Evolution

[Dezertfish]

The problem is, Edric, that there already IS new outstanding evidence, through genetic research. The Creationists just don't want to see it.

I understand that Dezertfish has probably not read my posts yet, so he has not responded, at least I hope this is the case, but of the people on this site that make their little comments about evolution, he is the only one with the guts to argue it. I respect that, too bad others are not the same, and hide behind their little unqualified comments on other threads.

This thread may possibly go nowhere. Dezertfish and I will probably never agree, but for those reading the thread, maybe they will be educated some by the topic. That is what I hope to accomplish, so that others will know the facts about what they believe or disbelieve.

For people who want to learn about evolution, you could ask questions about the theory as well, or if you have any new information that I have not heard, I would love to read it.

I have read your posts

I have just not have had much time to respond. I have been looking into your www.talkorigins.org and have been reading that as well as your posts.

That site is as biased as all the others for or against anything, and I have a few times seen them discredit what they were trying to say in the process of saying it. I am sorry it seems that I have left this thread, but I have not.

I am probably not the only person who has the guts to argue on this topic(see, anyone can tell that is what we are doing!), I am the only one who currently does not have hte guts NOT to argue it.(As I would like to rectify my beliefs in my own mind)

sorry I have not posted much, but you do not leave much room for discussion, and I am tyring to use your source more now instead of what you said. It makes more sense to me.

I gotta go. One day soon I will have a really long post, I hope.

[The_old_worm]

Dezertfish, talk.origins does present the Creationist side too, and offers many links to other Creationist sites. Evolution may seem to contradict itself at times simply because it is a work in progress. As we learn more things from new technology, and new evidence we find that many of the ideas of Darwin's original theory are a little off, and scientists often argue about other possible explainations of these fine details. The basic premiss, however, fits the evidence very well, and actually has little contradiction. If you are interested in checking out ongoing discussions in this topic, I have found another site that I frequent. It is WWW.Physicsforums.com. There you get discussions going on from both sides. You'll just have to go the the Other Sciences thread to find evolution discussions.

[Dezertfish]

Dezertfish, talk.origins does present the Creationist side too,

I have just searched, not especially thoroughly, the talk.origins archives and have not found any thing that does not support evolution.

Evolution may seem to contradict itself at times simply because it is a work in progress. As we learn more things from new technology, and new evidence we find that many of the ideas of Darwin's original theory are a little off, and scientists often argue about other possible explainations of these fine details. The basic premiss, however, fits the evidence very well, and actually has little contradiction.

Sorry I was not more specific.:'( I agree with you that sometimes it does seem to contradict itself, but I was specifically referring to their attacks on creationists, where they say that it is not good to use quotes to try to disprove someone(I agree with this, if someone says something detrimental to their own ideas, it is no more credible, or provien than if an opponent said it.), then they turned around and tried to use the same tactic against creationists! They claim, as you did that creationists are dishonest because of one fraud(haven't found much proof that it is a fraud, or that it would help creationism if it wasn't, but I won't comment on it), even though "science" has had many frauds in its history. (Nuclear fusion, all the missing links(already mentioned several in religion thread), many mistakes(phlogiston, bad blood, etc.) and some other times that scientists have faked proof, you can seach for scientific blunders and find several).

If you are interested in checking out ongoing discussions in this topic, I have found another site that I frequent. It is WWW.Physicsforums.com. There you get discussions going on from both sides. You'll just have to go the the Other Sciences thread to find evolution discussions.

I will go there, sometime this week I hope.

[The_old_worm]

In NO place on the fossil record is there a gap where those frauds existed. I'm always curious about this, What missing link are you looking for? The fossil record shows us a pretty good progression from ape to man, so what would you accept as the "missing link"?

I was just reading back on the religion thread and caught this quote and would likd to respond, even though I partially responded earlier.

"But how does a fish become a lizard or bird? In order to develope lungs, millions of favorable mutations would have had to occur in the same sperm or egg, that just happened to become fertilized. If a fish got lungs, it would also need feathers and hollow bones and many other favorable mutations ALL AT THE SAME TIME, otherwise it would drown. Now who shows ignorance?---Dezertfish

You do! A fish did NOT become a lizard or bird. Do you even understand the evolutionary process? Maybe that's why you think that the order of creation in the Bible fits the scientific order of creation. Again, by oversimplifying the theory, you make it sound ridiculous. Here is the evolutionary tree for the bird, just so you'll know.

1. Fish--develope the ability to stay on land longer, by developing primitive lungs, while maintaing gills. Along with adapted front fins for crawling on land. (check the Crossopterygians) I've already described a possibility of this process.

2.  Through millions of tiny changes over millions of years (not at the same time!), these adapted fish eventually become what we would now know as amphibians. Amphibians show characteristics such as gills, as well as genetic similarities, that link them to fish.

3. Eventually, amphibians developed tougher skin to keep moisture in so that they could stay on land longer, and in this process, develope more advaced forms of lungs. You can see this change in skin when you look at a toad. These new amphibians evenually evolved into the reptiles. Again, much morphological and genetic evidence supports the relation between amphibians and reptiles.

4. Finally, small groups of reptiles evolved into dinosaurs, with many species becoming warm blooded. Also fossils show us dinosaurs with hollow bones, without the ability to fly, supporting the theory that they are for temperature control. These small reptiles developed feathers(again probably for temp control), which, as a side effect, could catch wind and create the ability to glide.

5. eventually these dinosaurs evolved into birds as we know them today.

[The_old_worm]

Even my above description is extrememly oversimplified, but it gives you the idea of the millions of small changes taking place over millions of years to change a fish into a bird. They do not have to happen all at once, as long as each little step is positively selected for by natural selection or sexual selection.

[The_old_worm]

Oh, and by the way, the religious have had their fair share of frauds--The "discovery" of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat, The shroud of Turin, Crying Jesus statues, faith healers etc... The problem is that many of the religious cling to these frauds even in the face of evidence against it. Find me an Scientist that claims those frauds to be true. Like I said, Science learns from it's mistakes. Religion clings to their false beliefs and attacks any one who tries to point them out.

[Dezertfish]

Oh, and by the way, the religious have had their fair share of frauds--The "discovery" of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat, The shroud of Turin, Crying Jesus statues, faith healers etc... The problem is that many of the religious cling to these frauds even in the face of evidence against it. Find me an Scientist that claims those frauds to be true. Like I said, Science learns from it's mistakes. Religion clings to their false beliefs and attacks any one who tries to point them out.

Missing links? Okay, where are all of the transitional fossils? If it took millions of years as you claim, then there should be a plethora of fossils that show an unbroken chain of progression from original cell into simple animal or plant or fungus etc. into what they are today.

Many books that I have checked out on evolution still include piltdown man, java man, and the others as examples of the missing links. Yes! it IS missing, Lucy by herself does not constitute the entire chain.

[Dezertfish]

Okay you can say all you want that fish can survive BETTER on land than in the water if they have lungs, but what about cells?

How likely is it that both DNA AND RNA were randomly created at the same time? If the first cell only had one, then it may have survived for a little while, but being unable to reproduce, it would have served no evolutionary purpose.

What are the odds that a randomly assembled cell can divide and reproduce at all? How could sexual reproduction evolve in just one animal, when that animal would have no mate, and consequently die without offspring. If an animal did undergo macro evolution, then it would be unable to mate with its parent species, because it would no longer be a part of its parent species! Its mate would have to evolve with it.

[The_old_worm]

Again, I ask, what exactly are you looking for in the transition from ape to man? Are you looking for a skeleton of an ape that shows human characteristics--We have that in Lucy and Austrolopithecus Afericanus. Are you looking for the middle ground between Ape and Man? We have that too in  Austrolopithecus Robustus and Australopithecus boisei. Are you looking for humans with ape like characteristics, because we also have that in Homo Erectus and Neanderthals. Sure there are holes in what we have found, but you can't really expect to find a year to year account in the fossil record. The pattern is made clear by what we have in the fossil record.

Every fossil that we find is a transitional fossil, evolving from one organism to another. If I go to the cemetary and dig up a skeleton, he IS a transitional fossil between modern humans and whatever we may evolve into. So what do you define as transitional, Organisms with characteristics of two different species? We have plenty of those. In fact scientists often have a hard time classifying new organisms because they DO have characteristics from two different species.

Punctuated Equilibrium also helps to explain the apparent gaps that do exist between species. Punctuated equilibrium simply states that evolution does not follow a consistant, slow progression, but rather involves long periods of stability, followed by RELATIVELY(just to make sure you see that) short periods of transition. Due to the amount of time and extreme circumstances in fossilization, punctuated equilibrium decreases the chances that these "transitional" species would fossilise.

[Dezertfish]

Again,

Okay you can say all you want that fish can survive BETTER on land than in the

water if they have lungs, but what about cells?

How likely is it that both DNA AND RNA were randomly created at the same time?

If the first cell only had one, then it may have survived for a little while, but

being unable to reproduce, it would have served no evolutionary purpose.  

What are the odds that a randomly assembled cell can divide and reproduce at

all? How could sexual reproduction evolve in just one animal, when that animal

would have no mate, and consequently die without offspring. If an animal did

undergo macro evolution, then it would be unable to mate with its parent

species, because it would no longer be a part of its parent species! Its mate

would have to evolve with it.

                 

How would species evolve extra chromosones? And then be able to mate with another animal with the original amount. Need I mention that mules are sterile? I ask you, How did the first cell just happen to have the ability to divide and multiply? It is not nessesary to the survival of the cell itself, but is just as important to the evolutionary idea, A bacterium without the ability to undergo miosis(sp. I think) may be more fit to survive than another bacterium, but it would not pass on these traits!

If evolution takes as long as it is theorized that it does, then there should be

many more fossils that show a smooth transition from one species to another. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't make any sense, why the tranquil periods? If evolution benefits a species, then why stop?, would it not be better to keep right on evolving into their big bad, upgraded, more modern, future species?

Why would apes evolve into us? They are stronger, more limber, and more agile than humans. The only thing we have going for us is intelligence. I don't see how our level of intelligence in the first humans would have allowed them to survive natural selection.

(I understand the use of all caps to accent, as you can tell if you look at my earlier posts:))

[The_old_worm]

Okay you can say all you want that fish can survive BETTER on land than in the water if they have lungs, but what about cells?

How likely is it that both DNA AND RNA were randomly created at the same time? If the first cell only had one, then it may have survived for a little while, but being unable to reproduce, it would have served no evolutionary purpose.

What are the odds that a randomly assembled cell can divide and reproduce at all? How could sexual reproduction evolve in just one animal, when that animal would have no mate, and consequently die without offspring. If an animal did undergo macro evolution, then it would be unable to mate with its parent species, because it would no longer be a part of its parent species! Its mate would have to evolve with it.

a kind of protocell called coacervates or microspheres have been shown to form and resemble, very closely, living cells. They are seperated by a membrane from the outside world selectively taking up certain substances from the atmosphere. If some basic form of DNA or even the components of DNA were trapped within this membrane, it would be free to carry out it's chemical reactions, and could create both DNA and RNA through some sort of transcription. Once DNA is made within the cell, reproduction is very likely.

Perhaps sexual reproduction began earlier than you think. Perhaps, in the earliest of creatures arising from single-celled organisms, a mutation cause one organism to invade another's DNA to reproduce. It combined it's DNA with an unchanged organism which is evolutionarily advantageous because it brings in variation. Those organisms would have evolved faster. I don't know if this is what happened, but it does answer your question of how COULD it happen.

As for macroevolution, you need to read more on it because you have it all wrong. I don't know how to explain this without writing a book, so I'll do the best I can. Contrary to your opinion, millions of mutations do NOT have to happen all at once. I've demonstrated with the fish how small, yet beneficial mutations that build up over long periods of time, can lead to those big changes that you see. The number of mutations happens gradually enough, that the organism is still sexually compatible with it's parent species. For example, a person with Sickle Cell Anemia, is still able to reproduce with other humans. As a group is isolated from the original population, especially in extreme circumsances, thos small, gradual mutations build up and are passed around that community. Each mutation is minor enough, that the population can still breed from generation to generation....I'll finish on my next post

[The_old_worm]

Sorry, ran out of memory.

Eventually, the isolated species breaks out of it's isolation, then mingles back with the original population, but because millions of years have passes with millions of independant mutations, they can no longer breed with the original group. That is speciation, and that is macroevolution. It HAS been observed many times. So to answer your question, it happens to a group, not an individual.

Slow gradual evolution makes no sense. Does the environment stay stable with long gradual changes? No, of course not. The stable periods happen when an animal is extremely well adapted to it's environment. There is no need for drastic changes, so the animal goes through these long periods of slow evolution. However, here comes an ice age, and suddenly(relatively, of course) it's either adapt or die. Selection pressures are much stronger leading to faster change. Anyone who still thinks that evolution is a slow, gradual process, needs to reexamine his thinking.

You need to understand one thing. There is no goal to evolution, no ultimate species that it strives for, only the best adaptation to the given environment. So, if a species is extremely well adapted to it's environment i.e. the Crocodile, then there is no need for major changes, but, if that environment changes radically within 5,000 to 10,000 years, then the creature had better change or die.

You honestly don't see how intelligence would lead to better survival for a species? Are you kidding me? Tools, hunting equiptment, agriculture, shelter, strategic hunting, none of this seems advantageous to you?