384
>>I'm this close to just whipping out sources and articles that better make the notions salient and approachable (yet refutable)... but I think an appeal to authority here would be bad, because I believe that they won't be read with an open mind at all.
I've actually read a bunch of evolution/ID stuff, and I found problems with both:

Evolution literally takes the conclusion as gospel and twists all evidence to support it (which later, like for example when the tide shifted from "survival of the fittest" to "random mutations" in the past decade looks really stupid).

ID pokes holes and asks reasonable questions that evolution just doesn't answer at all except by referring to the gospel over and over again, but then they tie the whole thing in with god and 6k year old earth, etc.

Is it possible that ID is actually just controlled opposition to make questioning evolution look stupid because LOL GOD?

Because I've never really seen people act skeptically towards evolution as such, everyone who calls themselves a skeptic believes in it (even if they don't quite know what it currently is!) blindly.

We could learn a lot from this fish.

Like how we should be taking care of nature.

>>17869401
>the tide shifted
That's science in action... I don't believe that "survival of the fittest" has changed, though. And Again, I'm saying it again... it's not "random mutations". I don't know. I just don't feel like you're putting up good arguments, so I'm about to bring out the big guns. If I feel like they don't work, I'll just stop.

"One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you.

Now in practice... individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn’t alter the principle that, when they do so... the method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end.

Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around - because science would completely collapse if it weren’t for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence. (As James Randi has pointed out, this is one reason why scientists are so often fooled by paranormal tricksters and why the debunking role is better played by professional conjurors; scientists just don’t anticipate deliberate dishonesty as well.) There are other professions... in which falsifying evidence or at least twisting it is precisely what people are paid for and get brownie points for doing."

>>17869416

>>17869401
and here's a pop-sci blog blurb that, quite frankly, gives you the following free network of resources:
https://www.encodeproject.org/

I can't do anything else but repeat myself while citing things, now. That's all you've forced me to do here. The reason I can't poke holes in evolution, is because I simply can't find holes that are actually there to poke through. I've been skeptical of many things with evolution- and then I've found that there are better explanations to my long-dead hang-ups on each of those evolution-related subjects.

I can't find fault in something that, for what it is right now, is devoid of any glaring faults. There's little wrong with the nature of it, as I can discern. Don't accept it blindly, sure. Question everything- but question everything within reason, or else you'll be questioning absolutely nothing.

>>17869428
Forgot the link to the article itself:
http://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html

>>17869109
>By that logic, if you cut off an animal's leg..
You are one of the most retarded people I have ever seen on 4chan. In fact, I award you the biggest and dumbest fucking stupid fuck on the internet today. Congrats.

>>17869411
Agreed. Go vegan.

>>17869014
I think it's more likely he knows it is beautiful and will help him attract females than he knows anything about genes.

>>17869411
fish dont "take care" of nature. They are simply incapable of making drastic changes to it

>>17869332
>Microevolution, sure
>macroevolution through random mutation is just silly
seems to me, you just have a hard time imagening how small things can add up in the long run

>>17870220
>We could learn a lot from this fish
>Agreed. Go vegan.
Does not compute

THE BLUE BOYS ARE BACK

>>17868952
omg its happening !?!?!? reptiloids hollow earth and chemtrails pale in comparison to this

people always fear monger about other worldly shit and our governments and mole men but the earths surface is about 2/3 covered in water. if the fish ever start shit what will we do?

this cannot be allowed. you cant allow the surfs to learn how to read dont you get it. if the fish stop being dumb you cant catch them. there will be a food shortage

there isnt technically enough farm land to feed every one fishing fills the void and allows there to be a abundance but without fishing food prices rise again and again. we might see hyper inflation

>>17869057
>Human babies don't get this benefit anymore, because the head has to be squeezed through the vagina (lest we do a c-section). So, babies come out almost completely blank, save for their autonomous processes like breathing and a pulse.

post was really good, but this is a truckload of bullshit

>>17869109
>By that logic, if you cut off an animal's leg, and make them reproduce (experimentally, in captivity), and repeat it enough times, they will start being born with 3 legs.
Not sure if stupid as hell or troll .. if you are not trolling , pls kill yourself before you have kids

>>17869109
Genetic memory is not unexplainable mumbo jumbo...
It may not yet be clear how it works, but it should not be surprising that a little part of experiences may get coded into the dna.
As our immune system carries hereditary information, so might the instinct. Obviously in our case the instinct has a lot less weight than in smaller and simpler minded creatures.

>>17870287
>a truckload of bullshit
http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/did-human-like-intelligence-evolve-to-care-for-helpless-babies-162202/
>In other words, because humans have relatively big brains
>their infants must be born early in development while their heads are still small enough to ensure a safe delivery
I mean, make your own conclusions, but at your leisure.

>>17869137
What confuses me about evolution is the transitions. Like how gradual was the evolution from cold to warm blooded. I mean was it just little steps, or did a lizard birth a mouse one day and that mouse slayed dat lizard pussy.. or i guess lizard to bird. It perplexes me.

>>17870261
Are you kidding me? All fish, this fish included is a huge proponent to taking care of nature. The ecosystem is a fragile balance and even if all this fish does is make beautiful designs and fucks to reproduce is all it needs to do to maintain this balance its still "taking care" of nature.

>>17870849
Most often it's tiny little steps. Sometimes it's surprisingly big steps. Big steps don't usually help an animal survive better, but if it does and reproduces, then it sticks around.

>>17871063
Yeah, fair enough. It is of course a part of nature. But it doesnt actively care about anything.

As you said, ecosystems can be pretty fragile. And if for some reason there is for example a season with an extraordinary high population of reef sharks - they wont care, they will throw everything else out of balance.

So I guess I have to correct myself.
They are incapable of intentionally making drastic changes to nature

>>17870556
I also was taken aback by your last sentences, but now that you explained what you meant to say, this actually makes sense.

Dont know if this is actually true but it seems plausible. Especially since we use so much of our time teaching our young, evolution probably saw genetic memory as inefficient and toned it down.

It was made by aliens. No fish.

Instincts you fucking retard OP, Nature is full of geometry and seemingly unexplainable "perfection".

How can pressure know how to bizmuth? It doesn'T fucking know, it just fucking happens.

I hate tinfoilers, Reality is so much more beautiful when you think about the fact that all this beauty is completely natural and happens on its own and we, as conscious beings, are simply emulating it. But here comes "I am bored and without a purpose" fag who wants to desperately believe it's a higher force or Aliens, removing from the beauty of it.

The beauty we create is nothing compared to the subtle balance of chaos and order in our reality which creates symmetry and irregular beauty.

>>17869184
>>17869210
That is exactly what dog breeding is.
They took some dogs with small legs and made them have kids, then from their children they took the ones with the smallest legs and let them have children and so forth... and after a few hundred generations you have shit like chiahuahuas and pugs.

File: distraught-man.jpg (27 KB, 327x279) Image search: [Google]

27 KB, 327x279

>>17871467
But that's not what the hypothetical example is setting out to do. Taking existing traits that are dormant or explicitly expressed in some form, and encouraging (not causing) the spread or amplification of those traits, is not the same as deliberately trying to induce change by, say, cutting legs off of creatures each generation...
>>17869365
>>17869275
>>17869161
to simplify the nature of the process is to completely butcher it... but I think I've had my fair share of replying to this thread for real this time.

>>17871380
It's just that it's the other way around- our brains got bigger, so our babies took longer to develop and then lost some of their instinctive nature, and with our bigger brains we learned how to care for them.
>bigger brain through selection pressures, heredity, variance, mutation/mis-paired sequences
>offspring with softer, smaller skulls were born easier and survived birth better than their larger-skull "counterparts"
>the gene/s responsible for this dominated the game of life
>because more and more people popped out more and more blank-state babies, taking care of them became paramount
>those who successfully took care of their children prospered, and child rearing became a sort of taught thing
>not a purely instinctual thing
Evolution really didn't -see- anything... that's... not how evolution is proposed to work. Nothing got toned down, so much as things were simply outperformed by other things.
>>17869384

>>17868952
The interaction of simple rules like "Brush sand, turn right, repeat until brushed sand is found" creating seemingly complex or "perfect" behavior.
"perfect" circles occur all the fucking time in nature because they're easy as shit to generate from very simple rules.
Call me when fish start making trapezoids.

>>17871436
well said anon.

>>17871436
Dang. If this were Reddit I'd upbote the shit out of this.
Seeing as we're not in that shithole I'll just reply and say "well done, anon."

>>17871578
maybe you go back

>>17870849
>Like how gradual was the evolution from cold to warm blooded.
This is the problem with macroevolution, steps like that just can't exist. There aren't half-cold half-warm blooded animals. And there aren't animals with half-formed eyes, or animals with half-formed ears.

There are animals with degenerated eyes or degenerated ears, but none where you can see an organ that's being formed out of nothing (since it requires a complex mechanism with multiple parts to just spring out to be a workable organ and it doesn't do shit otherwise).

>>17873029
>There aren't half-cold half-warm blooded animals.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/taking-temperature-first-warmblooded-fish-180956327/?no-ist
>Scientists have long known that some fish, including select species of billfish, shark and tuna, are partially warmblooded.

https://allyouneedisbiology.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/cold-warm-blooded-animals/
> In this entry we’ll explain, in a more scientific way, the different temperature-controlling mechanisms present in the animal kingdom and we’ll give you examples of different species that cross the line between cold blood and warm blood.
http://www.nature.com/news/dinosaurs-neither-warm-blooded-nor-cold-blooded-1.15399
>The work stakes out a rare middle ground in the long-running debate over whether dinosaurs were ‘cold-blooded’ ectotherms, which use the environment to adjust their internal temperature, or ‘warm-blooded’ endotherms, which regulate their body temperature from within. “There’s a third way,” says John Grady, a biologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

Care to try again?

>>17873202
So all animals that don't actually exist? Seriously, your proof is dinosaurs?

>>17874610
>ignores turtles, fish, sharks, lizards true hibernators, and THE FACT THAT COLD AND WARM BLOODED DON'T EXIST AS SCIENTIFIC CATEGORIES

Do you practice being this obtuse, or does it come naturally to you? Even if we accept what you say all that means is that the now-extinct dinosaur is one of the very transitional animals in the macroevolution from cold to warm blooded that anon was trying to say doesn't happen.

Or did you literally mean you don't think dinosaurs ever existed? I don't know if I'm prepared to respond to THAT level of stupidity.

There's more intricate geometric patterns than that in the shapes of the cells of the simplest bacteria. But when the fish makes it in dirt, it's too difficult to believe.

\(O__o)/