Elephants evolving in China

[TecK NeeX]

Female elephants go for the bull elephants with the largest tusks, it shows that it has the stronger genes. The fittest are taken out, now the tuskless males are the fittest and their genes will live on leaving future elephants tuskless.

And this is your definition of Evolution? wow

This is no more than a genetic event that causes groups of a certain type of animal to possess different characteristics from one another. There is an exchange of genetic material between a male/female chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of this is a wide variety of individual features. No different than a brown male who impregnated a white female, since dark colours dominate lighter ones the child will most likely be born of dark skin. This may be survival of the fittest genes but it ain't Evolution. Survival of the fittest doesnt neccessarily mean Evolution

No matter the weight, height, skin color, tusks or no tusks the Elephant still belongs to the Elephant species period.. there is no Evolution here this is simply a mixture of genes thus leading to different physical characteristics when mixed.

Its not like all male Elephants long before poaching were born with tusks.

 

[Glockmatic]

Seems to you that evolution = total change of species, which you are wrong.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Seems to you that evolution = total change of species, which you are wrong.

Anything short of that is Not Evolution. If You're going to convince me that Evolution is fact your're going to need a hell of lot more than Elephants losing their Tusks due to the eradication of the tusk chromosome.

This is not Evolution this is Extinction

 

[Glockmatic]

Anything short of that is Not Evolution. If You're going to convince me that Evolution is fact your're going to need a hell of lot more than Elephants losing their Tusks due to the eradication of the tusk chromosome.

This is not Evolution this is Extinction

you don't believe in evolution, therefore arguing with you is pointless

 

[Swollen_Member]

Anything short of that is Not Evolution. If You're going to convince me that Evolution is fact your're going to need a hell of lot more than Elephants losing their Tusks due to the eradication of the tusk chromosome.

This is not Evolution this is Extinction

Yes, extinction of the Tusks!

 

[critikaldesignz]

This is not Evolution this is Extinction

This is both. Chinese elephants with tusks are becoming extinct and Chinese elephants without tusks are evolving.

 

[not really ken]

Usually the evolutionists do tend to puit up quite good arguments, but this is bordering on embarrasing for the evoutionists.

 

[not really ken]

^^Exactly. Whomever in a species lives to pass on their seeds to the next generation is the fittest of that species. All the males with tusks are being killed before they can pass on their genes, which is why more and more elephants are being born without tusks. This is Darwinism at at work.

No it's just simple logic. It's just like selective breeding of horses and dogs for certain charachteristics. How does this prove the theory of evolution that everything evolved from a cell at the same odds as a tornado hitting a junk-yard and a brand new boeing 747 being assembled.

 

[Chronic]

WTF? bwhahah Animals dont hunt for Tusks

LMAO.

NO SHIT!!!

Yes he was actually saying tigers hunt for tusks :thumb:

Glockmatic's explanation seems to be the most logic. The elephants are now evolving in a different manner but I don't think that's called evolution.

 

[TecK NeeX]

LMAO.

NO SHIT!!!

Yes he was actually saying tigers hunt for tusks :thumb:.

wow You completely misunderstood my post. Of course Tigers dont hunt for tusks. I never said they did. My reply was directed towards his post in general. you cut out my post and made it seem like I really believed he said Tigers hunt for Tusks ... like this

he was actually saying tigers hunt for tusks

LMAO

NO SHIT!!!

 

[Swollen_Member]

No it's just simple logic. It's just like selective breeding of horses and dogs for certain charachteristics. How does this prove the theory of evolution that everything evolved from a cell at the same odds as a tornado hitting a junk-yard and a brand new boeing 747 being assembled.

Evolution doesn't mean everything evolved from a single cell. What I'm saying is this is how Darwin theorized we got to where we are today, through natural selection. Elephants w/ tusks are not a separate species from Elephants w/out tusks, but certain Elephant features are surviving while others are not. So in 100 years, the Elephant will look much differant that the Elephant of today. Not because the Elephants w/ tusks were extinct, but because the Elephant was forced to adapt to it's environment.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Evolution doesn't mean everything evolved from a single cell.

Yes Evolution does mean everything Evolved from a Single Celled Organism by chance and coincidence. How did this infamous first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate?

What I'm saying is this is how Darwin theorized we got to where we are today, through natural selection.

no matter how long this process of natural selection goes on, it will not transform species into another species. The weak are eliminated, the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes of selection, Elephants continue to exist as Elephants period..

The problem with Natural Selection is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. It cannot develop unique different genetic data found in millions of species, therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species.

Elephants w/ tusks are not a separate species from Elephants w/out tusks, but certain Elephant features are surviving while others are not.So in 100 years, the Elephant will look much differant that the Elephant of today. Not because the Elephants w/ tusks were extinct, but because the Elephant was forced to adapt to it's environment.

No, In a hundred years an Elephant would still look very much like todays Elephants. With or without Tusks there is absolute zero change. Like Ken said this is selective breeding, If we continue to hunt and kill a breed of Elephants most likely that breed will cease to exist. Leaving female Elephants to mate with unwanted male Elephants without the tusk chromosome resulting in less and less Elephants with tusks. Not because of adaptation but because of the absence of that breed with the tusk chromosome.

 

[Glockmatic]

no matter how long this process of natural selection goes on, it will not transform species into another species. The weak are eliminated, the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes of selection, Elephants continue to exist as Elephants period..

The problem with Natural Selection is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. It cannot develop unique different genetic data found in millions of species, therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species.

you could've just linked this http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms01.html instead of changing the word deer to elephant

 

[TecK NeeX]

you could've just linked this http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms01.html instead of changing the word deer to elephant

This is where I actually get my info from http://www.harunyahya.com

I've never heard of that website until now. Plus if you're trying to accuse me of using information and making it seem like they're my own you can't be more wrong. if you look at the other threads about evolution etc, you would notice I quote and give the names of those who said this or that.

regardless of where i get my info from, doesn't make them untrue does it?

 

[Swollen_Member]

No, In a hundred years an Elephant would still look very much like todays Elephants. With or without Tusks there is absolute zero change. Like Ken said this is selective breeding, If we continue to hunt and kill a breed of Elephants most likely that breed will cease to exist. Leaving female Elephants to mate with unwanted male Elephants without the tusk chromosome resulting in less and less Elephants with tusks. Not because of adaptation but because of the absence of that breed with the tusk chromosome.

Exactly, what I'm saying. The general image we have of elephants will look differant in the future because of natural selection.

 

[not really ken]

^Has the elephant evolved? No! Simply only certain genes are the ones being handed down. How is that evolution? Evolution is when new charachters and traits become a part of the animal. There's nothing new about all elephants having no tusks because that's always been there. Just that certain factors have meant that it is only the ones with no tusks who got to breed. Selective breeding!!

 

[Jacob]

You guys are silly, have you been doing your homework? Don't argue that this isn't evolution, argue that it's microevolution (which all creationists accept) and then go on to argue that there is no proof of macroevolution. That's the tried and true way for a creationist to debate these sorts of issues.

And for those who don't know, "survival of the fittest" isn't a darwinian phrase and it probably shouldn't be used in debates of biological evolution. It was coined by sociologist Herbert Spencer, to describe his racist theory of Social Darwinism, which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

 

[Swollen_Member]

You guys are silly, have you been doing your homework? Don't argue that this isn't evolution, argue that it's microevolution (which all creationists accept) and then go on to argue that there is no proof of macroevolution. That's the tried and true way for a creationist to debate these sorts of issues.

And for those who don't know, "survival of the fittest" isn't a darwinian phrase and it probably shouldn't be used in debates of biological evolution. It was coined by sociologist Herbert Spencer, to describe his racist theory of Social Darwinism, which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Wow did you memorize your sociology textbook??