Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: 
Jeff wrote:

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:425EF094.8647BF66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jeff wrote:

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:425EA876.68EF4951@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[...] 
Your arguement is like saying that jaguars couldn't have  developed
speed
through evolution because the slower jaguars would died because they
couldn't catch food or would have been killed by other animals.


No.  Natural selection (survival of the fittest) can explain how
jaguars
have become fast creatures.  Where natural selection fails is when it
tries to explain the existence of slow and seemingly stupid creatures.

Examples, please. 

(1) Slugs


1: Slugs don't hunt. So they don't have to be fast in order to get their prey. They don't have to be very intelligent either, because it does not require much brain to find the nearest eadible plant in comparison to hunt other animals.

2: They don't taste very well and therefore don't have many enemies, meaning they don't have to be fast in order to escape them.

3: They have a slow metabolism and therefore don't need much food. This is an advantage of being slow. Their brain does not need much food either. An advantage of lacking a large brain.

(2) Sloths


1: They don't hunt.

2: They probably don't have many enemies that are able to follow them in the height of the trees.

3: The slowness of their movements serves as camouflage, so such enemies as might hunt them don't see them too often.

(3) Manatees 

1: They don't hunt.

2: They probably don't have many enemies due to their habitat and size, except mankind, of course.

3: Why do you think that manatees (and sloths) are stupid? They might be more intelligent than you think. Of course not as intelligent as chimpanzees or dolphins, but then again, there is no need for them to be so intelligent.


Yes ?

And your explanation is ? 

I'm not Jeff, but I hope you are satisfied with my explantion.


[...]


Folks can witness the effect of gravity, firsthand.

No one has witnessed the evolution of a new species, firsthand.

Many races of dogs are so different from each other that they would be different species if they lived in free populations in the nature.

You can say the same thing about gravity. 


Not really.


> Where there is no life, there can be no "natural

selection" which is the process by which living creatures are killed
off
to **select** those with traits that promote survival.


So what? where there is no life, there is no life.

Evolution requires life.

The theory of evolution actually requires death of the unfit. 

That is the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is one
mechanism
of evolution. There are more, of course.

Natural selection is at the heart of the theory of evolution. 

No it isn't. It is certainly a very important part of it.


Natural selection is at the heart of the current theory of how evolution works (the synthetic theory). That does mean that other theories of this are impossible and in fact many other theories have been proposed.

You should not confuse obervable facts like evolution or the movements of planets with the theories with which scientists explain these facts (the synthetic theorie with natural selection as most important part for the evolution and gravity for the movements of planets).


Without natural selection, the theory of evolution would be dead. 

No it would not. Things can evolve without natural selection, like genetic
drift.



Genetic drift would not explain the creation of new species.


Not alone, but it is often a part in the creation of new species.

[...]

Truth is simple. 

Only to the simple-minded.


Regards,

Thorsten

--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution = gradual
    ... One of the problems of the open plains hypotheses is that they're ... collection, liver consumption, or food collection at noon on open plains) ... Whereas modern biology sees evolution as a sequence of overlapping niches ... fruit, nuts and shellfish), and shellfish, like fruits and nuts, are sessile ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: kuduburgers to go
    ... "Brain-specific lipids from marine, lacustrine, or terrestrial food ... "Evidence for the unique function of DHA during the evolution of the modern ... different ideas ­ some more improbable than others ­ were put forward to ... Diverse savannah hypotheses of human origins. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Compassion and the Near Enemy of Pity
    ... >> Yes, that's nature, the way evolution made us. ... all forms of organismic life, ... they appear to postpone breeding until food is ... CRONies: Calorie Restriction with Optimum ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: Origins of our minds?
    ... ie: evolution ... Sugar and fats are *natural* food components, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: News: Evolution makes us fat.
    ... about the dangers posed to society by evolution? ... So why does fattening food - sugar, ... a cause for racism, obesity, warts, whatever. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading