Evolution

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Ok, after some of the posts I had to make in the big bang theory thread, I decided that this subject probably needs its own post. So, Talk away. I suggest reading what I wrote in Big Bang Theory first, because that should answer most questions. I will answer anything else as best I can.

[OpaQue 15]

Oh! you mean the world famous darwins theory... It does has some logic in it but thinking practically, its quite un-acceptable. ( this is what I think ).If man came outta monkeys, then what are the monkeys doing now... Similarly it is said that dolphins are evolved from dogs... then what are the dogs doing. Also, If monkeys intelligence kept on increasing and he finally started walking (bipedalism) to turn into homosapiens, why would the monkeys present now decide to remain as they are... If you are aware of any other theories.. please post it

[hashbang 0]

Opaque,You missunderstand the concept of evolution. Man did come from monkeys. Man and monkeys share a common ancestor as does man and evey other creature somewhere in history. Any present day creature is just as 'evollved' as man...meaning that they have continued to change through time too. Man is not the apex or end result of evolution. This is anthrocentric thinking. We are merely the result of a process just as is any other creature.That said, some of the best illustrators of evolution is the exciting discoverys showing the link between dinosaurs and birds. There are too many evolutionary examples nowadays to even mention. Funny ... this seems to only be a topic of debate for those who are not versed in the sciences or those with a biblical axe to grind.Evolution is not a theory as mistakenly believed by many. It is a scientific fact. The exact details of evolution are continually debated and sometimes family lineages are changed as a result. But to deny evolution occurs would be to deny the validity to most every science. Darwinism which most people connect to evolution was merely the starting point for modern thought. It was not a completed and refined theory nor is it accepted as the absolute truth today ... as I mentioned ideas, research etc change over time.cheershashbang

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Indeed, the widely held idea that 'man came from apes' is a misunderstandingMan and ape both came from something earlier that was neither man nor the modern ape/monkey/etc.I am not sure if dolphin/dog have same common ancestor, at least directly.Finally, as hashbang stated, Evolution is a fact, Natural Selection is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. Debate over 'evolution' tends to be actually over Natural Selection, as a debate over evolution doesn't make sense.

[cryptwizard 0]

I think what OpaQue is trying to say is:Why have some from a species evolved and the others haven't.I would also like to ask the same question.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

The answer is, all species have evolved. In fact, let us go over what a species is really quick. What specifically defines one species from another is somewhat muddy. One definition is that species are groups of organism that cannot(or do not) interbreed with other organisms. So, while you can make a horse and a donkey breed to make a mule, they don't usually do this on their own, therefore they are considered separate species. Other ways of defining species exist, such as appearance, diet, etc.Why the muddiness of the use of the word species? Well, this is where it gets back to evolution. Evolution is where 'species change over time'. A better way of saying it would be 'organic groups change over time'. Species is our way of trying to group as best we can all these shifting organisms. The constant shifting(due to evolution) is part of what makes it hard, because evolution has been blurring and creating new lines of division for well....a long long time.Now, to get back to your question in more precision, all species are evolving. Here I have to decifer what you mean by 'why have some from a species evolved'If by some you mean, some organisms, then here we go:First, evolution happens between generations, not during an organisms life. So, a single dog doesn't evolve. It is born with its genes and those will be its genes for the rest of its life. When it mates with another dog, the genes of those two dogs are mixed. This mix is partially random(to be explained somewhere else), and so if the dogs have a litter of pups, the different pups will all have slightly different genes, even though they came from the same parents.If some combinations of genes are more robust than others, or fit, meaning that they lead to greater chances to breed and create offspring, then those genes become more common, and increase their chances of ending up in subsequent generations. This is why evolution is slow, it is limited by the speed at which different generations of an organism group occur. This is why viruses mutate quickly, and humans do not. A virus may make many copies of itself(I will cover how changes occur here in a moment) in a matter of weeks. A human breeds ~13-whenever YEARS after birth, so species/organism group evolution is much slower.As a quick note, Evolution is NOT improvement. It has nothing to do with the ideas of 'better' or 'worse', but only fitness to produce young. Specifically, evolution is genotypic change(change in genes/gene frequency) over time.Now, back to the viruses. When DNA/RNA sequences are copied, there is a chance for a mistake. The chance is small, and is usually caught in the copying process, but it does happen. Considering the huge length of say, the human genome, it isn't that surprising that every so often mistakes are made. When these mistakes happen, and the resulting DNA is passed onto a new organism, then mutation is said to have occured. Viruses evolve quickly due to the rate of mutation and reproduction. For humans, these mutations happen as well, but such changes are generally not so dramatic as films and tv shows have made them out to be. Many times gene mutations are less fit than the non-mutated version(which after all still exhists after many generations, and is therefore at least decently fit). When not outright unhelpfull, many genes are mixed blessings. For instance, Sickle Cell disease is a genetic disease that occurs when a pair of sickle-cell genes are in the same organism(genes are at minimum paired, and are often written down with letters, like Ss, denoting the two types of the same gene that might exist. The combination is called a genotype, and the result as expressed by the organism is called the phenotype. Multiple genotypes can all result in the same phenotype). In sickle cell, having one half of the bad gene, which we will call s, would give you a genotype like so: Ss, as opposed to none of the gene, which would be SS. Having the genotype Ss makes you MORE fit than someone with SS. These people btw, do NOT have the disease, but instead are carriers for the disease. If two carriers mate, then there is a 25% chance(I can explain this number, but now isn't the time) that their child will get two copies of the bad gene, ss, and they will have Sickle cell. So, even though the disease would normally be culled by natural selection, because having 'half' the disease is helpfull, it is selected for, creating more children who are carriers, while at the same time the unfortunates that get both halves of the gene get a nasty disease.So, in any case, 'some of' a species don't evolve, though they may have more fit genes(passed down from their parents). Organisms themselves are just carriers for the process, during their life evolution doesn't happen(outside of the changes in breeding patters or death preventing the passing down of genes). I hope that answered your question, if not, clarify and I will see what I can do.

[Brian1405241474 0]

While I'm not sure if I completely believe Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, I think it's the best explanation we have for why things are the way they are and has the most evidence supporting it.(on the other hand, if we believe Creationism, that would explain everything, because a supreme being could do anything and therefore Creationism could explain anything, but we seem to have little proof for Creationism)

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Actually, Darwin's specific theory is a bit outdated. Modern views of natural selection are much more advanced.Once again, if you want more info on natural selection/evolution, I would be happy to explain to the extent of my personal knowledge.As for creationsim, or even the existence of a creator, thats a different discussion. Too bad we don't have a religion forum or a philosophy forum, because that would be cool to talk about as well.

[hashbang 0]

To further the wise frog ...organisms adapt as a response to pressure. An excellent example of 'recent' evolution is the work that is currently being done on 'Darwin's Finches' in the Galapagoes. Darwin did really say much about these finches, the name is more for historic 'who found them first' reasons. Anyway, these little finches out in the middle of nowhere have had to adapt an incredible array of lifestyle, eating habits, physical shapes, etc. to survive on these islands in very rugged conditions. I'm unsure why people tend to fixate on Darwin. Watson and Crick discovered the basic structure of DNA but there have been countless refinements since their initial discovery. Today, a serious researcher would not base all their knowledge of DNA based upon what Watson and Crick published. Do we still have debates about whether DNA exists?The issue with evolution is that it undermines a large fundementalists religious ideology who insisit on beliving the earch/universe and everything was created 4004 years ago (or somewhere in that vicinty). And that the old testament is, in fact, a literal history of the world (nevermind the dinosaurs).go figure ... I think it's a case of hidding ones intellect in the closet of faith.cheershashbang

[RGF 0]

First of all I don't believe in the bigbang theory nor do I believe that the earth was created 4004 or so years ago because (but first I may say something that may be off or not right but they are my idea's and opinions) the theory of the bigbang is just that a theory nothing more no one knows 100% what happened when life started nor can anyone say they do or what they say is 100% fact I could say that I am the King of the free world and have a golden toilette doesn't make it so. I'm not saying its not possible... just improbable.As for evolution it is possible and does happen in many things "animals, plants, bugs etc" but its really just adapting to ones new or current environment. As for the idea that I came from an ape just because humans and chimpanzee share some of the same characteristics doesn't make it so.what I'm trying to say is that we needed something to believe in and some people answered the call in matter of speaking... without anything to believe in... we have nothing, we do not know where we came from, we are not sure why we are here or what we are meant to do

[Qop 0]

Many people I know (and probably a lot i do not know) are 'scared' of the evolution theory cuz it seems difficult and irrelevant. The thing is, the theory is porbably the simplest that's to it; the discussions that follow are most of the times more difficult and interesting. But for everyone who wants to talk along with us:

 

The theory (in a nutshell) is as follows:

 

Variation within a species, heavy competition in nature and inheritance make sure that a species can change bit by bit

 

An example:

 

In the midst of the Southpole, more than 100 kilometers from the sea, lives a bird we call snowstormbirds (translated it literally from dutch if u know english name plz post). Within close surroundings there is only ice and snow, and this little bird has to fly the whole 100 km to sea to catch a fish, eat's half of it, flys back home and gives his bird-girlfriend the other half. The next day she does the same.

 

But now get this: there is another bird in this area called the southpolehunter. This guy eats the poor birds eggs. So in total there are 2 entire bird-species that rely in that 1 little fish.

heavy competition in nature

Imagine 1 bird that is just a bit better in catching a fish, and flying the 100 km to sea and back, and just a bit better in hidings it's nest from the eggeater-bird. Naturally this bird has a higher chance of survival.

Variation within a species

Higher chance of survival means more descendants. These descendants have a big chance to also have acces to daddy's and/or mommy's features. Naturally, these birds survive way better than the ones without the extra's. Thanks mum and dad!

inheritance

What happens? Cuz the super-birds are better at surviving, they get more baby's, which results in the same: everyone of them gets more baby's too. But because the amount of fish is limited and doesn't change, there is only room for a set amount of birds. So eventually, the super-birds take over the whole population of snowstormbirds.

[banjosforpeace 0]

Let's clarify...

 

There is actually NO REAL DEBATE between theories of creationism (or the updated "intelligent design") and evolution. Thanks to people who rely on the use of their brain as opposed bowing obediently to a construct of fear, scientific data is worked and re-worked over time to provide the most sound understanding of living things.

 

The campaign of instituting "intelligent design" into the classroom as a competing theory is a crass political mechanism that has been revisited for decades. The people at the forefront of these local movements are, to say it kindly, religious-types who will always benefit from both the promotion of their agenda and the continued ignorance of their congregations. Their machinations rarely diverge from a small handful of tactics. The themes are clear: "the godless heathens want you to reject your god for their so-called science" or "our children are under seige by people who hate us and our beliefs" or "our beliefs are about community and family while THEY are about atheism and individualism." All of it is the same "us vs. them" framework used to justify bigotry, racism and war for thousands of years. Divide and conquer.

 

What you will ALWAYS find is that when the leaders of these movements succeed in changing the way a school board treats creationism, they are soon overturned and completely rebuffed. When they fight a bitter and very public battle only to lose, they justify the outcome by repeating their themes with "I told you they were out to get us" attached. Win or lose, they accomplish their ACTUAL goal of polarizing an issue to gain loyalists and build congregations. Oh, and let's not forget how important monetary donations are to the cause.

 

Sadly, the masses - the everyday folk - are the ones who get caught in the crossfire of this silliness. They are led by their hearts and used as pawns in someones marketing plan.

 

And before I get flamed, PLEASE NOTICE I didn't say anything about religion being bad. I only pointed out an example of how religion is being used by hucksters and con men for their own ends.

 

Thank you to MajesticTreeFrog for patiently and meticulously spending time on this and similar threads.

[Admiral Lyoko Samus 0]

Ok, I'm going to say this and I'm only going to say it once along with support that the entire evolutionary theory is invalid and is constantly backfiring upon supporters of Darwinism. Not to provide any disrespect, considering I should know the trouble with such issues (and I know there will be that one person who decides to hate me for disproving this), but there are obviously some major conflicts here and I'd hate to know I could have stopped it from devleoping much more. However, believe what you want and feel is right; not what people tell you is right.

 

Note: Due to the limit of text that can be placed in one post, links to the articles have been provided. All are Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files. For those of you that were unable to comprehend the aforementioned paragraph, this is a Creationist supporting statement and was created by Christians. It is encouraged that Atheists and people of other faiths ignore this fact, as there are only biblical references/excerpts to encourage people of the Christian faith. Most of the information provided is purely scientific and based on previous discoveries and public statements to the scientific community. All proceeding articles are of complete relavance to the subject and it is encouraged that each be read to understand the full message that each is providing, as well as answer any contradictory questions you might have. If you wish to read more articles in relation to the invalidity of the Evolutionary theory/Darwinism or other "man-made" theories, you are encouraged to visit http://www.apologeticspress.org/ and visit the "Article Reprints" section. Some of the Articles listed here are in regards to the actual approximate age of the Earth, but are also relavant to the Evolutionary Theory.

 

Dinosaurs, Science, and the Bible - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/dinossb.pdf

 

Theistic Evolution-Curse of the Church - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/church.pdf

 

The Truth About "Lucy" - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/truthlucy.pdf

 

The Grand Canyon and The Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/grndcnyn.pdf

 

Evolution, Civilization, and Man's Intelligence - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/intelignc.pdf

 

Neanderthal Man-Another Look - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/nanderman.pdf

 

Polystrate Fossils and Evolution - http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Our Earth-Young or Old? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/yng-old.pdf

 

No Missing Links Here... - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/nomissng.pdf

 

Human and Chimpanzee DNA-Proof of Evolution? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/chimpdna.pdf

 

Neanderthal DNA Studies - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/nean-dna.pdf

 

What About Cave Men? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/cavemen.pdf

 

The Doctrine of Apparent Age - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/apparent.pdf

 

Creation and The Gap Theory - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/creagap.pdf

 

The Demise of "Mitochondrial Eve" - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/demiseeve.pdf

 

The Bible and the Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/ageearth.pdf

 

The Bible, Science, and the Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/bsage.pdf

 

Blind Cave Fish-Proof of Evolution? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/cavefish.pdf

 

Archaeopteryx and the "Dinosaurs-to-Birds" Theory - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/archaeop.pdf

 

Australia's Unique Animals - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/marsup.pdf

 

The Antiquity of Human History - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/antihist.pdf

 

The Geologic Timetable - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/timetable.pdf

 

Does Biblical Creation Account Agree with Geological Time Periods? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/timeperiods.pdf

 

Too Much Activity on Day Six? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/daysix.pdf

 

Are Six Days Six Days? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/rsixdays.pdf

 

Theistic Evolution or Atheism? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/atheism.pdf

 

Was the "Behemoth" of Job 40:15 a Dinosaur? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/wasbehem.pdf

 

Jurassic Park-The New Orthodoxy? - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/jurassic.pdf

 

The Formation of Coal - Two Views Considered - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/coal.pdf

 

Identifying Leviathan in Job 41 - http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/leviathan.pdf

[JUDGE_RELIC 0]

Everything has to evovle or die, it is the design of nature. Adaption to ever changing enviroments, over comming new obsticals introduced into the enviroment is also a neccessity for an increased opportunity for survival of a species. The devation from evolution is called Extinction.and you can quote me on that!

[mitchellmckain 0]

Let me first say that I am both a Christian and a scientist (masters in physics), so I am somewhat sympathetic to both sides. In principle, I am in favor of having a religion class in public schools. However I can accept the reality that this is impossible. If the pressure in the community is enough to cause the serious consideration of substituting evolution science with creationist pseudo-science (rhetoric superficially clothed in the terminology of science), which is what is happening in areas of the United States, imagine what the effect of this pressure would be on a religion class. Such a religion class will become nothing more than brainwashing tool in the hands of the dominant religion in the area. Now while I sympathize with the complaints of these religious groups that the public schools are already a brainwashing tool in the hands of the secular government, I must say that, as long as religious groups express hostility to every religious group and idea in disagreement with their own doctrines, then this is a reality they must live with. After all there are private schools. For many parents like me, we would prefer not to isolate our children, as if we were keeping them in a brainwashing camp, and see to their religious education ourselves without the interference of fanatics.

 

Science tries to formulate a test by which you can decide whether a theory is correct or incorrect. Simply hunting for evidence to support your theory is what lawyers and salesmen do, not scientists, and it is called rhetoric. The difference is a particular type of honesty which is rather peculiar to science. However this methodology of science is more suitable to some topics than others. It has proven most suitably applied to a thesis which can be given a mathematical formulation relating measurable quantities. Otherwise it is difficult to formulate an objective test by which the truth of the thesis can be determined. The "creationist" or "intellegent design" thesis does not fit this criterion very well at all. Therefore whether it is true or not, it is most definitely not a good scientific theory. Evolution as a process can be documented, making it a good (not great) scientific theory. However as a historical claim about the origin of the species, evolution like any other historical claim is a far more difficult thesis to test.

 

As both a Christian and a scientist I cherish hopes for bridging the gap between the two points of view. My line of attack has been against the ideas of mechanistic determinism and accidental variation in evolution and against the idea of design in creationism. I think both of these extremes display a blindness to the realities of what it means to be a living organism. I am saying that the what divides the two viewpoints is the same failure to understand the nature of living things. Living things are not "designed", they grow. They are not determined, they make creative choices. Variation is not accidental, it is intentional. Evolution reflects the creative learning process of living things. Creation reflects the fact that living things are sensitive to their environment and can be cultivated.

 

The only "creationism" that I support and believe in is simply that God played an active role in the orgin of the universe and everything in it, and not as a scientific theory or even primarily as an explanation for things. God is the ultimate black box in which to hide a multitude of mysteries and unanswered questions. Our belief in this is a matter of faith not science.

 

I am very much opposed to the idea of design in creation. It is the difference between how a watchmaker makes a watch and how a gardener makes a flower. The watchmaker makes a dead thing by a process of design and execution. A gardener makes his flower by interactive relationship with a living thing which we call cultivation. He cares for it, provides for its needs, and encourages it to produce what he wants. There is no design. The same goes for all creators of livings including teachers and parents. When creating a living thing the created is a participant in the process of creation. If isn't a participant in its own creation then it isn't alive.

 

The essence of the learning process is trial and error. Try many things and find the variations which produce good results. It is a two part process: creativity and evaluation. Evolution in essence is the same process with slightly different terms: variation and selection. The question is whether you think of it as something dead (automatic, accidental, unintentional), something which happens to living things, or as an activity in which living things participate by choice, purposely and intentionally. Also, living things are not isolated components. They interact in living collectives which are also alive. The organelles are alive. The cells are alive. The multicelluar organisms are alive. The communities are alive. The species are alive. The ecosystems are alive. Evolution simply describes the process whereby the species is creative in genetic variation, making choices in response to evironmental change and learning new and different ways to live.

 

But the problem is that the two sides of the opposition approach the topic as if they were engaging in holy war against the forces of evil and ignorance. Of course, "evil" is the Christian word. The other side uses the word "ignorance". They do not want to understand the opposing point of view. They only want to prove that the other side's point of view is completely invalid, stupid, and utterly without merit. I think that both science and Christianity will be the casualties in this and all that will be left is rhetoric. The activities themselves are not directly in jeapardy. It is the is in minds of people where they are casualties. It is the true meaning and understanding of science and Christianity which are lost when they are replaced by rhetoric. And yet the activities themselves are not immune. For when people do not understand or respect an activity, then why would they participate with time and money.