Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 12:57 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, PaulK, PsychMJC, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,058 Year: 7,094/19,786 Month: 1,635/1,581 Week: 14/443 Day: 14/34 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the bee feed?
Retro Crono
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 4 (1024)
12-20-2001 11:57 AM


Going by the evolutionary time line, the bee evolved 110 million years before the first flower. Can this be possible? There are countless examples which show life needs a precise balance to exist, all working on cyclic unison. For something to evolve before something else evolves is just impossible. All the scientific evidence points to that life had to have come about all at once, amounting the evolution theory to an entire impossibility. If everything had to have come about at once then there was obviously some outside interference, it's pretty obvious we have a creator.
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by GodIsJustPretend, posted 12-20-2001 1:12 PM Retro Crono has not yet responded

GodIsJustPretend
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 4 (1036)
12-20-2001 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Retro Crono
12-20-2001 11:57 AM


"Going by the evolutionary time line, the bee evolved 110 million years before the first flower. Can this be possible?"

If there were no angiosperms around when bees first appeared on the scene, which seems likely given recent findings, then the early bees or protobees probably survived on sweet exudates from non-flowering plants and pollen and spores from ferns, cycads and other ancient plants. It's not complicated.

"There are countless examples which show life needs a precise balance to exist, all working on cyclic unison. For something to evolve before something else evolves is just impossible."

You are kinda sorta right and mostly wrong. For example...look at Rhagoletis flies...they utilized hawthorne trees before apples were introduced...now they use both. In other words, Rhagoletis was around, and doing just fine, thank you, long before apple trees were on the scene. There are countless other examples of changes between insects and their plant hosts...for example, yucca moths. My point is, you are correct in that organisms are remarkably adapted to their way of life, and remarkably dependent on one another...however when one of two organisms that are co-dependent goes extinct for some reason, does that always mean the other goes extinct? The answer is no...the organism that remains may adapt to live on its own, form relationship(s) with other extant organisms, etc.

"All the scientific evidence points to that life had to have come about all at once, amounting the evolution theory to an entire impossibility. If everything had to have come about at once then there was obviously some outside interference, it's pretty obvious we have a creator."

I don't even know where to start here...your claim, of course, gets at the heart of what this entire forum is about! I am a working evolutionary biologist, however, and can definitively state that you are very much unambiguously incorrect. The amount of scientific evidence that supports evolutionary theory is simply overwhelming, to say the least. I firmly believe that anyone that dismisses evolutionary theory as being incorrect, is just plain not aware of the facts. As Dobzhansky said..."nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." That rings true today as it did half a century ago. Evidence from a huge array of disciplines all support evolutionary theory...genetics, cell biology, geology, paleobiology, ecology, embryology, chemistry, behavioral ecology, etc. People can argue over the validity of small details all they want (whether one hypothesis over another is the best way to explain the data, etc....that is, in fact, what evolutionary biologists do for a living!!!)...questioning whether evolution occurs however is just plain silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Retro Crono, posted 12-20-2001 11:57 AM Retro Crono has not yet responded

Retro Crono
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 4 (1053)
12-20-2001 10:11 PM


Cool, your a working evolutionary biologist. Perhaps I might have found someone who could answer a lot of my questions on evolution. I'm just a High School student who happens to have a great interest in science and I've just never been able to get evolution to work. I've never had a teacher ever even really try to answer my questions and I sometimes even make them question the theory.

Anyway, about the reply to the bee, have you actually got evidence to support this claim or is that just a theorized hypothesis to explain away the impossibility.

On your reply to my second part, I wasn't just referring to living systems working co-independent on each other, I was referring to everything in and out. Like the respiratory system, digestive system, nervice system, brain, etc. It's impossible for them to have all come about at the exact same time going by the evolutionary theory as each one of those would have taken millions of years to evolve. I cannot possibly get my head around a living system surviving without first being complete, nothing is ever good incomplete. Much like a house without its frame or a car without its engine. If you take away any one of the major components of a living system, it will most surely die. Even if something is born with something half formed it most likely will die depending on medical intervention. I fail to see why this should be an exception for the evolution theory.

I'm also curious as to what triggers of the evolving of adaptation. Like how a reptile all of a sudden just decides to grow feathers. How does two DNA's just cross, which were obviously surviving just fine to get to that point, decide that within the next generation we better begin to form feathers because that may help in the future. Where did the new information come from and how the heck did it know it will help. Mutations are the only answer that I've gotten but they from what I can understand, degrade information and are almost without a doubt always harmful. I fail to see how it could be scientifically possible. It may have worked in Darwins time when it was believed that the characteristics of offspring are passed on from there parents according to a chance random process. Yet I think if I remember correctly, after the time of Darwin, Gregor Mendel published the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the characteristics of offspring are not derived from random chance but precise mathematical ratios. Once again, why should evolution be an exception. Shouldn't after these laws the silly nonsense of natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, just be forgotten. Do people, even in your position, just ignore common basic principles of science because they refuse to believe in a God, much like your title claims.

I've got plenty more questions but lets just start small and work our way up. Thanks.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2001 11:13 PM Retro Crono has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3174 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 4 (1056)
12-20-2001 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Retro Crono
12-20-2001 10:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Retro Crono:
Cool, your a working evolutionary biologist. Perhaps I might have found someone who could answer a lot of my questions on evolution. I'm just a High School student who happens to have a great interest in science and I've just never been able to get evolution to work.

I'm also curious as to what triggers of the evolving of adaptation.

I have been able to work on evolution thinking by thinking that adaptations are decreases or diminishings to molecular free path lengths. Sticking with solids liquids and gases Is easier than the statistical intelligence currently supporting evolutionary theory. But this only helps one to think of evolution not to do it.

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-22-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Retro Crono, posted 12-20-2001 10:11 PM Retro Crono has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019