Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?

welcome to the fray nadine.do you think it is possible that the rate of mutation has evolved to match an equilibrium point with change in the environments?that this too can react to sudden massive changes, such as mass extinctions and toxic waste?I believe there is evidence for this.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

yes, I am aware of the bacteria evidence. I am thinking more on the lines of larger organisms that could control the rate of mutation through a simple switching {mechamism\protein concentration}.I also know foraminifera that there was an observed increase in differentiation of {species\forms} after the K\T boundary extinction asteroid event: Geology Dept article 3 Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I received the following email with this reply\question\comment from ICANT:
(also see Message 168 and Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?, Message 77) I'll post my answer here, and let others comment as well: Don't confuse a single "book" with the complete compilation of all known books. This is just one area where almost all the species are known - ones that fall into the foraminifera order (a taxonomic grouping above "family" "genus" and "species") for the time period in question. See Message 4 for more explanation and a discussion of what this evidence means for evolution. First, something like 2.5 billion years passed between the first single cell life and the first multicellular life - as recorded in the fossil record - so evolutionary expectations would be low if expected at all ... Evolution is not driven to become some predetermined end or result, and thus would not think it necessary for these forams to evolve into something walking on land. For evolution they just need to continue to survive and reproduce to be succesful. After 3.5+ billion years of evolution there is not only still single cell life, but single cell life very similar to those first fossils found (cyanobacteria) that are 3.5 billion years old: why should the forams be any different?See http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm for more.Then it took another half billion years before the first rudimentary life moved onto land (again according to the fossil record)See Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia for basic time-lines.The predominant form of life on this planet is still single cell. This is because single cellular life is succesful at survival and reproduction: the requirements set by evolution for continued existence.See Image - Wikipediahylogenetic_tree.svg and note that the very right hand end has three small "branches" for all the multicellular life forms (I used to have a link to an interactive tree that you could zoom in on each branch, but I had a computer crash and had to rebuild from ghost image 6 months old - at least I had that backup eh?).Second, IF forams evolved into something that moved onto land and out of the sea, how would the evidence for that show up in the fossils of sea life in the sediments? How would you know whether they had or not - wouldn't you be looking in the wrong place? And dogs would always still be dogs - whether they evolve wings, tentacles and x-ray vision ... or not.Of course what you see here are still free-floating forams, because that is what they were looking for. Think of it this way: instead of looking for what forams might evolve into, this study shows the evolutionary history of current foraminifera. It does NOT show the evolutionary history of other organisms that may or may not have evolved from earlier forams -- those are removed from the study because ... they are not identified as free-floating forams for the study. Any multicellular life fossils would not be included.In the same way we can trace the history of modern cyanobacteria back to those first fossils of life by looking at all the fossil evidence for cyanobacteria in the records known. All other single cell life and what evolved from them would be neglected as not being in the cyanobacteria group being sought out for the study. One of the best ones is this foram forum, where you can ask questions and have actual professionals in the field(s) answer. They will be happy to load you down with more information than you thought was possible on many somewhat esoteric topics.That's part of the fun.Enjoy.and welcome to the fray.Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Cool. Take you time with it, and if you have any questions feel free to ask.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Take all metaphors with a grain of salt. The point being that no matter what evolves from current dogs they will still be descendants of dogs - they will still be in the dog clade, or as creationists like to say (demonstrating a misunderstanding of evolution in the process) they will always be dogs. This infertility is evidence of speciation between horses and donkeys. There are similar hybrids between horses or donkeys and zebras. Being able to produce (albeit sterile) offspring is also evidence of close relationships of horses, donkeys and zebras - and of their descent from a common ancestor population that split up at some time in the past into these sub-populations that have become daughter species.We see similar genetic hybrids being made by artificial insemination between other closely related species, even though some have been separated for considerable time - compared to our experience. You may have heard of Ligers, as another such example (lion tiger hybrid), but the most distant one I am aware of is the one between a camel and a llama.
Cama (animal) - WikipediaSome kind of isolation - either geographical or behavioral - separated the sub-populations. Then over time each sub-population acquired different mutations, and different mutations were selected by their interactions with the environment(s) and mate(s) until sufficient difference had accumulated that the sub-populations were no longer sufficiently inter-fertile to produce breeding offspring. They have not reached the point (yet) of accumulating sufficient differences that total loss of inter-fertility will occur (nor is it necessary for them to do so, it's just a possibility, and depends more on how much {stasis in a stable environment} versus {genetic drift in a population) occurs in the daughter-populations ... and whether or not the wild stock goes extinct).

quote:

---

...artificial insemination was required to impregnate the Llama female (matings of llama male to Dromedary female have proven unsuccessful). ... A second Cama (female) has since been produced using artificial insemination. Because Camels and Llamas both have 74 chromosomes, scientists hope that the Cama will be fertile.

---

This of course also raises the question of what really is a species. Will the Cama become a new species if it breeds? Species has been a human invention of classification rather than a had and fast distinction between individuals in closely related populations. It is more of a functional division than anything else. Not necesarily. What I am saying is that the evidence for the first life is single cell and 3.5 billion years old. This is also the oldest piece of sedimentary rock found that would be capable of preserving fossils of early life - all older rocks found so far have been transformed by {metamorphic\volcanic} processes that would destroy such evidence. This means we are left with the origin of life undefined and undefinable by the fossil evidence (other than being older than the 3.5 billion year old rocks). It's like losing old family pictures in a house fire.Then the first evidence of multicellular life is about a billion years old. This most likely evolved from a single cell life, and there are studies made of some single cell life that adapts a multicell group clustering under certain conditions. See
King Lab - UC BerkeleyWhether there was a single original cell or not is mute at this point -- the evidence cannot tell us this answer, so the best answer is "we don't know" - it may be one cell line, it may be several that exchanged genetic information through horizontal gene transfer, a form of single cell "sex"?
Page Not Found | HHMI BioInteractive There is about a billion years from the formation of the earth and the first evidence of life noted above. Where did it come from is a question we don't know - and likely can't know - the answer to due to the problem of destruction of the evidence. What caused it is also anyones guess at this point - we don't have any evidence of how if formed so it is not possible to define the causes (with evidence).This is really about abiogenesis (which is separate from evolution) and is an interesting topic in it's own right. For some of my take on this see RAZD - Building Blocks of LifeWe can compare notes and see who is older (which is no barrier to learning) and see where my knowledge is ignorant compared to yours. There are many things I have learned at this forum (such as the single cell conjugation linked above)Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm 60 (just) married second time for 25 years come April. I have 3 degrees, one a Masters that with a little more classes would have included a minor in microbiology. My brothers also have science degrees, one in astronomy and one in oceanography. My interests are eclectic with a strong interest in anthropology and archeology. Learning never ends eh? I think the case for evolution is strong enough that one does not need to overstate the evidence. There are things we know and things we think we know and things we hope are true. And that is all that evolution really requires. To me the real debate on creation vs evolution is not whether evolution occurs, but whether there has been enough time for all the diversity we see to have evolved. I believe there is, and that the evidence for an old earth is extensive and persuasive. It was geologists before Darwin that were finding evidence of old age: Lyell was one that had an influence on Darwin's recognition that with long time the small changes could add up to the diversity we see.Charles Lyell - WikipediaThe debate really is how far back the common ancestors go, not that evolution has occurred since then.I think the evidence for an old earth is pretty overwhelming, and that any argument for a young earth is similar to the arguments for a flat earth or a geocentric universe: falsified by the evidence that contradicts it. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) age correlations 1.3 for more on this issue.Perhaps there was only ever one "kind" of life on earth. We don't know eh? Thanks. My dad taught Zoology at U.Mich and ecology at Harvard (and knew Gould). My mom was a child psychologist (why I am so normal).
Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.