What's so hard about evolution?

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

When science allows us to manipulate DNA and choose gender, hair color, sexual orientation, etc. Will you call it evolution then?

Sure. I won't call it Evolution by the Process of Natural Selection though. It would be Evolution by the Process of Deliberate Selection or something along those lines.

It's a variation on breeding actually. Which is really only a technologically modified step up from people select breeding whatever it is they're breeding. Be it Dogs, flies, birds or people.

Nothing is "hard" about evolution.

However, you must UNDERSTAND evolution, even the basic principles of it otherwise you shouldn't be qualified in a "serious" debate.

For example, "ape became man" -- is pure nonsense, it's a typical misconception.
Show me the scientist who claims that ape "became man", what nonsense. It is my understanding ape and man had a common ancestor but both then developed separately. It's two species. Period.

Believing that "anti creationism" people claim "ape became man" is the same nonsense as believing that we tend to attribute evolution and our entire existence to "pure chance", another often very nonsensical and comical claim by some creationists.

Get your facts right please otherwise you look like fools which doesn't make YOUR point credible, to say it mildly.

My brain hurts. We are all going to hell...except for jellyfish, sharks, amoebas, cockroaches, and dragonflies. Only things that don't evolve get to cross the Pearly Gates and listen to the awful music.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Evolution within the boundries of a species is self evident. However, the idea that all creatures evolved from one genetic line is totally unfounded. Macro-evolution is junk science. There is no proof that reptiles became birds, or that apes became man. Only that wolves became dogs and lions became cats. If you think about it, its more of a genetic degeneration than a true evolution.

Yes there is proof that reptiles became birds. You can take a chicken embryo, turn on some DNA & bam your chicken now has scales.

Want proof that man evolved from something other then man? Look at the development of our own fetuses. First we get a sperm & an egg, they form together, then sells divide, then the fetus starts to form and takes on the shape of a tadpole. (Not saying it is a tadpole, just the resemblance of one) Then we start taking on the form of humans. In a 9 month (10, technically) you go from having a sperm & an egg to a new life form.

Another clue is our brain. First we have the reptilian brain, then the mammalian around that, with the human brain finally forming around that.

How exactly we went from being an ape like creature (or a water monkey, as one theory suggests) to how we are now, I'm not sure but something happened for us to evolve this way.

The hard thing for me to get my head round regarding evolution is the first cell.

In darwins time they understood the cell to be a very simple 'building block' which was created 'by chance in the soup'.

We now know how complex a single cell is. It holds DNA plus performs various functions in order to keep alive to reproduce. Just 1 incorrect DNA link (out of billions...trillions?) and the system would be compromised.


This happened by chance? The first cell? With all the neccessary functions? Really?????

This is why I have problems with the evolution theory. Not saying its not true or it is true. Just dont appreciate people telling me im stupid because I like to think about it for myself and draw my own conclusions.


Another thing, If an animal evolves front legs into wings or visa versa, how does the species survive during the transformation period when the limbs are half wing half leg?? how would the limbs be usefull? How would these animals possibly survive the millions of years it would take for the change to complete? If the animal survives this time without the use of the limbs....why would the limbs even change? Wouldn't they just fade away?

These are serious questions too.

a reply to: greavsie1971
The single cell has had billions of chances to get one right.
Your second question, maybe the wings just turn up one day. some species it works first time ,other species where it doesn't just die out. Seems dramatic changes happen in a very small time frame.

originally posted by: greavsie1971
Another thing, If an animal evolves front legs into wings or visa versa, how does the species survive during the transformation period when the limbs are half wing half leg?? how would the limbs be usefull? How would these animals possibly survive the millions of years it would take for the change to complete? If the animal survives this time without the use of the limbs....why would the limbs even change? Wouldn't they just fade away?

Well wings can be very useful things besides full fledged flight. In the early stages of evolutionary development, proto-wings could serve to help stabilize the animal when manoeuvring during escape/pursuit type scenarios.

In the middle to later stages, wings allow the ability to glide greater and greater distances. Imagine how useful this would be for escaping a predator, for example.

They are also useful for mating displays and for temperature regulation.

These abilities are useful and could mean the difference between life and death, or between reproducing or not. We can also see analogues of them present in the animal kingdom today - flightless birds, gliding squirrels, draco lizards, flying fish, gliding frogs & snakes etc..

Since we now know the therepod dinosaurs were feathered, and it's looks pretty clear now they were warm blooded, they would have already have been very active, fast, skittish creatures. I can easily imagine proto wings giving these animals a huge advantage in their environment.

> How would these animals possibly survive the millions of years it would take for the change to complete?

Hopefully I've already answered your question there, but you are looking at the problem the wrong way. You assume that wings are irreducibly complex and that they only serve one function. This is demonstrably untrue.

ETA -

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

When science allows us to manipulate DNA and choose gender, hair color, sexual orientation, etc. Will you call it evolution then?

Sure. I won't call it Evolution by the Process of Natural Selection though. It would be Evolution by the Process of Deliberate Selection or something along those lines.

It's a variation on breeding actually. Which is really only a technologically modified step up from people select breeding whatever it is they're breeding. Be it Dogs, flies, birds or people.

Yes you are correct because you can't go back therefore it is evolution, albeit not the type one would consider a textbook description.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

What part of this is difficult to understand?

The part you left out, namely natural selection.

It's a simple enough concept, I agree, but the ramifications are very taxing for our creationist friends.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?





This is a real question.

Lets be honest thats procreation not evolution. Is procreation present in evolution yes, but no where near the same. Whats so hard about understanding that Whales stay whales and Lizards stay Lizards.

a reply to: MarlinGrace
Yes . . . still evolution. You've described artificial selection. We already practice artificial selection with all other species, whether through breeding programs (livestock, pets) or food production (agriculture, horticulture, livestock).

Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans breed other animals and plants for particular traits. Typically, strains that are selectively bred are domesticated, and the breeding is normally done by a professional breeder. Bred animals are known as breeds, while bred plants are known as varieties, cultigens, or cultivars. The offspring of two purebreed animals but of different breeds is called a crossbreed, and crossbred plants are called hybrids.

The deliberate exploitation of selective breeding to produce desired results has become very common in agriculture and experimental biology.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?





This is a real question.

Lets be honest thats procreation not evolution. Is procreation present in evolution yes, but no where near the same. Whats so hard about understanding that Whales stay whales and Lizards stay Lizards.

Because that doesn't happen. We only call them lizards or whales NOW because they have already evolved to this point. It's not like a fish decides one day to evolve into a bird. Life just becomes more diverse over time. As life continues to evolve, we will have to come up with more classifications for different animals because the diversity is THAT much more complex. Eventually we will have life forms that are neither plant, animal, or anything we've seen before. That's just how evolution works.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?





This is a real question.

Lets be honest thats procreation not evolution. Is procreation present in evolution yes, but no where near the same. Whats so hard about understanding that Whales stay whales and Lizards stay Lizards.

"Procreate" is a latin word that means "to begat or bring forth". That is not a scientific term . . . it's an ecclesiastic term for the act of producing offspring.

What the OP is describing is "reproduction". Reproduction happens both sexually, what you would call procreation in humans, or asexually like self-replicating cells.

Sexual and asexual reproduction are both a part of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, along with natural selection, artificial selection, gene inheritance, genetic mutation, environmental adaption, etc.

ETA - Oh . . . and about Whales . . . for your reading pleasure: Evolution of Whales

originally posted by: borntowatch
Two humans conceive a human. The human is different but human. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up humans giving birth to humans.


If the human gave birth to a human with wings, that would be evolution


What part of this is difficult to understand?


This is a real question.

No this would be science fiction, not evolution... Evolution is gradual change over many generations.

originally posted by: greavsie1971
The hard thing for me to get my head round regarding evolution is the first cell.

In darwins time they understood the cell to be a very simple 'building block' which was created 'by chance in the soup'.

We now know how complex a single cell is. It holds DNA plus performs various functions in order to keep alive to reproduce. Just 1 incorrect DNA link (out of billions...trillions?) and the system would be compromised.


This happened by chance? The first cell? With all the neccessary functions? Really?????

This is why I have problems with the evolution theory. Not saying its not true or it is true. Just dont appreciate people telling me im stupid because I like to think about it for myself and draw my own conclusions.


Another thing, If an animal evolves front legs into wings or visa versa, how does the species survive during the transformation period when the limbs are half wing half leg?? how would the limbs be usefull? How would these animals possibly survive the millions of years it would take for the change to complete? If the animal survives this time without the use of the limbs....why would the limbs even change? Wouldn't they just fade away?

These are serious questions too.

I believe that a higher power (call it God if you want) set thing up & then put it into motion. Evolution is the natural & necessary way that things go on after that. God probably was curious to see what could happen if you started to combine different atoms together & let them grow on their own.

originally posted by: greavsie1971
The hard thing for me to get my head round regarding evolution is the first cell.

In darwins time they understood the cell to be a very simple 'building block' which was created 'by chance in the soup'.

We now know how complex a single cell is. It holds DNA plus performs various functions in order to keep alive to reproduce. Just 1 incorrect DNA link (out of billions...trillions?) and the system would be compromised.


This happened by chance? The first cell? With all the neccessary functions? Really?????

This is why I have problems with the evolution theory. Not saying its not true or it is true. Just dont appreciate people telling me im stupid because I like to think about it for myself and draw my own conclusions.

This isn't evolution you are speaking about but the origin of life. Evolution starts with the premise that life already exists and goes from there. So your gripe with evolution isn't with evolution at all, but rather with the abiogenesis hypothesis. You should read up a bit more on Evolution instead of just blankly restating Creationist fallacies without even bothering to research what Evolution proponents have to say on your issue. If you had done so, you would have found that you had nothing to worry about since it isn't related to the theory of Evolution.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

Lets be honest thats procreation not evolution. Is procreation present in evolution yes, but no where near the same. Whats so hard about understanding that Whales stay whales and Lizards stay Lizards.

Because it's not always the case, yes some will stay lizards & some will stay whales but others change. Is it so hard to believe that water mammals slowly got used to the land & began to change OR it was forced suddenly onto land, & had to adapt to the change. Not everything can survive, that's why there is different strains, if you will, of a species ie: humans (homo genus & how much it has changed)

Look at the Aquatic Ape theory:

Aquatic Ape hypothesis
Marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy was the second person to have this theory.

"a branch of this primitive ape-stock [hominoids] was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch."

Proponents of AAH suggest that many features that distinguish humans from their nearest evolutionary relatives emerged because the ancestors of humans underwent a period when they were adapting to a semiaquatic existence, but returned to terrestrial life before having become fully adapted to the aquatic environment. Variations within the hypothesis suggests these protohumans to have spent time either wading, swimming or diving on the shores of fresh, brackish, alkaline or saline waters and feeding on littoral resources.[17][18]

Key arguments, based on the original suggestion of Alister Hardy, were developed and presented from 1972 by Elaine Morgan.[1] In later years, other contributors have further developed the aquatic ideas, some of which substantially differ from the original "aquatic ape" of Hardy et Morgan. The term "waterside hypotheses of human evolution" has been coined by AAH-proponent Algis Kuliukas to collectively represent this diversity, of which AAH is only one such hypothesis. Most traits perceived as aquatic are physiological and biochemical, while few are behavioral (ethological). The time frame for the origin and possible termination of such an aquatic existence also differs between proponents, or though the same time frame as anthropological consensus is generally followed. In most cases, this aquaticism is perceived as having been instigated by selective pressure around the split of the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees.[19]

Anatomical parallels have been drawn with those of the modern primate species that swim, wade, dive, or use aquatic environments for thermoregulation, display behavior, range, diet, or predation, though other non-AAH proponents have argued that the behavioral parallels, e.g., between humans and the proboscis monkey, could be facilitated by anatomical adaptations without having been the basis for them.[3][15][20]

The argued degree of human aquaticism varies amongst proponents; however the vast majority, including Morgan, argue a semiaquatic ape on par with e.g. hippos and sea otters, as opposed to a fully aquatic stage on par with e.g. whales or pinnipeds. Some pseudoscientific and cryptozoologic speculations have made use of parts of the AAH argumentation, e.g. the claimed existence of mermaids,[21][22] but this is rejected by AAH proponents, including Morgan.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?

This is a real question.

The part where two fish have a child but it doesn't have fins, can't breathe underwater, can no longer mate with its parents species and walks on legs. Yet despite being "one of a kind" without any mate or biological support, or access to the environment which spawned it, it survives to found a new species.

There is a vast difference between hereditary variation and evolutionary speciation.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed


Lets be honest thats procreation not evolution. Is procreation present in evolution yes, but no where near the same. Whats so hard about understanding that Whales stay whales and Lizards stay Lizards.

Funny thing about whales they have a vestigial hindlimb from when they were land animals - oh and they are closely related to Hippos.

a reply to: solomons path

I mentioned whales specifically, because I know that many evolutionist love to jump the gun on that one I'm at work so I cannot post the links just yet, but I'll give you just one problem with the information you presented. You see many changes must occur before a land mammal can change to a whale. One of these changes was a major reduction in pelvis size. The transitional animal wouldn't have been able to support itself when walking and wouldn't have been fully adapted to aquatic life either. Therefore it wouldn't be suited for life on land or in water....