Evolution Misconceptions....

Originally posted by babloyi
I have a question about human evolution. The 1st post mentioned asking why there are still monkeys along with humans. My question is why there is no other species close to humans, that is existing alongside us?

How do you know there is not? Maybey we dont call them "species", but rather races.

Originally posted by wiggy

Originally posted by babloyi
I have a question about human evolution. The 1st post mentioned asking why there are still monkeys along with humans. My question is why there is no other species close to humans, that is existing alongside us?

How do you know there is not? Maybey we dont call them "species", but rather races.

No, there really is no such thing as "race", its become so mixed today and mingled that the term race has lost its meaning. We are all genetically the same, we just have little physical differences depending on our ancestors lineage.

Chimpanzees are the closet to us, our DNA is extremely similar.

creation is an event, evolution is a process. besides, didn't the reptilains create us ? (just kidding)

I don't see how the two ideas can't co-exist. god created the earth and life on earth, and life on earth evolved....

Originally posted by radagast
creation is an event, evolution is a process. besides, didn't the reptilains create us ? (just kidding)

I don't see how the two ideas can't co-exist. god created the earth and life on earth, and life on earth evolved....

Whatever floats your boat. But creationism is "poof!" and then we came into existence by God. You can believe in God and evolution, science doesnt even touch the subject of God.

Perhaps mankind evolved just the way god intended. Makes sense to me anyway.

Love and light to each of you,

Wupy

i can see that most of you are still missing the point.

there are two different definitions for "evolution".

One concerns MICRO evolution - or basically the increase in the appearence resessive genes in a given population due to environmental conditions. The example mentioned earlier in the thread of the moths in England as a good example. the white ones all got eaten- but the dark ones could pass on their recessive genes to become more numerous. The fact remains that the moths remained moths. This happens everyday and can be observed. another exampple is the Finches mentioned earlier as well. never did one of those finches turn into a sparrow or a hawk or even a dino.

the second definition concerns MACRO - this is where a COMPLETELY new creature is given birth to that is able to again reproduce. This has never been observed in any form- there is nothing in the "fossile record" to make us suspect that this has ever happened. they don't call those sorts of things missing links for nothing- the links from dino to bird (millions necessary) are all missing- ONE creature that "appeared" to have traits of both is not suffieicent evidence- where is that creature's offspring and the next creature closer to a full bird? the fact remains: you can get a large variaty of dogs by mating a pair of dogs but you will never get a cat. you can attempt to mate a dog and a cat but if you ever happen to get ANY sort of offspring it will be STERILE. This case CANNOT HAPPEN.

now please, if we are to continue this dicission no more of using the first definition to support your arguements of the second the two are not compatable.

There really is no such thing as a difference between micro and marco, its just an invisible line creationists draw to make themselves feel comfortable. It's like asking where on the rainbow green ends and red starts.

you can get a large variaty of dogs by mating a pair of dogs but you will never get a cat.

The theory of evolution agrees with this statement. Thank for pointing it out. Now maybe, it will never be brought up again as some sort of attempt to debunk evolution.

Indeed. If these changes can happen at a micro-level, there is no reason whatsoever that it can't happen at a macro-level. As the previous poster said, the micro-world is the same world as the macro-world, it's just seen from a different perspective.

And you can't say that it can happen within a species but not outside of one. The truth is, the species is just a classification we have given a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another.

sorry Alec Effiel and Ikku maybe you guys are having a problem with the definitions concerned. Some words have many differnent meanings. in this case:

Micro - can be meant to be WITHIN a species in this case not on the "tiny" side of things as used in this setting

Macro - can be meant to be ACROSS species- not on the large scale - again, to restate for the record, this has never occured- and it does not work the same as the "micro"

in that sense: micro can be confirmed; MACRO cannot.


do we have any english majors to help these guys out????

Originally posted by launchpad
sorry Alec Effiel and Ikku maybe you guys are having a problem with the definitions concerned. Some words have many differnent meanings. in this case:

Micro - can be meant to be WITHIN a species in this case not on the "tiny" side of things as used in this setting

Macro - can be meant to be ACROSS species- not on the large scale - again, to restate for the record, this has never occured- and it does not work the same as the "micro"

in that sense: micro can be confirmed; MACRO cannot.


do we have any english majors to help these guys out????

Im still not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that populations can evolve to adapt to their environments, but not to the point where they become a new species, incapable of breeding with their ancestors? In other words, specitation?

Read the second part of my previous post. Are you saying there's some mystical classification of species? We determine a species to be a population of organisms that can reproduce with one another, though each may be very different.

But we made up these boundaries between species. If an organism can evolve within its species, what could possibly prevent them from crossing these so-called limitations of species? You are looking at the definition of species to be set in stone. But the classification of species is simply how we perceive them to be significantly different from one another, while the truth is genetically all species are very similar. There's not some kind of genetic roadblock preventing them from advancing past a certain point.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Ikku]

sure you can adapt to your environment. hang out in the sun for a while and eventually you can get tanned. (SOME of ) your decendants may even keep some of the shading. this is still MICRO

however sitting at your computer typing for a life time will never give your decendants another finger on each hand- nor turn into an octopus. which would be MACRO.

ok silly examples, but you should be able to see that it is not a logical leap that if you can get a tan that someday you (your decendants) would be entirely different creatures.

Right and if you work out a lot, your descendants will be born strong and muscular.

That is an old and defunct idea. Evolution is not a result of what you do in your life or how an individual adapts to an environment but of what populations do, how they adapt. If (for some reason) having an extra finger for typing made someone more likely to survive, eventually you would see the population favoring the genes that cause them to have more fingers.

ikku, you are talking semantics;

"But we made up these boundaries between species. "

what? we told them when they can reproduce??????


whatever we call the division from where they can reproduce with another creature or not is purely semantics.

did you know that HORSE + DONKEY = MULE and the mule is STERILE? why is that? because the genitic information is just too different- it has reached a genetic dead end.

still looking for some sort (ANY) evidence of the MACRO

Originally posted by launchpad
ikku, you are talking semantics;

"But we made up these boundaries between species. "

what? we told them when they can reproduce??????


whatever we call the division from where they can reproduce with another creature or not is purely semantics.

did you know that HORSE + DONKEY = MULE and the mule is STERILE? why is that? because the genitic information is just too different- it has reached a genetic dead end.

still looking for some sort (ANY) evidence of the MACRO

No, you clearly have no idea how evolution works. Which was shown by your sun tanning comment. Individuals do not evolve, populations do. The mechanism through which they evolve is mutation and natural selection. Example, food is getting scarce on the ground and the only food adequate enough for survival is up in trees. An individual born with a longer neck (mutation) will pass this trait on to the rest of the popluation, the individuals with shorter necks will not reproduce (they die), this is natural selection. Gradually over time, their necks keep getting longer to the point where they are suited for their environment. They may have evolved so much to where they can no longer reproduce with the species they used to be genetically similar to. This is called specitation, what many would call marco evolution. Small steps over time leads to huge changes. It's like watching the hour hand on a clock at 1 and saying "theres no possible way that can get to 12!!". Its a slow process.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Alec Eiffel]

once again you seem to be having issues with the definitions

the instance of longer necks is again MICRO- the same example of the moths changing colors.

look at the various variaties of dogs- by selecting which pups with features we would like to keep and breeding those with dogs of similar features we can have a better chance of those RESESSIVE genes being passed on. do this enough and we eventually eliminate some other genes from the bloodlines and bring about a whole other lot of problems (similar to inbreeding) Exactly the same as the moths mention numberous times before. We still have not ended up with a new creature- the end product is still a dog and there are still limits that are quickly reached.

taking your example of the lengthening necks:
if we put the dogs food at the very exstremes of what it can reach and mate them and contiune for many generations - sure we might end up with dogs having slightly longer necks but you will never end up with a Giraffe looking dog.

and since you brough it up:
if giraffes evolved that way, where are the inbetween short necked giraffes in the fossile record. those links are missing- seems to me there should have been many, many millions of them.

Originally posted by launchpad
once again you seem to be having issues with the definitions

the instance of longer necks is again MICRO- the same example of the moths changing colors.

Taken from Talkorigins.org: "Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe." Notice how giraffes branch off from the deer. Notice how modern day giraffe cannot reproduce with modern deer. What do you think is an example of? Specitation? Marco-evolution? It sounds like it to me. Deer--------------->giraffe=no more babies. Is this simple enough?

look at the various variaties of dogs- by selecting which pups with features we would like to keep and breeding those with dogs of similar features we can have a better chance of those RESESSIVE genes being passed on. do this enough and we eventually eliminate some other genes from the bloodlines and bring about a whole other lot of problems (similar to inbreeding) Exactly the same as the moths mention numberous times before. We still have not ended up with a new creature- the end product is still a dog and there are still limits that are quickly reached.

Where do you think dogs came from? Wolves! They are now dramatically different from wolves, although they can still interbreed, which is extremely rare. My point is, dogs evolved from wolves, and wolves evolved from another species. The evolution of dogs is fairly recent in terms of evolution, but say, maybe in another couple thousand years, they could evovle to the point where they can no longer breed with wolves. This is an example of marco-evolution!

taking your example of the lengthening necks:
if we put the dogs food at the very exstremes of what it can reach and mate them and contiune for many generations - sure we might end up with dogs having slightly longer necks but you will never end up with a Giraffe looking dog.

Fuinny how they can get longer necks over many generations and then just suddenly stop. Its magic. How about over millions of years? Do you think modern dogs will still look the same? Do you think this new species will be able to succesfully reproduce with modern dogs?

and since you brough it up:
if giraffes evolved that way, where are the inbetween short necked giraffes in the fossile record. those links are missing- seems to me there should have been many, many millions of them.

Theres a number of reasons why fossils dont last through the times.

Originally posted by launchpad
the second definition concerns MACRO - this is where a COMPLETELY new creature is given birth to that is able to again reproduce. This has never been observed in any form- there is nothing in the "fossile record" to make us suspect that this has ever happened. they don't call those sorts of things missing links for nothing- the links from dino to bird (millions necessary) are all missing- ONE creature that "appeared" to have traits of both is not suffieicent evidence- where is that creature's offspring and the next creature closer to a full bird? the fact remains: you can get a large variaty of dogs by mating a pair of dogs but you will never get a cat. you can attempt to mate a dog and a cat but if you ever happen to get ANY sort of offspring it will be STERILE. This case CANNOT HAPPEN.

You will not find any serious biologist or evolutionary scientist who would ever sugeest such a thing could happen. New species arise over enormous periods of time via minute changes. You say breeding dogs never causes a cat to arise....try it for a 100 million years and you will have a new species. It might not be a cat, but it will be something nobody will recognise as a dog. Don't you see how millions of small (or micro as you call them) changes will eventually add up to something big? Just becuase you can't see grass growing doesn't mean it isn't.

It is only creationists who make up this micro vs macro nonsense, and are usually working from the premise that the world is 6000 years old, which isn't, long enough for new species to arise (which if the world was this young would be correct). However if you believe the planet has only been around for a few 1000 years you will believe anything.

Originally posted by launchpad

the second definition concerns MACRO - this is where a COMPLETELY new creature is given birth to that is able to again reproduce. This has never been observed in any form- there is nothing in the "fossile record" to make us suspect that this has ever happened. they don't call those sorts of things missing links for nothing- the links from dino to bird (millions necessary) are all missing- ONE creature that "appeared" to have traits of both is not suffieicent evidence- where is that creature's offspring and the next creature closer to a full bird? the fact remains: you can get a large variaty of dogs by mating a pair of dogs but you will never get a cat. you can attempt to mate a dog and a cat but if you ever happen to get ANY sort of offspring it will be STERILE. This case CANNOT HAPPEN.

I think you should go back to my orignal post and read it over, becasue you clearly missed point number 13.

One of the misconceptions of evolution used by creationists is thisas i stated in my orignal post, #13)

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

The fact is, there are many fossils and observed cases where new species have formed. The giraffe case, i think, was an excellent case to show this and the dogs from wolf case(provided by Alec Eiffel).

Please read the full article that I provided a link to in my original post before answering.

aside from the current arguement, there is one thing that I cannot let go unnoticed. A dog is not a new species of wolf. They are almost the same. They can breed, produce offspring, and their offspring can also produce offspring. I don't think anyone actually said that dogs is a separate species from wolves