Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter pssh
- Start date
Monties1982
Avid Member
One problem with saying it takes so long is that almost every phylum of life that exists today arose at the beginning of the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago and according to paleontologist couldn't have taken more than 5 million years. Between 60 and 100 phyla of life showed up in that 5 million year period and not a single new one has appeared since. That raises the question how that much new genetic information could arise in such a short amount of time.
Julirs
New Member
OK-what would you suggest? It takes years and many classes to put it all together. Anything else is just opinions.
Monties1982
Avid Member
Since you seem to know so much, Julirs, let me ask you this. Where do new genes come from?
pssh
Avid Member
Give me the short version. I've taken molecular biology classes so why don't you explain the genetic side then?
Julirs
New Member
When did this become "Test your knowledge"?
Julirs
New Member
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2009/09/where_do_new_genes_come_from.html
Proves nothing-correct?
I spent years splicing DNA in e. coli. I spent years in school. I am old. What do you want?
Proves nothing-correct?
I spent years splicing DNA in e. coli. I spent years in school. I am old. What do you want?
Cainschams
New Member
Im an athiest. I believe in evolution. I think our missing link is extra terrestrials. I am now done here.
mardithepanther
New Member
Im an athiest. I believe in evolution. I think our missing link is extra terrestrials. I am now done here.
wheres the like button?
Syn
Avid Member
Is that a threat or a promise?Syn-you need to be evoluted!
jojackson
New Member
Earlier somebody said..
[why has evolution stopped for humanity?]
Im not at all certain that it has, but some reading on the difference between micro and macro evolution may shed some light for you. Im guessing you are actually asking why
humans dont look entirely different by now?
Partly the simple answer is that physical change (entire) from one form to another (macro evolution) is a very very long process, and on the scale of evolution, humans have only been around for five minutes.
A logical and even simpler answer might be that that evolution is driven not only by genetic mutation, which is the effect, but by adaption, which is the cause. I believe this is self evident and examples are seen in todays world. You cant ask for more proof than that.
If you consider the nature of humanity, since we discovered fire, the answer becomes
simpler still. We are no longer adapting to change, we are now adapting to humanity.
No need to adapt, no need to evolve. For example look at crocs and turtles.
Personally, no matter how scientifically or objectively I veiw the world around me,
I cannot for the life of me accept the notion that such ultimate perfection and precision is no more than
the result of sheer chance.
Im afraid I cannot accept the terms you dictate young psssh, I look at the world as a
small child, im filled with awe and wonder at the grandness of it all and it inspires a part of me to
beleive that it is indeed 'intelligent design'.
I make no suppositions about a designer, im not that arrogant, but I see no conflict with both ideas.
What a perfect way to design a world! Who will dare to suggest it's impossible?
Hands up all those present who witnessed it all happen.....
[why has evolution stopped for humanity?]
Im not at all certain that it has, but some reading on the difference between micro and macro evolution may shed some light for you. Im guessing you are actually asking why
humans dont look entirely different by now?
Partly the simple answer is that physical change (entire) from one form to another (macro evolution) is a very very long process, and on the scale of evolution, humans have only been around for five minutes.
A logical and even simpler answer might be that that evolution is driven not only by genetic mutation, which is the effect, but by adaption, which is the cause. I believe this is self evident and examples are seen in todays world. You cant ask for more proof than that.
If you consider the nature of humanity, since we discovered fire, the answer becomes
simpler still. We are no longer adapting to change, we are now adapting to humanity.
No need to adapt, no need to evolve. For example look at crocs and turtles.
Personally, no matter how scientifically or objectively I veiw the world around me,
I cannot for the life of me accept the notion that such ultimate perfection and precision is no more than
the result of sheer chance.
Im afraid I cannot accept the terms you dictate young psssh, I look at the world as a
small child, im filled with awe and wonder at the grandness of it all and it inspires a part of me to
beleive that it is indeed 'intelligent design'.
I make no suppositions about a designer, im not that arrogant, but I see no conflict with both ideas.
What a perfect way to design a world! Who will dare to suggest it's impossible?
Hands up all those present who witnessed it all happen.....
pssh
Avid Member
That's what I was trying to say! (rather lamely I might add.)
Use which ever definition of divine you prefer. I, myself, am not using it to express some form of deity or even any relation to any kind of deit(y/ies.) I meant for the word to be more like greater or magnificent. Like there is something bigger at play, I guess.
Do you mean a natural selection kind of adaptation? If you mean something else, can you explain a little for me? Or maybe intellectual adaptation?
Use which ever definition of divine you prefer. I, myself, am not using it to express some form of deity or even any relation to any kind of deit(y/ies.) I meant for the word to be more like greater or magnificent. Like there is something bigger at play, I guess.
Do you mean a natural selection kind of adaptation? If you mean something else, can you explain a little for me? Or maybe intellectual adaptation?
Last edited:
jojackson
New Member
Natural selection is claimed to be part of the adaption process, since only species meeting the challenge of change will survive.
For example an early version of the giraffe lived in times where its environment was such that its food source was shrubbery/shorter vegetation which only grew there, so its oddly short neck suited it just fine. As the climate changed, perhaps over many thousands of years, gradually flora also changed with larger taller trees becoming more common.
As a result of this and perhaps sheer competition for food, the species was forced to adapt to a new food source.
The actual mechanism of genetic change remains mysterious (to me), but to more logical minds than mine, the change came first (random genetic mutation), however what doesn't make sense to me, is if random mutation is solely responsible, how is it that these apparently random mutations, have so perfectly met a given species needs, inline with various challenges from new predators, geographical isolation, to climate change to name a few?
Sheer fluke? Im skeptical.
Natural selection is based on the idea that a random mutation in the genes of a given species occures (why?) Why no random mutations in the genetics of crocs and turtles?
Because they were and still are, perfectly adapted to their world. No need to adapt.
So, this random mutation having occurred, lets say it makes a lizard a paler color than its predecessors, if this mutation means the paler lizards blend better and thus more often escape predation, then the mutant lizards will become the norm. Darker ones will eventually die out?
The question is, how is it that such a mutation should co-coincidentally occur where (for example)
the lizards are being forced into ever more wider territory by habitat destruction, ferals, scarcity of food or what have you, in this case into areas where grassland becomes sand dunes. The paler color means they dont stick out like dogs nuts on the sand, are escaping predation more often than those darker ones.
In this case 'Random' mutation seems enormously co-incidental to me!
Below is a similar example
http://throughthesandglass.typepad.com/.a/6a01053614d678970c011168371873970c-pi
From the above link
* this seems to imply that the need to change is followed by the mutation, not vice versa. Herein is the mystery of the mechanism by which that change required occurs.
On the contrary...Evolution at speed in todays world.
http://fauceir.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/lizard-evolution/
http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/evolutioncausedbycanetoads.html
For example an early version of the giraffe lived in times where its environment was such that its food source was shrubbery/shorter vegetation which only grew there, so its oddly short neck suited it just fine. As the climate changed, perhaps over many thousands of years, gradually flora also changed with larger taller trees becoming more common.
As a result of this and perhaps sheer competition for food, the species was forced to adapt to a new food source.
The actual mechanism of genetic change remains mysterious (to me), but to more logical minds than mine, the change came first (random genetic mutation), however what doesn't make sense to me, is if random mutation is solely responsible, how is it that these apparently random mutations, have so perfectly met a given species needs, inline with various challenges from new predators, geographical isolation, to climate change to name a few?
Sheer fluke? Im skeptical.
Natural selection is based on the idea that a random mutation in the genes of a given species occures (why?) Why no random mutations in the genetics of crocs and turtles?
Because they were and still are, perfectly adapted to their world. No need to adapt.
So, this random mutation having occurred, lets say it makes a lizard a paler color than its predecessors, if this mutation means the paler lizards blend better and thus more often escape predation, then the mutant lizards will become the norm. Darker ones will eventually die out?
The question is, how is it that such a mutation should co-coincidentally occur where (for example)
the lizards are being forced into ever more wider territory by habitat destruction, ferals, scarcity of food or what have you, in this case into areas where grassland becomes sand dunes. The paler color means they dont stick out like dogs nuts on the sand, are escaping predation more often than those darker ones.
In this case 'Random' mutation seems enormously co-incidental to me!
Below is a similar example
http://throughthesandglass.typepad.com/.a/6a01053614d678970c011168371873970c-pi
From the above link
* this seems to imply that the need to change is followed by the mutation, not vice versa. Herein is the mystery of the mechanism by which that change required occurs.
On the contrary...Evolution at speed in todays world.
http://fauceir.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/lizard-evolution/
http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/evolutioncausedbycanetoads.html
Last edited:
Johnny909
New Member
Steven hawking says we are in an external stage of evolution, meaning the species is going into a phase in wich to survive we will have to spread out in space. I believe that is a form of evolution, but there is a debate on if it really is, our next step will not alter our DNA much, but we have recorded so much information that has been passed down from generation to generation that we are making incredible progress. I only read science magzines and watch discovery science, i cant imagine how cool it must be to understand these things from ground up!
jojackson
New Member
Steven hawking says we are in an external stage of evolution, meaning the species is going into a phase in wich to survive we will have to spread out in space....
I think Mr Hawking is way ahead of himself there. I would have said if we are to survive as a species, we need first to control our own population (more realistic than space colonys) and to evolve morally. Whats the biggest threat to to humanities survival?
Is it greed, overpopulation, destruction of the environment, or our tendency to kill each other on a massive scale?
I think Mr Hawking is way ahead of himself there. I would have said if we are to survive as a species, we need first to control our own population (more realistic than space colonys) and to evolve morally. Whats the biggest threat to to humanities survival?
Is it greed, overpopulation, destruction of the environment, or our tendency to kill each other on a massive scale?
Johnny909
New Member
Yes, you are indeed correct, but he is talking about the next millions of years, not the near future. Meaning our next step is becoming a cosmic species.
And there is debate has if this counts has "true evolution" due to the fact it has nothing to do with mutation or dna, simply information passed down generations.
Last edited: