Unintelligent Design

[Rheghead]

If God wanted gorillas and pandas to be vegetarian, then why give them massive canine teeth???

[billmoseley]

to bite their keepers with lolololol

[bekisman]

'Pandas are famously peaceful creatures, content to sit around quietly eating bamboo.
But millions of years ago, they were as fierce and carnivorous as the rest of their bear relatives. It's all a question of changing environments and shifting genes.
Genetic research into pandas by Jianzhi Zhang at the University of Michigan found that pandas now carry an inactive version of the Tas1r1 gene.
This gene controls the ability to taste umami flavors, which includes all meaty and savory flavors. Without it, pandas can't really taste meat, and so they probably wouldn't want to eat meat even if it was available in large quantities..

the fossil record shows us that pandas switched from meat to bamboo anywhere from 7 to 2 million years ago..

http://io9.com/5706593/pandas-are-vegetarians-because-they-lost-the-meat+eating-gene

[billmoseley]

preferred my answer lolol

[weezer 316]

Dont ask difficult questions about religion. Infact dont ask any questions about religion.

[bekisman]

Dont ask difficult questions about religion. Infact dont ask any questions about religion.
Yep too near CHRISTmas!

[Tristan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8984323/Wild-panda-spotted-eating-meat-in-China.html
Meat eating panda

[scotsboy]

Of course the great irony is that there is as much evidence of evolution as there is of creation, of course the zealots on both sides of the "argument" fail to highlight this.

[TAFKAL]

both will eat meat but generally don.t as they are too slow but will eat it if they stumble on it. I believe they are actually omnivores but too slow and cumbersome to catch anything. Both will eat grubs and will,eat scavenged meat.

[Kodiak]

Many think that the giant panda only eats stems, leaves and fresh new shoots of bamboo, but it will also eat berries, fruit, flowers, fungi, grass, bark, bird's eggs and insects. It also eats flowers like crocuses and irises which grow in its mountain habitat. In the wild it will also catch fish and hunt small birds and rodents, like bamboo rats. This is not enough to live on, though, so it mainly eats various species of bamboo.

The giant panda's diet is 99% vegetarian, but it is actually classed as a carnivore! It has a short digestive system, which is normal for carnivores, but herbivores normally have longer digestive systems. In other words, its digestive system is not well suited to its diet. The panda's intestines are too short to digest bamboo properly. The reason is that it descended from a carnivore that lived millions of years ago. Over time, the food supply changed, and there was less meat, but plenty of bamboo. So, the giant panda's ancestors started eating bamboo. The panda evolved, but its intestines didn't. That is why it has a carnivore's digestive system, but a herbivore's diet.

The giant panda has very powerful jaws. Its molar and premolar teeth are really meant To be used by a carnivore to tear flesh, but the panda uses them to slice, crunch and crush tough bamboo stems. It's capable of crushing bamboo stems up to 4cm in diameter. The giant panda has an extra molar on its lower jaw. Its diet is very hard on its teeth.

Because bamboo has a low nutrition value compared to meat, the giant panda usually needs 10-20kg of bamboo a day, which is more than 4500kg a year. Therefore it spends 16 hours a day eating, but it only digests the equivalent of one hour's intake. In spring when there are lots of sweet, young bamboo shoots, it sometimes eats 36kg bamboo in one day.

[Rheghead]

Good old google eh Kodiak.

http://www.angelfire.com/de/cade/eating.html

You must have googled his post then?

[weezer 316]

Of course the great irony is that there is as much evidence of evolution as there is of creation, of course the zealots on both sides of the "argument" fail to highlight this.

Enlighten me. Evolution has observied speciation, DNA evidence, millions of fossils (with an neat geological record to confirm timings of things to support it) genetic drift, and not to mention being the only plausable explanation for the diversity of life we see with animals and plants wonderfully well adapted to their environment, which is exxctly what the theory says you would expect to see.

What comparable standard of "evidence" exists for creation? And creation by who/what/when?

[George Brims]

Of course the great irony is that there is as much evidence of evolution as there is of creation, of course the zealots on both sides of the "argument" fail to highlight this.
Don't take this personally, but that is utter nonsense.

[scotsboy]

Yes, perhaps my post was poorly written, and it was not my intention to disrespect or promote either “evolution” or “creation”, simply to say that an open mind should allow you to respect both, and that the dogma associated with both sides is equally negative.
Evolution is a theory, and as such has significant evidence to back it up, but it lacks observation, and whilst the fossil record cannot be denied, the absence of transitional states could be argued to be discreet species. Of course creationists will say that the “random” evolution of life from a primordial broth conflicts with the order and symmetry that is found, failing to understand the process of natural selection.
My mind is open, open to both concepts, and I don’t see anything that definitively proves or disproves the other.
Don’t worry George, of course I never took your comments personally. ;-)

[Rheghead]

Yes but I thought evidence for evolution is water tight even in the absence of fossils of intermediates?

[TAFKAL]

Evolution is a theory, and as such has significant evidence to back it up, but it lacks observation, and whilst the fossil record cannot be denied, the absence of transitional states could be argued to be discreet species.

There are Transistional states in the fossil record, they are just so few as most carcasses were eaten, leaving little evidence of their existence. The fossils that are found tend to be sudden deaths through a disaster and as such are a snapshot rather than a technicolor film.

We need to focus less on the fossil record and more on life today. Look at bacteria - they mutate regularly, look at the finches in the galapogos, look at dogs - mans' interference and steering of evolution, look at food products, both vegetable and animal - another example of biased evolution.

There is more than evolution going on though - that is such a simplistic view. genes don't just decide to grow bigger teeth, or a longer neck. It is an accident, but an accident that favours survival. Adaptability is the key. Why do you thnk there are so many short sighted humans but so few short sighted primates in the wild? Why do racehorses that have been line-bred tend towards poor feet but wild horses don't? The questions are rhetoric but it is something to ponder...

Humans triumphed over Neanderthals, not because we wiped them out (there is no evidence of this) but because Neanderthals never adapted from a purely meat diet. Times got tough and humans scavenged and browsed on fruit, veg and nuts, Neanderthals went hungry and the populations dwindled. It isnt a case of one species driving out another, it is a case of a species failing to thrive all by itself because of the inability to adapt...

Look at birds... There used to be 'hundreds and thousands, millions of soarrows' - they were the most common garden bird. They are rare now, replaced in numbers by starlings. Look at birds of prey - there are birds of prey that thrive in the cities picking off the pigeons. Look at scorries - gulls used to be primarily sea birds but now they are the kings of rubbish dumps! Adapability :) which in turn leads to evolution.

[scotsboy]

But those are intra-species development to environmental factors, no? Similary in humans, residents of Ramsar, Iran have developed a greater tolerance to ionizing radiation, due to their residence in a very high background area.

[secrets in symmetry]

There are Transistional states in the fossil record.Indeed there are - contrary to what is usually believed by "wlifully ignorant evolution deniers". :cool:

[TAFKAL]

But those are intra-species development to environmental factors, no? Similary in humans, residents of Ramsar, Iran have developed a greater tolerance to ionizing radiation, due to their residence in a very high background area.But that is what evolution is about - change due to adaptability to environmental factors. People don't develop greater tolerance, the ones with poor tolerance have lowered lifespans and the ones with better tolerance live. It is a mutation that allows the better tolerance and gets passed to their offspring. It isn't something that someone develops over the course of their life. Evolution doesn't just work in a positive way, it also works in a negative way. A mutation can occur that makes adaptability to the environment, and thus survival, more difficult.

Going back to the shortsightedness I brought up before and combining it with your own comment about different human populations. There are fewer short sighted people in 3rd world countries than 1st, or even 2nd. Survival is very difficult with poor vision. Short sighted ness is almost unheard of in times in the Americas that have little contact with the western world. Why can we survive, but they don't? We have adapted to develop tools to make glasses. The tribes have the potential to do this but environmental factors mean that their populations can never thrive like our own.

[TAFKAL]

Indeed there are - contrary to what is usually believed by "wlifully ignorant evolution deniers". :cool:Indeed there are - just not in big enough amounts (for the reason I described) to convince some...

[scotsboy]

Indeed there are - contrary to what is usually believed by "wlifully ignorant evolution deniers". :cool:

There is a great paradox between your moniker, avatar and opinion;-)

[secrets in symmetry]

There is a great paradox between your moniker, avatar and opinion;-)Don't forget my signature!

[scotsboy]

Don't forget my signature!

I just assumed you were a Stone Roses fan:-) I guilty of the odd assumption!

[secrets in symmetry]

I just assumed you were a Stone Roses fan:-) I guilty of the odd assumption!Some assumptions are worth making. :cool: