Defying evolution for over 100 million years? - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

$5 submissions

I help you SUCCEED

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 32189
Share

Post
#1

Defying evolution for over 100 million years?

08-26-2005, 01:46 AM

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03y.html

"The common scientific belief has been that army ants originated separately on several continents over millions of years. Now it is found there was no evolution. Using fossil data and the tools of a genetics detective, a Cornell University entomologist has discovered that these ants come from the same point of origin, because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit."

Question: Is this evidence AGAINST evolution or is it evidence that there IS evolution but sometimes certain species are SO successful that they reach an evolutionary "stasis" for millions of years?

Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video!

For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants
Tags: None
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE

best designer on GFY

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 30307
Share

Post
#2

08-26-2005, 01:52 AM

Or perhaps evolution has not required Ants to evolve.

But why is the real question if thats the case.

Ants are an incredible creature in strength, endurance and versatility.
Maybe it is a creature that does not require evolution.
I am sure the same research results would cover a large number of different insects as well. Such as the Mesquito.

Last edited by AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE; 08-26-2005, 01:53 AM.

NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo!
| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily
| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 |ICQ: 78943384 |
Comment
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE

best designer on GFY

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 30307
Share

Post
#3

08-26-2005, 01:55 AM

Then again it is also known that ants have a very very evolved sense of communication. I wonder if that has evolved over a 100 million years.

NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo!
| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily
| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 |ICQ: 78943384 |
Comment
$5 submissions

I help you SUCCEED

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 32189
Share

Post
#4

08-26-2005, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by AlienQ

Then again it is also known that ants have a very very evolved sense of communication. I wonder if that has evolved over a 100 million years.

Good point. Maybe the scientists are just focusing on MORPHOLOGICAL evolution based on fossil records as opposed to BEHAVIORAL evolution. One key example of this is that modern human beings have been around for thousands and thousands of years with little morphological change (at least enough to warrant a new human subspecies) but our CULTURAL and COMMUNICATION evolution has been quite dramatic.

Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video!

For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants
Comment
CuriousToyBoy

Crazy Aussie Bastard

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 16787
Share

Post
#5

08-26-2005, 01:59 AM

But if you stamp on them don't they still die ?

Evolved you call it ?

;-)

Celebs
Adult Who's Who ==> Ambush Interview ==> ICQ 293 070 684 ==> intmarpacrim AT gmail DOT com
Comment
Gunni

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 2385
Share

Post
#6

08-26-2005, 02:00 AM

All these discoveries they are always making using fossils and things like that are not that reliable, it is mostly guess work. There are so many gaps in the things that they know that it is pretty hard to be 100% sure about anything.
I read that if everyone in N-America were to die today, something like 3 humans should statistically become fossils (wich goes to show that people researching it afterwards wouldn't have much to work with). We only know about 2% of the creatures that have walked the earth, and evolution is an ongoing thing, perhaps these ants are just a bit slow.

I personally don't think this has any meaning about anuthing
Comment
$5 submissions

I help you SUCCEED

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 32189
Share

Post
#7

08-26-2005, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Gunni

All these discoveries they are always making using fossils and things like that are not that reliable, it is mostly guess work. There are so many gaps in the things that they know that it is pretty hard to be 100% sure about anything.
I read that if everyone in N-America were to die today, something like 3 humans should statistically become fossils (wich goes to show that people researching it afterwards wouldn't have much to work with). We only know about 2% of the creatures that have walked the earth, and evolution is an ongoing thing, perhaps these ants are just a bit slow.

I personally don't think this has any meaning about anuthing

You raise an interesting point about statistical representation, however, much of science does rely on interpolation and inferences.

One funny angle of this information is that it does get the ANTI Darwinist (read: creationist) camp in a tizzy. Here's one representative comment:

**Take your pick - either there is no evil Darwinist consipiracy to suppress this kind of information, or this information is consistent with the modern synthesis of evolution... Actually, the truth is "both".

Of course the truth is both. This is why the theory of evolution is not falsifiable. Darwinists are like the Borg - they simply assimilate anything into the theory whether it is consistent with it or not.

"Suppression of information" is not the problem. What Darwinists suppress is any interpretation of the information that is inconsistent with Darwinist dogma.**

Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video!

For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants
Comment
Dirty Dane

Sick Fuck

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 9491
Share

Post
#8

08-26-2005, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by $5 submissions

Good point. Maybe the scientists are just focusing on MORPHOLOGICAL evolution based on fossil records as opposed to BEHAVIORAL evolution. One key example of this is that modern human beings have been around for thousands and thousands of years with little morphological change (at least enough to warrant a new human subspecies) but our CULTURAL and COMMUNICATION evolution has been quite dramatic.

Thousands of years is not a big scale when you talk about evolution at the higher levels of the food chain, in the past. In fact there is a physical evolution going on among humans right now; people that do not develop wisdom teeth at all, and it will become more and more common.
Comment
BRISK

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 12240
Share

Post
#9

08-26-2005, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by $5 submissions

Question: Is this evidence AGAINST evolution

"Army ants have evolved only once and that was in the mid-Cretaceous period," says Sean Brady, a Cornell postdoctoral researcher in entomology

Kinda hard to disprove evolution if the ant doctor is saying they did actually evolve at one point in time, isn't it?

I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do,
I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.
Comment
ADL Colin

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Feb 2001

Posts: 11929
Share

Post
#10

08-26-2005, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by NaughtyWhores

But if you stamp on them don't they still die ?

Evolved you call it ?

;-)

No. Ant souls go to India and re-emerge 20 years later in call centers.

Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY!

skype = "adultdatelink"
Comment
Gunni

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 2385
Share

Post
#11

08-26-2005, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by $5 submissions

You raise an interesting point about statistical representation, however, much of science does rely on interpolation and inferences.

One funny angle of this information is that it does get the ANTI Darwinist (read: creationist) camp in a tizzy. Here's one representative comment:

**Take your pick - either there is no evil Darwinist consipiracy to suppress this kind of information, or this information is consistent with the modern synthesis of evolution... Actually, the truth is "both".

Of course the truth is both. This is why the theory of evolution is not falsifiable. Darwinists are like the Borg - they simply assimilate anything into the theory whether it is consistent with it or not.

"Suppression of information" is not the problem. What Darwinists suppress is any interpretation of the information that is inconsistent with Darwinist dogma.**

Yes, but no science relies more on guesses and propabilities than this one.
Like someone said, it does not put any question marks at the evolution theory since it is said they did actually evolve, just haven't evolved very much since that time. I bet you can find many insects that are the same.
Saying that things did not evolve is kind of strange, how did animals come to be? Did they just magically form out of thin air or dirt?
Comment
Major (Tom)

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 32492
Share

Post
#12

08-26-2005, 04:26 AM

the shark hasnt evolved in millions of years too, nor the cock roach. evolution has a good philiosophy.. if it aint broke dont fix it.

duke
Comment
LadyMischief

Orgasms N Such!

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 18135
Share

Post
#13

08-26-2005, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by $5 submissions

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03y.html

"The common scientific belief has been that army ants originated separately on several continents over millions of years. Now it is found there was no evolution. Using fossil data and the tools of a genetics detective, a Cornell University entomologist has discovered that these ants come from the same point of origin, because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit."

Question: Is this evidence AGAINST evolution or is it evidence that there IS evolution but sometimes certain species are SO successful that they reach an evolutionary "stasis" for millions of years?

One would think that the survival of the fittest would apply here, as it has all through living history. If the ant is ultimately suited to survive in just about any climate, it doesn't have to adapt to climate change, therefore it doesn't have to come down to natural selection. They survive simply because they are able to.

ICQ 3522039
Content Manager - orgasm.com
[email protected]
Comment
citizen tower

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2005

Posts: 238
Share

Post
#14

08-26-2005, 04:30 AM

Humans evolve. Please, what was the average male height in the 16th century? 5'4"? What's the average now?

.NET Windows and Web Applications Developer
ICQ: 484-388-695
Comment
Drake

Hello world!

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 12508
Share

Post
#15

08-26-2005, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by citizen tower

Humans evolve. Please, what was the average male height in the 16th century? 5'4"? What's the average now?

Due to better nutrition and chemicals in foods, not evolution
Comment
Zebra

Banned from Kimmy's couch

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 5091
Share

Post
#16

08-26-2005, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Almighty Colin

No. Ant souls go to India and re-emerge 20 years later in call centers.

Colin made a funny!

Old School
Comment
mikeyddddd

Viva la vulva!

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 16557
Share

Post
#17

08-26-2005, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Dirty Dane

Thousands of years is not a big scale when you talk about evolution at the higher levels of the food chain, in the past. In fact there is a physical evolution going on among humans right now; people that do not develop wisdom teeth at all, and it will become more and more common.

Failure to develop wisdom is very common.

AdultStarProfits AmbyaCash AnilosCash AzianiGold ColdHardCash
FlashTheMoney IdolBucks MediumPimpin NSCash Nubiles PussyCash
ScoreCash Sextronix SpunkyCash TubeTitans Twistys
Comment
drama

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Posts: 847
Share

Post
#18

08-26-2005, 05:54 AM

Ants are not the only animal to not really evolve over time.

Crocodiles have been around since the dinosaur era and havent changed either
Comment
$5 submissions

I help you SUCCEED

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 32189
Share

Post
#19

08-26-2005, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Mike33

Due to better nutrition and chemicals in foods, not evolution

Bingo. Just look at the change in diets from first generation Asian immigrants and later generations. There's a correlating change in average height.

Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video!

For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants
Comment
Doc911

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 3695
Share

Post
#20

08-26-2005, 08:34 AM

they say if we nuke ourselves ants and cockroachs will be the only thing to survive

For PHP/MySQL scripts ICQ 161480555 or email [email protected]
Comment
Penthouse Tony

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2004

Posts: 5835
Share

Post
#21

08-26-2005, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Doc911

they say if we nuke ourselves ants and cockroachs will be the only thing to survive

Prove it

aamos AT FFN dot com
Penthouse.com Business Development
ICQ: 49090846 | Yahoo IM: ff_aamos
Comment
Dirty Dane

Sick Fuck

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 9491
Share

Post
#22

08-26-2005, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by mikeyddddd

Failure to develop wisdom is very common.

U mean wisdom in general or wisdom teeth
Comment
StuartD

Sofa King Band

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 29903
Share

Post
#23

08-26-2005, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Mike33

Due to better nutrition and chemicals in foods, not evolution

One could call that a form of evolution. We've progressed, gotten smarter... found new ways to eat.
It's not pretty or scientific, but it's a form of evolution.... to change.

This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...