Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
641 online now:
Astrophile, AZPaul3, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 636 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,044 Year: 5,156/6,534 Month: 576/794 Week: 67/135 Day: 7/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4824 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 181 of 493 (492803)
01-03-2009 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by AdminNosy
01-03-2009 12:49 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
honest discussion?Point out my dishonesty please admin?Because all im doing is attempting to establish a few facts.You dont like that?

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by AdminNosy, posted 01-03-2009 12:49 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2009 1:30 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied
 Message 199 by AdminNosy, posted 01-03-2009 10:02 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 182 of 493 (492805)
01-03-2009 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 12:44 AM


Re: yeast and massive misunderstanding of evoluiton ...
Thanks, seekingfirstthekingdom, for the reply.

I certainly am very ignorant regarding the mystical properties of this yeast that is able to transform itself into other lifeforms razd.

Is this how you think evolution happens? That individual organisms "transform" into new organisms?

Care to point out anywhere in the natural world where this occurs?

Care to point out any scientific reference that says this is what happens?

Here are a couple of references you can peruse (read and study) and quote from:

berkeley evolution 101
berkeley evolution 101, definition of evolution
U.Mich, The Process of Speciation
U.Mich, Evolution and Natural Selection

These represent the teaching of two universities that provide degree courses in (real actual) evolutionary biology, so these are valid sources of information on evolution.

Another source is:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. BY CHARLES DARWIN, M.A.,

One should always go to the original source to discuss a scientific theory, rather than rely on dubious websites by authors of unknown expertise.

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The process of evolution occurs constantly, all around the world, in all forms of life.

Care to point out anywhere in the natural world where this occurs?

You can compare the hereditary traits in one generation to those in the next and measure the differences. That is evolution occurring "in the natural world" and it is an observed fact.

Darwin's insight was that this simple process was sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from history, prehistory, archeology, geology, paleontology, the fossil record and the genetic (though he didn't know about it) record.

This theory is tested, among other ways, by using the fossil record to see if it matches what the theory predicts. What the fossil record shows is what happened, the theory - if it is correct - explains how it happened.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clarity


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 12:44 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 183 of 493 (492806)
01-03-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 12:53 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
Point out my dishonesty please

Message 177

quote:
... due to fossils being somewhat brittle in nature,that the actual fossil record doesnt support the fact of evolution.Would you agree or disagree with this statement made by rahvin?

What he said (Message 132):

quote:
Unfortunately because single-celled organisms do not fossilize, we won't likely ever know specifically what the single-celled common ancestor of all Earth-bound life was like. It simply couldn't have left sufficient evidence of itself behind. What we can tell is that the genetic structure of all life on Earth is the same (with the possible exception of viruses who use exclusively RNA rather than DNA, but RNA and DNA themselves are very closely related).

Not at all what you claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 12:53 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 2:50 AM RAZD has seen this message
 Message 185 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 3:01 AM RAZD has seen this message

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4824 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 184 of 493 (492811)
01-03-2009 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
01-03-2009 1:30 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
quote:
Unfortunately because single-celled organisms do not fossilize, we won't likely ever know specifically what the single-celled common ancestor of all Earth-bound life was like. It simply couldn't have left sufficient evidence of itself behind

Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.Theres no proof in the natural world today or the fossil record that this most astonishing organism even existed.Why am i repeating myself?I fully understand for the theory of evolution to have this type of beginning there must of been this amazing creature.However you cant point to it,and cant seem to replicate in a science lab either.Is there a possibility this wondrous creature never did what you guys are claiming it did?

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2009 1:30 AM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by fallacycop, posted 01-03-2009 3:19 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 189 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2009 3:29 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 192 by cavediver, posted 01-03-2009 4:56 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 195 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-03-2009 5:32 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4824 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 185 of 493 (492812)
01-03-2009 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
01-03-2009 1:30 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
quote:
What we can tell is that the genetic structure of all life on Earth is the same (with the possible exception of viruses who use exclusively RNA rather than DNA, but RNA and DNA themselves are very closely related).

Is there a possibilty similarities in our genetic structure are due to someone or something forming us to all cohabit on the planet?Remembering ive asked all of you to come up with a ancestral line and only one seems to have managed it.Give me time, ill try to offer scientific reasons why i think it doesnt hold up to scrutiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2009 1:30 AM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by cavediver, posted 01-03-2009 4:48 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4824 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 186 of 493 (492815)
01-03-2009 3:04 AM


and finally for now
i can understand the practical implications of what discovering an organism like this holds.Basically you could seed the deserts,multiply endangered animals and solve food shortages.Im more than happy for it to be discovered.

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by fallacycop, posted 01-03-2009 3:21 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 193 by Blue Jay, posted 01-03-2009 4:58 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 194 by cavediver, posted 01-03-2009 5:16 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 197 by Admin, posted 01-03-2009 7:26 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2009 9:45 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4793 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 187 of 493 (492816)
01-03-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 2:50 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
It is sad, but not surprising, to see that your childish behaviour has not improved
I fully understand for the theory of evolution to have this type of beginning there must of been this amazing creature
That only shows how wide your lack of understanding really is.

BTW, could you please stop using "must of" and use the proper "must've" instead? it is really distracting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 2:50 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4793 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 188 of 493 (492817)
01-03-2009 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 3:04 AM


Re: and finally for now
i can understand the practical implications of what discovering an organism like this holds.Basically you could seed the deserts,multiply endangered animals and solve food shortages.Im more than happy for it to be discovered.
Now you're just making a foul of yoursef.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 3:04 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 189 of 493 (492819)
01-03-2009 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 2:50 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.Theres no proof in the natural world today or the fossil record that this most astonishing organism even existed.Why am i repeating myself?I fully understand for the theory of evolution to have this type of beginning there must of been this amazing creature.However you cant point to it,and cant seem to replicate in a science lab either.Is there a possibility this wondrous creature never did what you guys are claiming it did?

Wrong.

Evolution does not require a single common ancestor. the evidence points to one, but as I and others have said repeatedly (and you have repeatedly ignored), the theory of Evolution is supported by direct observation.

We have seen, with our own eyes, populations evolving. From the same population, we can observe and track changes over multiple generations until the descendants are significantly different from their ancestors. The "superbugs" you hear about on the news with resistance to antibiotics are direct examples of evolution in action - the resistance is a mutation, and the population of bacteria changes in response to a hostile environment.

You don't understand why your question is irrelevant because you don't understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

The Theory of Evolution states that new species arise from pre-existing species, that random mutation guided by natural selection results in changing (and even new) features that eventually differentiate a population from its ancestor population sufficiently to call the two populations different species. No feature is truly unique, but is a slightly modified version of the same feature in a pre-existing species.

We've observed this process directly both in the lab and in the wild.

Evolution predicts that as we look into the fossil record, those fossils we do find should conform to the model of gradual change rather than sudden magical Creation. We don't expect to find examples of every species that ever lived (fossilization is too rare a process for that to ever happen, and with all the organisms that have ever lived we'd be absolutely buried in bones), but we expect that when we do find a new species it should conform to the predictions of the Theory of Evolution. And so far, every single fossil ever discovered as well as every single living species ever discovered have in fact conformed to what we expect if the Theory of Evolution is accurate. The inference that all life hails from a single common ancestor is derived from (among other things) the fact that all features seem to be modified versions of pre-existing features, and organisms seem "simpler" as we go farther back in time. It's reasonable conclusion given the evidence we do have, even if we don't have enough information to identify it specifically.

You're focusing on a single unknown and claiming that this falsifies the theory of Evolution. But that unknown does not dismiss all of the mountains of directly observed evidence. It doesn't dismiss vestigial features, genetics, or anything else. It's similar to police being able to tell that a murder occurred, and with what weapon, and that the killer was right-handed and had a specific blood type, but not knowing (yet) the specific identity of the killer. The unknown doesn't invalidate the conclusion that a murder occurred!

An unknown does not falsify anything. It's an unknown. I don't need to know the identity of your great-great-grandfather to know that you had one. You don't need to know the identity of a common ancestor to know that two species are related if the other evidence points that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 2:50 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

Huntard
Member (Idle past 1568 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 190 of 493 (492823)
01-03-2009 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 12:11 AM


Re: What you can't understand about evolution
seekingfirstthekingdom writes:

Great!Point me to the organism that all life sprang from.


I can't, in fact no one can. Do you have a film of you being born? The act I mean? No? Well then, how am I supposed to accept you are alive today?

Demonstrate to me how this amazing organism can spring forth the multitudes of different life that we see today.

It wasn't an amazing organism. Even the single celled life forms we have today are a thousand times more complex then it was.

I have noticed though that other posters have conceded that this isnt possible,but because you are claiming theres enormous evidence,i guess you are the man!

I'm claiming there's enormous evidence for evolution. And there is. I did not say everything about evolution can be shown to you. Now, if you want some evidence, ask and I'll see what I can come up with. But I will in turn ask you to provide evidence for what you claim.

Also id like to thank you for at least attempting to answer my question regarding how many different forms it took from our yeasty ancestor to us.

Our ancestor looked absolutely nothing like yeast. As has been pointed out to you before. A bit slow on picking things up, are we?

It seems you have the best comprehension of english yet its not your first language.

Why, thank you.

Now, to sum it up:

Not everything evolution claims can be shown directly. I hope my analogy to your birth is helpful.

There ARE mountains of evidence for evolution. In fact, you are evidence of evolution yourself. You have mutations in your DNA that are not present in your parents DNA.

If there's something that's not clear to you, ask away, but please refrain from making baseless claims.

I can't answer ALL your questions. Does that mean if I can't answer a hundred you ask me, yet there are ten thousand I can answer, that evolution didn't happen? I'd say no, but I'll await your reply on this.

I hoped this helped.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 12:11 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 191 of 493 (492826)
01-03-2009 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 3:01 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
Is there a possibilty similarities in our genetic structure are due to someone or something forming us to all cohabit on the planet?

Only if that someone or something is an idiot or severely limited in its creative abilities. Why else would that someone/thing give the octopus a fantastic eye, yet the rest of us tetrapods this ridiculous back-to-front eye with a blind spot? Why have I, a bipedal man, the same bone structure as my quadrpedal relatives? Was I designed to get severe back-ache? What idiot thought it would be a good idea to use the same opening for respiration and ingestion of food, leading to death by choking? And why are my genitalia in such an exposed position? As a quadruped, they're nicely protected, but as soon as I stand upright, they're there for all to attack. Talking of genitalia, why is my body's sewage system integrated with my love-making apparatus :eek: either your someone/thing really hates us, or it's a complete fool.

Interestingly, the reasons for all of these issues become astonishingly clear when we consider evolution...

By the way, did you have a particular someone/thing in mind when you mentioned this?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 3:01 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Agobot, posted 01-03-2009 2:40 PM cavediver has taken no action

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 192 of 493 (492828)
01-03-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 2:50 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.

No, it does not. Your point was:

quote:
... due to fossils being somewhat brittle in nature,that the actual fossil record doesnt support the fact of evolution.Would you agree or disagree with this statement made by rahvin?

and the issue is that Rahvin did not say this. Having been called upon this dishonesty by an admin, you simply whine about your point still standing. This is both pathetic and very poor debate. Please acknowledge your error and retract the statement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 2:50 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 193 of 493 (492829)
01-03-2009 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 3:04 AM


Re: and finally for now
Hi, Seefirthedom.

Seefirthedom writes:

Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.

Capacity to evolve has nothing to do with an organism's "abilities." Evolution is something that the environment causes, and that the individual organism has no control over. Changes in the genome happen because of random events in the environment. Organisms flourish or perish based on whether their particular set of characteristics is compatible with the environment about them, not whether they have "evolutionary super powers."

Furthermore, evolution does not happen to a single organism, either: it happens within and between populations. An individual organism will not evolve at all: it's genome will remain the same throughout its lifetime. The genome only changes between generations.

For a simple, one-celled organism, a DNA molecule is replicated during reproduction (this is still true of later organisms, but it's a bit more complicated, so let's just stick to this simple scenario for now). DNA replication is not a perfect process: accidents happen that may insert, delete or modify the sequence of molecules that make up the DNA. Thus, the new copy of the DNA will turn out to be different from the original copy. That's what we call evolution: not some ability that a organism has, and not something that any organism has any direct control over, but just something that inadvertantly introduces a spontaneous change that affects the offspring.

When the spontaneous changes impact the organism's fitness (it's ability to cope with its environment), natural selection happens. Things with lower fitness die off or are otherwise less successful than things with greater fitness, so that, within a certain amount of time, the fit predominate and the unfit are eradicated entirely.

Again, the organism has no direct control over this, nor does the organism have some kind of "power" that allows this process to happen.

-----

Seefirthedom writes:

I can understand the practical implications of what discovering an organism like this holds.Basically you could seed the deserts,multiply endangered animals and solve food shortages.Im more than happy for it to be discovered.

Actually, I don't think the discovery of this organism will have much practical value at all, seeing as it is mostly likely extinct.

And, I have no idea why you think "seeding the deserts," "multiplying endangered animals" and "solving food shortages" are in any way related to finding the original organism on the planet. Really, all we'd likely get from it in a practical sense is a measure of clarification to the Tree of Life. That's why there's not all that much money in phylogeny and evolutionary natural history: it's mostly an academic pursuit in a world run by businessmen.


I'm Bluejay.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 3:04 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 194 of 493 (492830)
01-03-2009 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 3:04 AM


Re: and finally for now
i can understand the practical implications of what discovering an organism like this holds.Basically you could seed the deserts,multiply endangered animals and solve food shortages.

You seem to be confusing the Theory of Evolution with some other saltational/front-loading theory. Are you sure you meant to say this, or are you just confused?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 3:04 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 195 of 493 (492831)
01-03-2009 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 2:50 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.Theres no proof in the natural world today or the fossil record that this most astonishing organism even existed.Why am i repeating myself?I fully understand for the theory of evolution to have this type of beginning there must of been this amazing creature.However you cant point to it,and cant seem to replicate in a science lab either.Is there a possibility this wondrous creature never did what you guys are claiming it did?

Here is a question for you SFTK that will show the logical fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance) you are falling into with the TOE.

Do you believe that gravity exists? Why is it weaker than the other nuclear forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic forces)? Why does it only attract and not repel like the other forces? Are there subatomic particles associated with the force of gravity (gravitons) like there is with electromagnetism (photons)? And how do these gravitons fit into the Standard Model of particle physics? Do you know that physicists have yet to answer these questions with any type of emperical evidence and only in the last 100 years have we humans come up with answers to how gravity acts at a distance and is related to spacetime (the fabric of the universe) i.e. Einstein's Theories of General & Special Relativity.

We can predict the nature of gravity and how it affects matter and space (Newton's Law of Gravity/Einsteins Theories of Relativity) but we do not understand the fundamental causes of this force. Does this mean gravity does not exist? Of course not, it just means we do not yet have all the pieces to the puzzle yet. How is this different than the TOE?

With the TOE we can detect mutations occuring in the genomes of organisms all the time as shown by numerous posters here on the EvC forum. It is documented over and over with no equivocation. Bacteria mutate all the time resulting in effectively neutering even our most powerful antibiotic drugs and wreaking havock with the medical industry. Furthermore we can anaylze current and past organisms and see the modifications made both morphologically (structural differences) and sometimes genetically i.e. analyzing the DNA of Neanderthal bones and see trace the line of decent from earlier common ancestors.

The evidence is there, you just chose to ignore it. Go to an open access science journal director like here and type in the phrase "biological evolution". The Stanford University's HighWire Press list of free online articles comes up with 2045 "biological evolution" and 407,791 "evolution" scientific articles related to the topic of evolution. Happy reading.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 2:50 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-03-2009 6:06 AM DevilsAdvocate has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022