Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


"Hypothetically, Let's take a small animal and follow its species for thousands of years. If micro-evolution is true and proven, would this not lead to a new species after thousands of years?"


Extrapolating micro evolution (that has been observed) to macro evolution is persuasive but it isn't proof.

It quite possibly does happen that way, but it is far from proved.

The lack of any links in the fossil record between species, suggests to me that perhaps we are missing a large part of the puzzle and that the current theory of evolution possibly doesn't explain everything.

I think that biologists would be doing mankind a big favour by keeping an open mind.

reply to post by B.A.C.


Like a giraffe maybe?
2nd line............

reply to post by B.A.C.


What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations. Who/what else should know what the problem is and if there is a problem and what to want to resolve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

what do you think about that

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

BAC, I risk a slap on the wrist here.....to quote the ever-prescient Homer Simpson....to his son Bart...."What is matter? Never mind. What is 'Mind'? Doesn't matter..."

The Universe that we now observe came about somehow. OK?

Our participation in the drama has only happened in a mere sliver of time, compared to what's happened before. What we call 'matter' is really a lot of empty space. Something you call a 'solid' isn't really....on the quantum level.

How does MY diatribe relate to this thread???

Imagine a pre-schooler who is allowed to open a pocket watch. (Oh Dear, I'm about to invent a 'creator'....not what I imagined I'd do, but.....)

Let's go back to the pocket watch analogy. A pre-schooler (insert Human here) sees something that is so amazing, and completely baffling....but, this clever child (us) decides he/she wants to figure it out. How does it work? DID it get built by someone? HOW can I re-create it????

I'm not advocating a 'creator'.....with the pocket watch analogy....although, I guess I am, because I couldn't think of something better....

Maybe, it is just the age-old saying....'stuff happens'!

Homer Simpson....to his son Bart...."What is matter? Never mind. What is 'Mind'? Doesn't matter..." LMAO nice.

Where did the watch come from? hehe

reply to post by B.A.C.


But the deer would not accomplish this via magic. He would accomplish this through breeding. All evolution is forced. You either evolve or die.

Originally posted by turbohenk
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations. Who/what else should know what the problem is and if there is a problem and what to want to resolve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

what do you think about that

I think that's an interesting concept. Hopefully someone will perform a thorough study of this in the future.

reply to post by gpzrd350


Of course it is persuasive, that is why it is currently the most likely solution. Don't get me wrong, im not saying its 100% fact. More like its the best solution we can currently explain.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

But the deer would not accomplish this via magic. He would accomplish this through breeding. All evolution is forced. You either evolve or die.

Not just through breeding which doesn't really change anything major (which is my point). It must also somehow alter it's very DNA to accomplish this, changing it's DNA generation by generation until the change is complete, that would be evolution.

reply to post by B.A.C.


Thanks, I always hated the black and white view of evolutionists and creationists the thruth is always somewhere in the middle.
And you can't argue about the excistance of "god" when you study regression/obe's/nde's, it becomes pretty clear after that.

reply to post by B.A.C.


ok look at it this way. We have a species of deer, DNA makes some of them taller and some of them shorter. The ones who aren't tall enough to reach the food die. The ones who can reach live to breed. End result = Taller deer.

Forced to change due to lack of food.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

Like a giraffe maybe?
2nd line............

Maybe. You seem to have a problem with showing something to back your statements up. Show me a short giraffe and you may be onto something.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Fruit Flies DNA "changing" is not proof of evolution, it is only proof that "something", chemicals, pollution, etc, has altered their DNA.

When a Fruit Fly's wings turn into flippers that's evolution. When a Fruit Fly loses it's wings and evolves to live on land, that's evolution.

If you wish to make a viable argument, don't alter the text from links you provide, it only discredits you.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the scientific process. You reference "evolution" as one big black box, without enough detail to make falsifiable hypotheses.

Let's break it down. Darwin's theory was essentially that there is natural variation and change (mutation) among members of the species, and that "natural selection" based on adaptive success in a given environment causes differential survivial and reproduction rates for some variations over others. This selection shifts the characterisitics of the population, and these shifts can eventually create new species.

Since his time, the science of genetics has been incorporated to explain the mechanism behind these observed dynamics and the two are now deeply intertwined.

That selection can change populations is well established - artificial selection has greatly changed domesticated plant and animal species. Sheepdogs are well adapted for herding sheep, because people effected that same differential reproductive rates, ie: breeding for traits. In that case there was intelligent selection, which is certainly more time effective. But the concept that some selective force can have such effects was well established before Darwin's time; it's not a huge leap to see that "living in colder weather" might select for better fur, even without a human doing the culling. And natural selection has been demonstrated in a number of species (protective colloration in moths genetically changing to adapt to sooty environment is a classic example).

Likewise mutation has been demonstrated. (There are even hairless cats from a chance mutation occuring in modern history).

Whether natural selection operating over time can create new species (incapable of breeding with the original species) is less straightforward, because the mechanism is slow according to the scientific evidence and the theory in question. Of course, geology also deals with slowly changing data as well. We haven't actually observed the continent wide glaciers of an Ice Age, or the continent of Pangea which later split via techtonic plate drift. We can't prove that kind of science by demonstrating it in the lab with repeatable experiments - on our human timescales we are relatively passive observers of geology and evolution, unlike experiments with gravity. Still, we can look for evidence of what has happened in the past.

There is MASSIVE evidence for gratual evolution of life forms in the fossil record. This stuff about "missing links" is largely a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. There are gaps in fossil records (no good fossils of certain species yet found for a particular era). And from time to time we do find examples of those missing eras, closing a given "gap". Basically, fossils are random, and sometimes they form better than other times or last better without having been eroded away or buried beneath tectonic plates.

One could posit a "god of the gaps" - acknowledging that the fossil record provides good scientific documentation for most of evolution, but if no trillobyte fossils from a given 100 million year "gap" a couple billion years ago have yet been found, maybe God handled the changes that occurred during that period (between earlier and later fossils). But each time when we do find fossils from that era, God's role gets smaller. And since evolution explains the rest of the picture and is consistent with the missing "gap", there's no reason to expect that those gaps are anything more than lack of some data points; it's like a make-work job.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

ok look at it this way. We have a species of deer, DNA makes some of them taller and some of them shorter. The ones who aren't tall enough to reach the food die. The ones who can reach live to breed. End result = Taller deer.

Forced to change due to lack of food.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

They haven't evolved until they are born to grow taller than previous generations. Which wouldn't happen, because the DNA is the same.

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


God is light, light is energy, energy is eternal. In the begining God created the Heavens and the Earth. The Universe had a begining.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
They haven't evolved until they are born to grow taller than previous generations. Which wouldn't happen, because the DNA is the same.

You are looking at it only from one side. What happens when the trees who are too tall to be eaten reproduce? They become taller than some of the deer can reach. Once again the process repeats until now you have a generation of deer taller than the first group.

reply to post by reasoner

This selection shifts the characterisitics of the population, and these shifts can eventually create new species.

Bingo, this is what i don't agree with. I never stated that some of the theory isn't correct.

Origin of the Species is what Darwin called it. I disagree with this part of his theory.

I agree animals can adapt, maybe even drastically, but I don't think they will EVER form a whole new species. Even if changes in DNA emerge as a result of that adaptation, they will always be the same species.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown

Originally posted by B.A.C.
They haven't evolved until they are born to grow taller than previous generations. Which wouldn't happen, because the DNA is the same.

You are looking at it only from one side. What happens when the trees who are too tall to be eaten reproduce? They become taller than some of the deer can reach. Once again the process repeats until now you have a generation of deer taller than the first group.

Lets agree to disagree

I can agree with adaptation to an extant. I believe if the deer grow 200 ft high, they will still be deer, although adapted. I'm not saying they would grow taller in this example though.

Climacoceras, Canthumeryx, Paleomeryx, Palaeotragus, and Samotherium. The line from a deer with a short neck to the modern giraffe.

In the begining God created the Heavens and the Earth.
According to the Bible the Universe had a begining
God is light, light is energy, energy is eternal.

Wow my hands are getting sore from responding, there must be someone else you guys can pick on for awhile LOL