What i can't understand about evolution....

seekingfirstthekingdom:

​

See reply #6 HERE (click on this link)Edited by RAZD, : no sigEdited by RAZD, : #

seekingfirstthekingdom:

​

See reply #7 HERE (click on this link)

​

and reply #8 HERE (click on this link)Edited by RAZD, : #'s

seekingfirstthekingdom:

​

See reply #9 HERE (click on this link)

seekingfirstthekingdom:

​

See reply #10 HERE (click on this link)

seekingfirstthekingdom:

​

See reply #11 HERE (click on this link)

seekingfirstthekingdom:

​

See reply #12 HERE (click on this link)

​

This is my final reply to you on this thread. You should follow the links to these replies for a thread you can post on without raising the probability of further suspension/s.Enjoy.

hey peg, The foundation of the theory of life is the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - and the process of speciation - the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations - in the living world around us.It is founded in the process of life today.The theory of evolution is that these two processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.This is then applied to the fossil record and the genetic record to test the theory and see if they validate or falsify it.One of the predictions of the theory of evolution is that all life is related by common ancestry to some original pool of life, a population of organisms that may have been one "species" or several simple forms that may not even qualify as "life" beyond the ability to reproduce chemicals.What the original form/s actually was is speculation, because the fossil record does not extend that far, and the evidence is most likely not something that could fossilize. No, speciation has been observed many times, it is just that the daughter species are not remarkably different from the parent species, not what one would really say qualifies as a "new" life-form. That is really a change that accrues over time by the same processes of evolution and speciation. No theory is ever proven. All science looks for is validation -- that the theory holds up to testing and attempts to invalidate/falsify it.The theory of evolution relies on the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, which is an observed fact.The theory of evolution relies on the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations, which is an observed fact.The theory of evolution is tested, in labs, in field studies, in the fossil record, in the genetic record, by every new fossil, by every new species genome derivation.Not one piece of evidence has yet invalidated the theory. Actually quite a number of people have created self-replicating molecules, something rather remarkable, and definitely much more substantial than making amino acids. Or meteors from space - a number of amino acids have been recovered from meteors.But it is irrelevant to evolution HOW life originated.What we have is a fossil of life some 3.5 billion years old, a simple cyanobacteria, and since then all we need is evolution and speciation to explain the diversity of life.Evolution does not need a single common ancestor - that is what the fossil record implies. That is what evolution says.Couple that with speciation - the division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations - and you then have two species that go on to develop "a great variety within that species" ... each one differently from the other... and when those species also undergo speciation, then you have four species that go on to develop "a great variety within that species" ... each one differently from the otherthen 8, 16, 32, 64 ... etc. it does not take long to generate quite a number of different species all with "a great variety within that species" ... in fact, there is nothing to stop it from covering the earth with multitudes of life forms, all with "a great variety within that species" and all quite different from each other.Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

Hey Peg, sorry to add to the weight of replies, but something caught my eye here, and I just have to object. I have seen several versions of this comment, and it puzzles me.The 'original' theory is from Darwin, and it is the theory of Descent with Modification, with the main mechanism of change being natural selection favoring some hereditary traits over others (even though he didn't know how heredity worked). He saw that this was similar to animal breeding where the selection is artificial (where man makes the decision who breeds and who doesn't), and he realized that this occurs in nature due to the constraints of the environment on the survival and reproduction of organisms.http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&...

quote:

---

That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely,”that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind,”that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable,”and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.
(Darwin, "Origin of Species" p459)

---

That is an excerpt of the original document proposing the original theory. Note that you have commented on the great degree of variety in many species from man to parrots.This, now, is a definition of the theory of evolution from a university that teaches biology to those trying to earn a degree today:The Berkeley University definition:

quote:

---

The Definition:

​

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

Can you tell me how Berkeley's 'Descent with Modification' is different from Darwin's 'Descent with Modification'? Could you perhaps show where these 'different schools of thought' are in the Berkeley article?Perhaps here, from another university teaching courses in biology for those wanting to earn a degree:The University of Michigan definition/s:

quote:

---

Definitions of Biological Evolution

​

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

​

Definition 1: Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

​

Definition 2: The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

​

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

​

A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures.

---

Could you perhaps show where these 'different schools of thought' are in the UofM article?Notice that the first definition describes how hereditary traits change in populations from generation to generation (descent with modification), while the second definition talks about how descent with modification can cause speciation and the diversity of life.Both those sites are worth reading by every person who thinks they know what evolution is about, so they can see if their concept matches that used in universities to teach courses that are part of the degree program for biologists.Now I'll continue with some more of your post: Exactly. Bingo. Go back and read the excerpt from Darwin, go back and read the university definitions and note that this is precisely what they are talking about. Which is precisely and exactly what the theory of evolution predicts.This is precisely what speciation causes: the sudden (in geological time) division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter population, each always and inevitably "fully formed and complete species" - not over and over, but every time a new species forms. "Suddenly" hereditary traits are not shared between the two populations, so "suddenly" they develop different traits in response to different selection pressures. No, Peg. You do understand what evolution is, what you are having trouble with is applying the simple process you accept to the whole picture, and the reason for this difficulty, this "dilemma" you have, is what is called cognitive dissonance.You have two concepts that appear to be at odds with each other: on the one hand you have a god that created all life, and on the other hand you have a process that could be responsible for how all life was developed. I cannot show you what has not occurred, nor what is not a prediction of evolution, but if you want to investigate and discuss what the evidence shows, please see Dogs will be Dogs will be ???.In the mean time consider this transitional animal:http://< !--UB EvC Forum: "transitional" turtle found -->http://EvC Forum: "transitional" turtle found -->EvC Forum: "transitional" turtle found< !--UE-->
turtle on the half-shell

quote:

---

Ever wonder how a turtle got its shell? You're not the only one. Evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have long been stumped by the question. But a recently unearthed turtle fossil, the oldest on record, may hold the answer. Researchers report in Nature today that the fossil indicates shells evolved as an extension of turtles' backbones and ribs.

​

​

Scientist have been in the dark until now because all fossilized turtles previously discovered had complete shells. But this 220 million-year-old fossil is an ancestor of the modern turtle at a stage when its shell was still evolving.

---

Notice that it is fully formed, functional, and complete.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : colorEdited 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) • • •

Sorry Peg, you are wrong, Absolutely false.Read DarwinRead the university links I provided.Evolution is based on living biology, and the primary process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, plus the secondary process of division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations, where the changes inherited while isolated leave them unable or unwilling to mate later.What part of that depends on origins IN ANY WAY?What part of Descent with Modification depends on origins IN ANY WAY?Evolution results in new species from existing species - what part of that depends on origins IN ANY WAY?The rest of your post is wrong because your premise is wrong. We know common descent occurs when we see speciation occur.The theory then PREDICTS that this will be the case for relationships of species.Taking this PREDICTION to the ultimate results in a single ancestor, BUT THIS RESULT IS NOT NECESSARY for evolution to be true.PREDICTIONS are NOT the BASIS of theory they are the RESULT.One could ask "Why do creationists always get it backwards?"Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

Hey Rahvin, My personal take, is not panspermia, but a universe created to provide as many diverse places as possible, and primed with the precursors for life - the organic compounds forming throughout space, ready to seed any place that can support life.Thus abiogenesis and subsequently evolution are 'expected' to occur.What I don't understand about evolution is (a) why do creationists not only have such a poor understanding of it, but why they keep that understanding in the face of contrary evidence, and (b) why there is not as big problem with the concept of common ancestry - when that is the real issue.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added topical comment

---

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) • • •

Thanks, coyote The question was rather rhetorical just to keep on topic. I understand that when they say "evolution" they really mean "all science" ...The remark is more based on the fact that every time you say that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, they'll say "oh I believe in that, in fact it is part of creationism" then they'll go on about origin of life or change to (never defined) "new forms" ... It's just curious that they accept evolution as occurring (hyper) after the flood, and then skip over common ancestry as the real issue -- was it one or was it many?Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

Hello Wardog25, Curiously what you see is irrelevant to reality. 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. 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:

• you don't understand the evidence,
• you deny the evidence show what it shows,
• you haven't really read any of the replies, or
• you are saying this out of some perverted intention, assuming that stating it will make people think you are right

Your conclusion is wrong, so your premise or your logic is wrong.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. 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. 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. 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?) They are all around you -- look at the actual vast variety in the human population. 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? Having A use is not the same as having their original use. 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 ... 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.

---

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) • • •

Accidentally.By littering.(old SF story)EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : subt

Hey Peg, Notice that your picture comes from a creationist site, detectingdesign.com, one that has created a strawman version of evolution. This kind of thinking was popular in the Victorian Era, full of prejudice and pride in the achievements of the English Empire and all that what what. I won't claim that evolutionary biologists never thought this way, just point out that it is old, outdated, and invalid.The hardest thing for creationist to do, it seems, is to wean their thinking from false concepts and discarded ideas from previous ages. Let me show you a picture of a speciation event to see if this helps: Why do Notharctus venticolus exist if Notharctus nunienus exist (and vice-versa)? We see a continuing trend in the evolution of Notharctus venticolus from Pelycodus ralstoni, and we see a branch from Pelycodus jarrovii to Notharctus nunienus.They both exist because each is adapted to their particular ecology, and they have divided from a parent population that overlapped each ecology.

quote:

---

When two similar species compete, it is not uncommon that one fairly quickly becomes different - in this case, smaller. This presumably reduces the competition between the species.

---

Or they inhabit mutually exclusive ecologies, such as trees and open spaces, for gathering food and mating (they can live in the same area and eat different food).The smaller size likely enabled Notharctus nunienus to reach food that Notharctus venticolus was unable to reach, while Notharctus venticolus was able to outcompete Notharctus nunienus for food that they could reach.Does that help?Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

Hey Peg, Because at some point the hairiness of hominids changed from the kind and thickness of apes to the kind and thickness of humans. We don't have fossil evidence of hairiness, as this stuff rarely fossilizes, so actually the hairiness of ancestor apes is assumed (why do we assume that the ancestors of chimps were hairy?).Our hair is not really significantly different from chimps. The hairs on my arms are at about the same density, it is just that the development of hair is not as complete - human hair is generally more juvenile, arrested in development (along with other features).This is an interesting topic of it's own, and I have discussed some elements of it on this thread, if you are interested.Enjoy.

---

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) • • •