>evolution is possible because genes are constantly, randomly changing
>stays the same for 500 million years
your move, atheists
>evolution is possible because genes are constantly, randomly changing. >stays the same for 500 million years
>evolution is possible because genes are constantly, randomly changing
>stays the same for 500 million years
your move, atheists
Definitely not an atheist, but a simple answer is that it didn't need to change all that much because it was good the way it is.
he has been perfect for 500 million years, so no need to evolve, check mate muslims
nah, he just couldn't exploit the other ways of living because of the pressure from the other marine animals and his branches have been eradicated geological age by geological age even in his most suited environment.
you are just seeing a moment of one species very slowly going extinct.
he says he's fine, i believe him
I believe that selection is independent of evolution, but evolution is dependent on selection.
Pre-organic selection involves the biased creation of chemical machines that catalyze their own creation. Search autocatalytic reactions for more, I'm not a chemist. This also isn't incredibly relevant to my argument, but I think it's good background when thinking about evolution and selection.
This can also be generalized to other objects. A cup has not changed much throughout human history, as its shape is well optimized for the task. Before the cup, there was a niche need for the cup, and after, that niche was filled.
Likewise for the horseshoe crab: it was selected for by evolution as there was clearly a niche for a horseshoe crab. Its design was optimized by evolution, and once the niche was filled, it didn't need to go further. Think of it as a highly optimized design. I'm sure there are small adjustments along the way, in the same way that some cups now have handles. Alligators haven't changed much since just after the mass extinction event that killed dinosaurs, and there are a couple other lizard species who lived 250 million years ago.
Evolutionism is a fairy tale for sinners who want to explain our existence without a Creator to whom they're held accountable.
https://trueorigin.org/abio.php
It's also funny how atheists will say "many religion therefore I'm right" while ignoring the fact that almost all religions have a Creator God or creator gods and they're in the extremely small minority with their beliefs that aren't based on anything other than blind faith in soience which now says boys can become women.
>blind faith in evidence based facts widely accepted by the smartest of people
>Nah that's fucking dumb trust this book written by some guy named Josh a couple thousand years ago lmao
>written by some guy named Josh
he was the ORIGINAL Josh. certainly he must have intimate knowledge about the creation of the universe
If the Christian God were real they would have intervened in Afghanistan, instead the one true faith prevailed. Allahu akbar
God has no relation with the mutt golems
Primitive athropod from the cambrain evolved for a smal and specific niche, survives on it despite masses changes. Unable to compete with other more advanced athropods. Every major change to its bodyplan, would it both unable to compete with the more asvanced arthopods, but also with the other hirseshoe crabs.
Evolution selects against a diffrent bodyplan.
There are many examples of bilateral symmetry in nature, not just among animals but also plants. If intelligent design were a flawed theory, then we would expect to see far fewer instances of bilateral symmetry. The fact that we see bilateral symmetry so often is actually evidence in favor of intelligent design.
But there are many reasons why bilateral symmetry would evolve that don’t involve intelligent design. For example, if a land animal were lopsided, how would it even be able to move?
why the fuck should an intelligent designer favor symmetry over asymmetry?
are you fucking stupid?
Redundancy.
Two organs are better than one.
Spare kidney, spare lung, extra eye (STEREOSCOPIC VISION BONUS)
Man, that the mathamticly most effecient way to grow large and complex shapes, is favoured in a provess determinated by mathematic likelyhood prooves that it was acctually a dude just inventing stuff
Are you trying to communicate?
Except that's not true at all because the modern family of horseshoe crabs originates from the Triassic, while the four living horseshoe crab species that exist today are divided between three separate genera. There is also no indication in the fossil record of when each of the four species originated, but in general, their dispersal around the world and their evolution seems to have been influenced greatly by factors such as the movement of the continents.
>evolution is possible because genes are constantly, randomly changing
are you a creationist or just a regular retard?
>genes mutate
>new changes are worse
>it cant compete with old horseshoe crabs
>dies off
>the animal is unchanged
>the animal is perfect
typical normie misunderstanding
You're gonna be changed and imperfect after I fuck you
>what is evolutionary pressure
That's because this creature is clearly already perfect, therefore no reason to ever change
You don't know if it stayed the same. It might have gained more spikes, how would you know?
You forgot about the selection part in evolution.
>genes have always been randomly changing those 500 million years
>only the physical body shape stays the same
Truly the perfect being
natures version of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
>crabs intensify
It found a niche which wasn't worth leaving. If there's no evolutionary pressure to change, then strange offspring just get out competed again and again by the original design. That's why everything uses DNA/RNA, all the same amino acids and proteins, the same cellular organelles, why animals all have bilateral symmetry, and various other commonalities exist throughout life. When a really good solution is landed on, a feature often becomes locked in place like a billiard ball falling in a pocket.
>why animals all have bilateral symmetry
Um no sweatie...
If you can't see the symmetry in these then maybe you're retarded.
go ahead and draw a line of symmetry for us, this should be interesting
>sponge
Pic related. Most sponges have some symmetry. I just learned that it's called radial symmetry. Some sponges don't have large structural symmetry, but sponges don't even have real organs so they're the exception which proves the rule. Even back with them, the most absolute primitive animals which can only even be detected as such with a lot of scrutiny, even they have some symmetries.
>crab
Oh so because humans only have one liver I guess we have no symmetry?
>fish
Bisect it from mouth to tail on the vertical axis.
>Bisect it from mouth to tail on the vertical axis.
you'll have one half with zero eyes and one half with two
Be less retarded
a flounder isn't symmetrical no matter which way you cut it
Get fucked bruh.
Young flounders and their larvae are symmetrical though, it's only once they reach adulthood that they develop their unique asymmetrical features, with the migration of the eyes. This is a fascinating process, but it's one that is based on the bilateral body plan. Adult flounders don't 'cease to be symmetrical' when they reach adulthood. They are, like all other fish, bilaterally symmetrical except with acquired asymmetry. It's the same reason why we don't classify people that have scoliosis as 'asymmetrical organisms'. Likewise
Is a symmetrical organism even if it presents features that break their body symmetry.
Light asymmetry is something not too uncommon in the animal kingdom, but most animals that are heavily asymmetrical (like the flounder) normally have a very good reason to be that way, like being an ambush predator that both hunts and escapes other predators by burying in marine substrate.
>I just learned
you big motherfucker
Mate, the guy said all animals have bilateral symmetry, he's just plain wrong.
At a certain point, all successful animals started having it. Shit like starfish and sponges are only in the class of "technically an animal", and for fucks sake they still have symmetry. Picking this out to moan over like it invalidates anything is pure autism and has dragged the conversation far away from the original point.
Starfish, seaurchin and co. The Echinoderms are not "only technicly animals". They are infact quite closely related to verterbrates. Much, much closer then arthropods or the moluscs. They not only evolved from a bilateral ancestor.
But are still bilateral today, in their larval stage.
Unlike sponges, they have complex organs, with diffrent cell types. Like all other higher animal.
i mean it still does, just like a human; if you have radial symmetry, you still have bilateral symmetry, but not all bilateral symmetrical animals have radial symmetry, likes squares and rectangles
Are you retarded mate?
I know those look radial, but hear me out, these are very much all bilateral organisms. Not only do the larvae of echinoderms present clear bilateral symmetry, but their closest relatives are all bilateral organisms like hemichordates and other basal chordates.
The form they present as adults is mostly due to their lifestyle, presenting very limited motion and mostly feeding either on algae or filtering water, like sea lilies. They are far from the only organisms that develop in this way, since there are plenty of primitive bilateral organisms that have similar lifestyles to sponges and other non-bilateral organisms and thus end up having a very similar body plan to them, however, they are still bilateral nonetheless.
Checkmate gaythetsis
>It found a niche which wasn't worth leaving. If there's no evolutionary pressure to change, then strange offspring just get out competed again and again by the original design.
slightly wrong.
genes never have a concept of a niche which wasn't "worth leaving".
genes always mutate and let animals bearing them look for other niches.
And "evolutionary pressure" is what works against a species to filter out its genetic diversity to fit in such niches so that only or mostly the individuals with certain characteristics survive.
but horseshoe crabs are unable to regain their diversity to shrink in the first place for hundreds of millions of years as their basic design is not suited to the present environment, which is sometimes called deadend of evolution.
similar phenomena go as well for crocodiles.
For all we know it had descendants who managed to leave that niche, and we're just seeing those that remained.
it's statistically impossible for any lineage to remain the same for so long due to constant genetic drift
then why have hagfish stayed the same, and theyre way more complex than horseshoe crab
>then why have hagfish stayed the same
because evolution isn't real you gullible little lamb
Today's horseshoe crabs have slight differences but anything too different was swiftly outcompeted, killed, or moved away to become a new species of horseshoe crab. the idea that they are totally unchanged is soience. Kind of like purpose in evolution (a trait must be useful to evolve bullshit) and the denial of the hybridization theory of human evolution (where we either descend from a rare ape-pig, or we descend from an extremely old lineage that hybridized with both apes and pigs due to being kinky, and degenerated each time as the original species went extinct with only the ape hybrids regaining some of their intelligence)
Oh yes soience. All supposed human ancestors were obligatory bipeds that could not have been quadrupeds without discomfort, just not efficient ones, so they still say that the evolution of bipedalism was gradual.
Same people insist horseshoe crabs are unchanged despite ancient specimens being different species. It's "unchanged" in a different way, they twist the words and expect others to keep up, unaware that normies can't keep up. Scientists are poor communicators and they know it.
>All supposed human ancestors were obligatory bipeds
Because we have fossils dating back to when pan and Australopithine apes split off from each other displaying varying degrees of it. Most apes are capable of some level of bipedalism. Having one branch (or several) get really REALLY good at it isn't a stretch.
>Same people insist horseshoe crabs are unchanged despite ancient specimens being different species.
"Unchanged" and "mostly the same" do not have the same meaning. you can find the inverse holds true as well. Dingos, mastiffs, Chihuahuas and retrievers are all classified as Canis Familiaris, despite the massive morphological and behavioral differences between them, and that's only a few thousand years of selective breeding.
The evidence we have shows that the last commen ancestor of all apes was a aboreal bipeds (like gibbons). And that chimpanzes, Gorilas and Orangutans evolved their Qudrapedal knuckle walking independent of each other.
The ancestors of humans likely never develop knuckle walking. Despite it would making sense, since all close living relative of us are knuckle walkers.
What's the chance of life appearing in this universe, according to stats?
Did it happen anyway?
>as their basic design is not suited to the present environment,
Why not?
It's not of the result of its anatomical analysis, but is proved by the number of xiphosuran species in the past, which has gradually dropped its number from thousands or millions in the carboniferous period to only 4 in present.
But…that isn’t how this works. Those other species got outdone by other species. Like everyone used horse and buggy and then the car came around, it became successful enough that the automobile replaced the buggy by and large, but horse and buggy still exists because for its purpose as it is now it does it better than a car. Could the horse and buggy become completely eradicated? Sure. Could it have a resurgence? With gas prices how they are maybe. But I doubt you are going to convince that couple on a date sitting in the back of an old cutlass supreme is more romantic than the horse drawn carriage through Central Park.
>Those other species got outdone by other species.
crucially wrong.
Those other species got outdone and eradicated mostly by other non-xiphosuran species unlike the archaic humans.
>they got outdone by other species
>crucially wrong
>those other species got outdone by other species
Was he going full tarded or is this a meme?
if you mean the extinct horseshoe crabs got outdone by other horseshoe crabs, my previous post was to it.
if you mean the extinct horseshoe crabs got outdone by other marine animals, then it is regarded that the horseshoe crabs are unsuccessful species in the present world.
>animals all have bilateral symmetry
*blocks your path*
I always read and say Fiddler Crab as Diddler Crab.
if bilateral symmetry is such a perfect evolutionary trait why do I want to kill myself?
You're a defective specimen that natural selection will weed out
Literally because you have a brain, which is only possible thanks to the process of encephalization (gathering of nerve tissue / sensory organs in one end of the body) which in turn is one of the main adaptation bilateralians acquired when they became active animals that could move around rather than sessile creatures. The bilateral body plan is likely an adaptation to such lifestyles in itself.
Well, go ahead and try to split youself in half from head to crotch.
>why animals all have bilateral symmetry
Check your privilege.
evolution is also driven by the annunaki's genetic engineering projects. naturally it's so gradual that humans should still look more like chimps than not given how little evolutionary time it's been since we diverged. in fact, earth should be dominated by arthropods and primitive molluscs. even advanced molluscs carry the mark of the makers with their unique brain system and genome that depends on RNA editing, which effectively prevents them from evolving further until the gods decide it's their time.