What bugs me about the theory of evolution

a reply to: Themaskedbeast

Perhaps you need to read up on what evolution is We are not talking catastrophic change (what you are describing), we are talking gradual change. We have seem these changes (species of moths, mice which have adapted to neighbourhoods in NYC, and of course antibiotic resistant bacterium).

Every generation of a species (that sexually reproduces) is a mutant, from the last.

a reply to: halfoldman




If you could see the chemical change of sugar (grapes) into ethanol (wine)... you would be very useful in my lab I would need to ask you "is it done yet?" which is faster than runing an HPLC or NMR

I didn't see the chemical process, but yet here it is!
There are the grapes, and here is the wine.

Actually let me have a few more sips, just to be sure ...
I'm very skeptical, you know.

Now what bugs me about evolution (and it really does) is that earthworms and nematodes never evolved into something more palatable.

Like if you could shake their hands (oops - I see, maybe not), for example, and reason with them, and find them a massive doo-doo-hole to live in, I'm sure they'd be happy and just go away.

I just feel they could have done better for themselves by now.

a reply to: halfoldman

I am pretty sure there are a few more steps than grapes become wine But I don't know the quality of wine you drink. I am more of a Whisky drinker.

a reply to: Noinden
Now you're going to have to convince an atheist!
No way can beer be distilled into whiskey.
I haven't seen the little chemicals run from one jar to another!
The proof of the pudding is in the taste!

a reply to: halfoldman

Its no my my job to convince you of anything neighbour Speaking as a scientist (Chemist) I am pretty sure there are a few more steps involved My Gods don't magically turn water into wine, though they do like mead.

I'd not recommend you eat any of the chemicals in my lab however. Or sniff them. Here have some Phosgene

But now ladies and gentlemen, before I lay me to sleep: "Where did all the coal come from?"

Thus the huge coal deposits of today’s world can easily be explained. The coal formed quickly in the year-long Genesis Flood only about 4,300 years ago. This coal is a grim reminder that God judged the world because it had become filled with wickedness, corruption, and violence (Genesis 6:11–13).

answersingenesis.org...

If it's only 4000 years old, stop shoveling my ancestors' graves into your ovens!

I mean they may have been wicked and flooded away, but that's no reason to shovel them into steam-engines, and make snow-man eyes!

Makes sense: wickedness+flood=coal.

"Amazing coal how sweet thy art: those jungles they were really thick, to make one tiny brick".

originally posted by: babybunnies


Given the millions of years needed for genetic mutations to occur, we're hardly likely to spot something happening inside 100 years, are we ?

You'd be surprised how rapidly things can and do change.

Within a few months, native lizards had begun shifting to higher perches, and over the course of 15 years and 20 generations, their toe pads had become larger, with more sticky scales on their feet.

source

A2D

(though I'd still call this adaptation...because I believe it is ALL adaptation but my beliefs aren't relevant to this conversation...)

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

(though I'd still call this adaptation...because I believe it is ALL adaptation but my beliefs aren't relevant to this conversation...)

Adaption is when an INDIVIDUAL takes advantage of its existing in-born capabilities and alters its behavior in some way. Like climbing to a higher limb than it normally would.

Evolution is when an ENTIRE POPULATION changes its existing in-born capabilities from generation to generation. Like growing extra sticky pads to make climbing easier.

The difference is that of an INDIVIDUAL versus that of a POPULATION.

An INDIVIDUAL ** DOES NOT ** gain new physical capabilities over its lifetime.

A POPULATION ** DOES ** gain new physical capabilities from one generation to the next.

INDIVIDUALS ** DO NOT ** evolve. The degree to which an INDIVIDUAL can ADAPT to changing environmental conditions determines which genes get passed on to the next GENERATION.

POPULATIONS ** DO ** evolve. Generation after generation after generation, small changes occur between parents and children. In EVERY plant, animal, and virus. If the change is neutral, it just gets carried around the population with no effect and may die out. If the change is deleterious, the INDIVIDUAL does not live to mate, or does not mate well, and the mutation dies out. If the changes are beneficial the change becomes dominate in the POPULATION - and that is EVOLUTION.

In any POPULATION, different INDIVIDUALS will carry different MUTATIONS. Those INDIVIDUALS that carry MUTATIONS that are beneficial to that INDIVIDUAL reproducing 'better' than other INDIVIDUALS in the same POPULATION will have a higher impact on the makeup of the POPULATION over future GENERATIONS.

This is not rocket science (it is biology . ). It is really not difficult to understand.

Changing behavior in an INDIVIDUAL is ADAPTATION. Changing behavior in a POPULATION across generations is EVOLUTION.

a reply to: rnaa

Very well said. I grow tired of the, "That's not evolution, that's adaptation!" argument. It's completely meaningless. You could call evolution long term adaptation, but it's often confused with actual adaptation of individuals as you noted above.

originally posted by: intrptr

The "tree" has critters from critters extending all the way back to a picture of a trunk of a tree...

image search result

I conclude our morals today evolved from e treetrunk.

a reply to: wildespace

They did just discover a dolphin whale hybrid totally new species sorry can't link.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: wildespace

They did just discover a dolphin whale hybrid totally new species sorry can't link.

To be fair, the Melon-Headed Whale is actually from the Family, Dolphinadae. To compare the genetic relationship between the Melon-Headed Whale and the rough-toothed Dolphin to that of humans and chimpanzee for example, the dolphin and melon headed whale are more closely related as the "whale" is only a whale by name not genetics much like narwhals, killer whales, and another half dozen, give or take, that I can't recall at this particular moment.

The thing that made this particular admixture event notable is that the rough toothed dolphin and melon-headed whales don't normally share overlapping territory/migration routes so this is the first documented case of hybridization.

Whales and Dolphins are still fairly closely related so hybridization and admixture aren't really that uncommon to the point that the term "wholphin" was coined in the mid 1980's to describe the offspring of their unions. The overwhelming majority of "wholphins" occur in captivity with only 3 confirmed instances in the wild so in that regard this is definitely an interesting case and worthy of the attention it will draw.

originally posted by: CharlesT
I think the most evident proof of evolution would probably be found in the mutations witnessed in bacterial strains as they become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. Wouldn't you call that process evolution? Take TB for instance, it is becoming ever more resistant to antibiotics over time.

What's the difference between evolution and adaptation?

a reply to: vasaga

Rnaa provided an excellent answer here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

Rnaa provided an excellent answer here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So adaptation is the individual, and evolution is a population? Sounds like nonsense to me. Why? What about this;



You need only a single bacteria to adapt against antibiotics and reproduce, while all others die off, for adaptation to now magically become evolution.

So is there a difference, or isn't there a difference? You can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

Rnaa provided an excellent answer here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So adaptation is the individual, and evolution is a population? Sounds like nonsense to me. Why? What about this;



You need only a single bacteria to adapt against antibiotics and reproduce, while all others die off, for adaptation to now magically become evolution.

So is there a difference, or isn't there a difference? You can't have it both ways.

Thanks for proving that your knowledge is worse than Coop in regards to science.

a reply to: Barcs

Thank you for providing nothing of value

a reply to: vasaga

Right back at you.