|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
To moderators,
Except for the brief interlude involving SeekingFirstTheKingdom that wasted a lot of messages, this thread has been productive, temperate and on-topic. We're past 300 messages now, but I suggest keeping this thread open for another 100 messages or so and then taking another status check. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Peg writes: bluescat48 writes: Changes that make a species more likely to survive will be passed on to future generations. if as you say, animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, and became more capable of surviving, yes? If thats the case, why is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” How is it that the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? Peg, let me try and explain some things to you. You seem like an intelligent writer and I think you're worth the effort. Oh, that sounds condescending. Anyway, it's not meant that way, and I'll try to keep it "short and sweet". You seem to misinterpret what Bluescat said. "Passing on changes to future generations" is not the same as "progressing up the evolutionary scale". I think the phrase "changes that make a species more likely to survive" is what prompted your reaction. Not to detract from Bluescat's explanation, but I think it's a bit of an unfortunate way of putting it. You could think that Bluescat was talking about a species changing into something that has a better intrinsic survival capability. Bluescat should not have used the word 'species', but the word 'individual' instead, like so: "Changes that make an individual more likely to survive ('until after reproducing', would be my addition) will be passed on to future generations." It's almost self-explanatory: if you survive long enough to reproduce, whatever changes in your genes helped you survive, will be passed on, by definition. Any changes that kill you off before you reproduce will not be passed on, obviously. That way, evolution is like a sieve that filters out detrimental changes, while letting through beneficial and neutral changes. On the extinct ape-men: one explanation for why they are no longer with us is that they were our ancestors' direct competition. The more they were like our ancestors, the more they would have competed with them for the same food sources and shelter and such. Someone had to win this competition and it so happens our ancestors did. The reason chimps, gorillas and orang-utans are all still around is that they don't compete with each other. (Orangs don't even live in the same continent as the other two.) They are increasingly competing with us, though. We want their trees. Incidentally, apes and us have enjoyed equal amounts of evolutionary time, so the apes are not really inferior to us. They're just well enough adapted to their way of life to have survived as a species until now. As are we to our way of life. Just as you can speak of modern man, you can also speak of modern chimp. Maybe not as short and sweet as you would have it, but there you go. Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
so again,
how can evolution and origin of life not go hand in hand in light of what you are saying I understand that you are saying they are separate issues, one being how species developed/evolved, the other, how life began and yet, if you follow the evolutionary chain, they all lead you back to an original source... what came before the original source?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Modulous
modulous writes: What makes you think that 'ape-men' are better at surviving in this world than chimpanzees and orangutans and gorillas (which are having a tough time of it right now as it is)? Surely the evidence would indicate that 'ape-men' aren't so good at surviving given that only one species of them did (us). what came first, the apes or the ape men? if the ape men were supposed to have evolved into a more advanced form of previous ape, then how is it that those lower apes, survived and the more advanced apes did not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hello Wardog25,
Sorry to disappoint. I'm only pointing out what I see. Curiously what you see is irrelevant to reality.
... not from speaking with a creation scientist who is serious about their work. Strangely, being serious about your work is no guarantee that you are any good at it. The number of people that have claimed to be creationist science type people on this forum can be numbered on one hand, and we generally find that their "science" background is something like engineering or architecture, certainly not in biological sciences.
If mutation is the primary mechanism of change for evolutionists, it had better be reliable. Lack of reliability is the reason scientists have trouble demonstrating it. If you subject fruit flies to radiation to get them to evolve, it is far easier to kill off the entire strain than to get them to change. There lies the problem with the Theory of Evolution's primary mechanism. It doesn't work. The problem with statements like this is that they can only be true if you deny all evidence to the contrary. When you consider the numbers of times on this thread that mutations have been shown to produce working results, one is left with either of the following conclusions:
Point of fact: every mutation is just a random change. There is no need in evolutionary biology for it to be anything other than a random change in hereditary traits, because the rest of the process, selection, is reliable: if an organism is better at survival and reproduction than another then it will survive and reproduce better than the other.
Here is the problem with those results when you try and compare them to the evolutionary model: As an example, assume that 10% of the mutations that are passed on are "beneficial" mutations (EXTREMELY generous from the numbers I've seen). That would mean 90% are benign (they give no advantage or disadvantage). The detrimental mutations cause the organism to die off (according to evolutionists), so they aren't passed on. Make it 0.1% beneficial and evolution still works. The disadvantageous mutations will be eliminated each generation, the neutral mutations will survive and reproduce, the beneficial mutations will be better at survival and reproduction than the other organisms in their population and will increase. If there were no beneficial mutations (as many creationist claim) then you would have stasis. If only 10% of the offspring from any reproductive cycle survive to breed (those with neutral and the odd beneficial mutation), then this 10% is added to the existing population for the next round of reproduction. As long as this increases the total reproducing population, then evolution will occur. If it doesn't then extinction is likely, and room is made for other species to survive and breed, or some less fit organisms survive to breed that would otherwise perish. Variation within a population means that it is better able to adapt to new or different conditions, branch out into a different ecology.
How many beneficial mutations would it take for something the size of a virus to become a human? 1 million? 1 billion? (Remember these are MINUSCULE changes, we are talking about. The men who were studying the flies said 1000 of these mutations would not even make a new species of fly). Well, according to the natural history of life on this planet, it probably would take over 3.5 billion years, assuming that the same kind of random walk occurred, including the millions of years exploring the world of dinosaurs, while mammals sat in the shadows.
I will use 1 million just for a round number, though I'm sure it's more. So if evolution from virus to human produced 90% benign mutations and 10% beneficial, that means a human should have some 9 million "benign" mutations. LOL. ya gotta love creationist maths. For one, your numbers are ridiculously LOW, and for two, please consider that no mutation is impervious to later mutation. The other problem you face is that those "benign" mutations are only neutral in their original environment, whereas they can enable the organism to inhabit a new and different environment, at which point they become beneficial. What can be a beneficial mutation in one environment can be a deleterious one in another - and vice versa (can you live underwater?)
So where are they all? They are all around you -- look at the actual vast variety in the human population.
Not only does the human body seem almost perfectly designed, it's even organized and symmetrical. Why would mutation care about those things? ROFLOL. Ever compared your picture to the image in a mirror? Ever looked at the distribution of your organs? Do you know for a fact that the arteries and veins are exactly mirrored from one side to the other? Are your hands the same size? The "organization" is the same for chimps - are they "perfectly designed" as well? How about a cat?
Now I realize that evolutionists point out vestigial organs and say those are the evidence. ... as the years go by, because we discover that they actually have a use. Having A use is not the same as having their original use.
(i.e. someone brought up the "vestigial" pelvic bones in whales earlier in this thread, but those are used in mating, so they are not vestigial) They are not used for walking, and that is why they are vestigial. That they have a use for mating only means that this is why they have not disappeared completely, as they have in snakes. Show me a whale that walks with it's pelvic bones, and you MAY have an argument. Of course this is rather difficult without legs ...
Oddly enough, the results of the fruit fly mutation experiment are exactly what you would expect if the creation model is true. The EXTREME majority of mutations were negative or benign, supporting the creationist viewpoint that all organisms STARTED essentially perfect and are slowly deteriorating. Not the other way around as evolutionists suggest. Except that the creationist "explanation" does not explain the examples of beneficial mutations that exist, while evolution not only explains them, it explains everything the creationist "explanation" claims to explain. Meanwhile this creationist "explanation" is contradicted, invalidated, and proven false by just ONE (out of the many known) beneficial mutation. Denial of contradictory evidence does not make your belief valid. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Peg,
You're basically saying you can't accept the Theory of Evolution because we can't fully explain the origin of life. To be consistent then you have to also not accept the Theories of Physics, Gravity, Relativity, etc because we can't fully explain the origins of the Universe. With that outlook it's impossible to move forward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
if the ape men were supposed to have evolved into a more advanced form of previous ape, then how is it that those lower apes, survived and the more advanced apes did not? Ape men, as you call them, did not evolve into your so called lower apes. There are 5 different ape lines. I'll call the first (A). A is the common ancestor to The Gibbons & (B). B is the common ancestor to The Orangutans & (C). C is the common ancestor to The Gorillas & (D). D is the common ancestor to the Chimps & Humans. The "ape men" are in the human line. The 5 ape lines that exist today are the gibbons (4 genera), orangutans (1 genus), gorillas (1 genus), chimps (1 genus)& humans (1 genus). There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
what came first, the apes or the ape men? Ape men are apes. In fact, humans are also apes. However the term "ape" is not an official biological taxonomical term. The official term is Hominoidea not ape. So we all (lesser and greater apes alike) belong to the superfamily hominoidea. So it makes no sense to ask which came first, apes or ape men since ape men are apes. If you are asking when hominini (chimpanzees and humans) branched off the greater ape tree, it is estimated around 15-30 million years ago. The anscestors to modern chimpanzees and humans split again about 5.6-6.3 million years ago. And the homo genus have a number of different dead ends i.e. neanderthal and heidelbergensis. We homo sapiens are the existing survivors of the homo genus. This is all confirmed through analysis of humanoid skelatal remains. Dawkin's an Anscestor's Tale explains this in more detail than I can provide here.
if the ape men were supposed to have evolved into a more advanced form of previous ape, then how is it that those lower apes, survived and the more advanced apes did not? Modolous and Parasomnium already explained this. You are just choosing not to read there posts. Modern great apes have been wittled down to very narrow and specific ecological niches i.e. orangutangs in the forest trees of only two islands in Indonesia (Sumatra and Borneo), gorillas in the mountainous regions of western Africa, etc that are remotely located from the rest of the human population. Therefore their existence in these very remote locations of the planet and their inability to breed with other more human hominins (due to their diverging genome) are the only reasons they have been able to survive thus far as seperate species. However, they are all know threatened by modern human encroachment on their remote locations and all are nearly extinct compared to their population even a few hundred years ago. As far as the more advanced forms of hominin aka ape-men the following three things have occurred over time: a. become extinct through direct/indirect competition with other types of hominins.b. become extinct because of other ecological/environmental reasons. c. breeding between different hominums resulting in a more diverse human genome. Hope this answers your questions. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
so again, how can evolution and origin of life not go hand in hand in light of what you are saying I understand that you are saying they are separate issues, one being how species developed/evolved, the other, how life began and yet, if you follow the evolutionary chain, they all lead you back to an original source... what came before the original source? Consider an analogy. Within our solar system, the planets and miscellaneous objects orbit around the sun and moons and miscellaneous objects orbit around the planets. We have worked out the principles of orbital dynamics, which are based ultimately on gravity, such that we can study these orbits and make predictions about them as well as analyze the various interactions between different orbiting bodies. That is an entire area of study. But why are the orbits the way that they are? They weren't always there, but rather they had to have formed with the solar system formed. That is to say that the orbital mechanics of the solar system is the result of how the solar system formed. That is also an entire area of study. Now, do we need to know how the solar system had formed in order to plot the orbit of an interplanetary probe? No, we do not. Orbital dynamics in the present-day solar system can be approached quite successfully as a separate study and in the vast majority of cases is indeed approached as a study separate from the origin of the solar system. Would one be able to make the argument that since we do not fully understand the origin of the solar system, then we cannot predict the locations of the planets at some future (or past) point in time? Of course not, that would be as ridiculous as trying to discount evolution because we don't fully understand the origin of life. The two studies -- orbital dynamics and the origin of the solar system -- are related, especially since the fundamental physics of orbital dynamics would also apply to the origin of the solar system, but they are still two different areas of study that can be approached somewhat independently of each other. We can observe that life evolves and we can work out a lot of the mechanisms by which evolution happens. At the same time, we're trying to work out how life could have originated. Although they're related, they are still two different areas of study which can be approached independently of each other. Yes, we should expect some of the mechanisms of evolution to apply to the origin-of-life problem, but not knowing how life originated would still not affect our ability to study evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
You ask a fair question.
quote: Here are some potential answers:
Now I admit that some of these explanations are more likely than others. I especially admit that the first one was pretty way out . The point is that any one of these explanations could be true and life would still evolve. Evolution is, by definition, what happens when you already have life. For evolution to take place all you need is a population of organisms which reproduce with modification and differential reproductive success; it doesn't matter how that life got there. The Theory of Evolution simply does not concern itself with life's first origins. A question such as "what came before the original source?" is beyond it's scope. The ToE cannot answer your question, nor should it be expected to. Abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues. Related issues yes, but still separate. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Granny--
You left one out:
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Accidentally.
By littering. (old SF story) Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : subt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes: if the ape men were supposed to have evolved into a more advanced form of previous ape, then how is it that those lower apes, survived and the more advanced apes did not? Just some food for thought: How many orangutans were killed by the Black Plague in the Middle Ages? Millions of humans were killed by the Plague: surely the inferior orangutans fared worse, yeah? How come so many "lower" orangutans survived the Black Plague when so many "advanced" humans did not? Edited by Mantis, : Her name is "Peg," not "Pes." I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
We're at 300+ messages in a topic defined such that it could go most anywhere "evolution" (and it probably did).
Let's wrap it up. One last summary message from any member caring to do such. Adminnemooseus
Added by edit:
Percy, in message 301, writes: To moderators, Except for the brief interlude involving SeekingFirstTheKingdom that wasted a lot of messages, this thread has been productive, temperate and on-topic. We're past 300 messages now, but I suggest keeping this thread open for another 100 messages or so and then taking another status check. --Percy OK (mildly embarrassed), I didn't see that message. Just like many members will not see this message. We shall try another 100 messages. But I still wonder if too many messages topics are prone to self-destruction. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1 Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Pery sujested keeping this thread open for 100 more posts. I would like to second that. I think we actually have had some progress here, albeit slow progress.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024