Nonsense.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.
- Thread starter Anti-World
- Start date
I do not understand that sentence.
Evolution is a sieve. "Natural selection" is an imprecise representation of the consequences of 'random' change resulting in differential adaptability over time.
I always knew it was rigged. So what you are saying is that God cheats.
Well obviously different people will use different words, different analogies, different ways of explaining the same thing.
Hexaqua_David(II)
Active Member
Reproduction is random to a certain extent. Any sperm can fertilise any egg, potentially. This is known as random fertilisation in biology. When gametes are formed, the chromosomes are lined up in such a way that the number of possible gametes is staggeringly large. This is known as independent assortment. Finally, mutations can sometimes occur, but they are not totally random. Complimentary base pairing means that you can never have completely random combinations of nucleotides, and therefore the range of possible codons is limited. All these things are known as "sources of variation". All that's needed once you have a lot of variation in a species is some kind of "sieve" to weed out the least well adapted. There is nothing conscious in this, do not confuse it with some sort of God, picking and choosing who he/she likes the look of. For example, one agent of selection may be as simple as a decrease in climatic temperature. Because of the variation already present in a species (some individuals will have thicker fur than others, for example), the ones with thin fur are less likely to survive to pass on their genes. So eventually we will see a species in which the average fur thickness is slowly increasing. It's not random really, because not just any thickness of fur will be more beneficial... I guess natural selection is "variable" just as much as the agents of selection are (the environment).
The results of all the processes I outlined above are observable within humans: we are all very different. Some tall, some short, some fat, some thin, some muscular, some lean etc.
- David
That was just a joke.
post 285
You are starting to get it, but not quite. Reproduction is part of natural selection. Those organisms that die before they reproduce are naturally selected against, those organisms that manage to reproduce viable offspring and pass their genes on to future generations are naturally selected for.
Mutation is essentially random.
You do seem to be getting the point that there is a random element and a non-random element. But keep in mind that “non-random” does not equal “guided”.
I understand that it is your belief that “God” controls all aspect of the universe, from the movements of the planets to the outcome of the lottery. That is fine, but you can at the same time recognize scientific principles. If you drop a stone off a cliff it will fall, if you put a piece of paper into a fire it will burn, if you consume poisons you will get sick and die. You know this. You operate in your daily life on these kind of scientific principles. Natural selection is no different. If an organism manages to survive and reproduce it will pass its genes on to future generations. Yes I understand that you believe that “God” is in control of this process, but “God” would also be in control of a falling rock. This should not prevent you from understanding the scientific principles and seeing how they operate in the world around you,
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think it's very important not only to understand the principles behind evolution, but to actually see the facts which overwhelmingly converge on the conclusion that all species share common ancestors.
I think you need to be aware of a few facts in particular:
1) Human-controlled selective breeding has cultivated a huge array of diversity in plants and animals within the very short span of human history alone; you may be interested in reading about the differences between wild vs. human-cultivated flowers and fruits, or between dire wolves and chihuahas, for example.
2) The time-scale of "macro" evolution--on the order of hundreds of thousands, millions, and billions of years--is not an intuitive time-scale. On that time scale, geologists know that canyons are formed from nothing, jungles become icy or dry deserts, mountains get buried at the bottom of oceans and the entire climate of the Earth changes. For comparison, if all of Earth's history were compressed into a single year, then the entire history of human civilization would thus far have lasted for a mere 60 seconds.
3) The distinctions we make between organisms, such as "birds" vs. "dinosaurs", or "amphibians" vs. "fish", are made a mockery of in three ways:
A) When you actually look at the diversity of species that exist and have existed. Is the mudskipper a "fish"? Are dolphins "mammals"? Were the feathered, tree-gliding reptiles "birds"? Are flightless ostriches "birds"? Were the creodonts "cats" or "dogs"? Where the fossil record is complete for an organism (and it is very difficult for the record to be complete because it is rare for a dead organism to become a fossil), we find that there are lines of descent with gradual modification (e.g. modern horses appear AFTER pilohippus, which appears AFTER merychippus, which appears AFTER mesohippus, and there is gradual change among them in this order). These lines of descent converge on COMMON ancestors (e.g. the line of descent for "cats" goes back to creodonts; so does the line of descent for "dogs").
B) When you look at development. In the early stages of embryonic development, you can't tell the difference between a fish, amphibian, avian or mammalian embryo. Mammalian embryos grow tails, just like their fish cousins, but in mammals the tail is reabsorbed during development. The same is true of hind legs in whales and dolphins. In fact, in whales and dolphins (which evolved from land-dwelling mammals--ever wonder why whales breathe air, have hair, and give live birth like mammals do?), the skeletal structure that would normally become a hand in land-dwelling mammals is modified to support flippers, in contrast to the spiny fins of most fish.
C) When you play with genes. Experiments have shown that a change in a SINGLE gene can have surprising results: it can make chickens grow teeth, and it can make mice see colors (they are normally colorblind), for example. A single frame-shift mutation enables a certain bacterium to live on a diet of NYLON, and only nylon. Such a bacterium has emerged in the last 100 years because nylon was not around before humans started making it. Other experiments simply allow fruit flies to reproduce, and by isolating groups under different environmental conditions in the lab, scientists are able to create new, different groups of fruit flies which can no longer interbreed with each other--they have become separate species, though their ancestors were a single species.
I think you need to be aware of a few facts in particular:
1) Human-controlled selective breeding has cultivated a huge array of diversity in plants and animals within the very short span of human history alone; you may be interested in reading about the differences between wild vs. human-cultivated flowers and fruits, or between dire wolves and chihuahas, for example.
2) The time-scale of "macro" evolution--on the order of hundreds of thousands, millions, and billions of years--is not an intuitive time-scale. On that time scale, geologists know that canyons are formed from nothing, jungles become icy or dry deserts, mountains get buried at the bottom of oceans and the entire climate of the Earth changes. For comparison, if all of Earth's history were compressed into a single year, then the entire history of human civilization would thus far have lasted for a mere 60 seconds.
3) The distinctions we make between organisms, such as "birds" vs. "dinosaurs", or "amphibians" vs. "fish", are made a mockery of in three ways:
A) When you actually look at the diversity of species that exist and have existed. Is the mudskipper a "fish"? Are dolphins "mammals"? Were the feathered, tree-gliding reptiles "birds"? Are flightless ostriches "birds"? Were the creodonts "cats" or "dogs"? Where the fossil record is complete for an organism (and it is very difficult for the record to be complete because it is rare for a dead organism to become a fossil), we find that there are lines of descent with gradual modification (e.g. modern horses appear AFTER pilohippus, which appears AFTER merychippus, which appears AFTER mesohippus, and there is gradual change among them in this order). These lines of descent converge on COMMON ancestors (e.g. the line of descent for "cats" goes back to creodonts; so does the line of descent for "dogs").
B) When you look at development. In the early stages of embryonic development, you can't tell the difference between a fish, amphibian, avian or mammalian embryo. Mammalian embryos grow tails, just like their fish cousins, but in mammals the tail is reabsorbed during development. The same is true of hind legs in whales and dolphins. In fact, in whales and dolphins (which evolved from land-dwelling mammals--ever wonder why whales breathe air, have hair, and give live birth like mammals do?), the skeletal structure that would normally become a hand in land-dwelling mammals is modified to support flippers, in contrast to the spiny fins of most fish.
C) When you play with genes. Experiments have shown that a change in a SINGLE gene can have surprising results: it can make chickens grow teeth, and it can make mice see colors (they are normally colorblind), for example. A single frame-shift mutation enables a certain bacterium to live on a diet of NYLON, and only nylon. Such a bacterium has emerged in the last 100 years because nylon was not around before humans started making it. Other experiments simply allow fruit flies to reproduce, and by isolating groups under different environmental conditions in the lab, scientists are able to create new, different groups of fruit flies which can no longer interbreed with each other--they have become separate species, though their ancestors were a single species.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
An interesting note of late has been some of the creatures depicted on the discovery channel. They are showing a dinosaur who would appear MUCH like a dolphin. It had a body type of about the same size and shape, with a similar mouth and fins. To see two such distinct species (one mammal and one saurian) to arrive at a similar configuration is amazing.
It is not hard to see some guiding principles at work here when you see the similarities which came down different evolutionary paths. If God designed evolution then the rules would all work in a similar fashion. Is this ID? Not quite as is being preached today, and it is definitely not verifiable through science (so don't put it in a class devoted to science), but to me it demonstrates the oh-so-subtle hand of God in the whole process.
It is not hard to see some guiding principles at work here when you see the similarities which came down different evolutionary paths. If God designed evolution then the rules would all work in a similar fashion. Is this ID? Not quite as is being preached today, and it is definitely not verifiable through science (so don't put it in a class devoted to science), but to me it demonstrates the oh-so-subtle hand of God in the whole process.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
One thing I noticed on the Discovery Channel: a credulous program about the existence of bigfoot. It was followed by a similarly realistic "reality" show about motorcycles, no doubt. 
I miss the good ol' days when it was Wild Discovery or nothing.... *sniff, wipes tears*
I miss the good ol' days when it was Wild Discovery or nothing.... *sniff, wipes tears*
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Here is Wikipedia's take on the subject Ichthyosaurus. I just think it's AMAZINGLY like a dolphin, but then it evolved in the same environment. Anyone who thinks that evolution is ALL up to chance will have a fun time explaining this away.
I do not understand this post. What does it mean to say that "evolution is ALL up to chance" and who would suggest such a thing?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Here is Wikipedia's take on the subject Ichthyosaurus. I just think it's AMAZINGLY like a dolphin, but then it evolved in the same environment. Anyone who thinks that evolution is ALL up to chance will have a fun time explaining this away.
Just remember, looks aren't everything. The Ichthyosaurs Blog » Ichthyosaurs Versus Dolphins: Different But The Same?