Creationism vs. Evolution

[coolotter88 2]

punctuated equilibrium and adaptive radiation, nuff said

and the macroevolution I was talking about was between parasites and hosts, not parasites and themselves.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl

I don't think we're talking about the same kind of macro evolution. I mean when a primate turned into a human.  quote>

Well I don't really know what you mean by that, since humans are primates. Perhaps you could explain more?

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl

No one can prove that macro evolution, meaning from one species into another classification of species, has ever occured. quote>

Again I don't know what you are trying to say here. I really don't know what you are expecting to see, perhaps what you are expecting to see is unrealistic in view of what the theory of evolution actually predicts. Someone in a previous post mentioned no-one had ever seen a dog or a cat turn into a human or something like that. This is not what the theory of evolution predicts and so you would not expect to see this kind of transformation (again I don't really know what this might be expected to look like, especially in the fossil record). If we saw this kind of transformation take place then that might actually be enough to disprove the whole theory of evolution (and perhaps be actual proof of god, since such a change would be considered in violation of the known laws of science). But I think such an expectation may be based on a simple misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl

They hoped for the fossil record to show something. So far, inconclusive. Sure they rearrange and conjecture about bones, but nothing shows this--and probably never will. Know why?  quote>

Actually the fossil record has provided pretty good confirmation of the theory, considering what you would realistically expect to see from it. We have not seen any violations of the theory (which if found would be grounds to consider falsification of the theory, if it could not be resolved). Incidentally, there you go, the theory is falsifiable, and there is one of the potential grounds for falsification. Although attempted, no genuine anomaly has ever been adequately demonstrated. Now if you genuinely found actual primates really in the pre-Cambrian, as a repeated or regular occurance, along with other species appearing where they definately should not appear (eg dinosours in the Ordovician), then you might think about tossing the theory .

Originally posted by: coolotter88 punctuated equilibrium and adaptive radiation, nuff said

and the macroevolution I was talking about was between parasites and hosts, not parasites and themselves.quote>

Now the relationship between parasites and their hosts casts a very interesting light on the nature of evolution.

Its also one of the areas where evolution is a powerful predictive tool for scientists. One of the characteristics of a sound theory is that you can use it to make predictions, and those predictions turn out to be accurate.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[bixel 1,223]

Here is something to clear up the confusion. There is no real debate here.

LINK

[Ron Swanson 1]

Whoa Bixel, hey I don't think uh insulting people's faith is what this forum is about. Now lets be certain about this. What evidence has science ever presented that contradicts the existant of God, or a god or whatever? Of course I am assuming that is what is being attacked here.

Sam: Well ok then, it seems my high school science texts are a little outdated. I'll drop the macroevolution term and not cling to it like a "bulldog on a tennis ball." But the way Barbossa describes it, processes attributed to microevolution leads to speciation? Is that not what macroevolution, just broken down. And when I say macroevolution, I don't mean a dog turning into a human, I mean like neanderthal eventually becoming the upright homo sapiens that we are today. Or whatever is depicted in those cartoons, the trademark of evolution. So quite possibly I am mistaken on the new and improved updates of evolution, its hard to keep up with all the changes. If you Sam could just give me a solid current definition of evolution, I would appreciate it.

[DanWalker8 3]

hahaha i love that bixel, totally appropriate

[coolotter88 2]

it's not really insulting anyone's faith specifically since it's a generalization about religion.

[JackStraw 19]

Evolution just explains how we survived, not how we ARRIVED !!! NUFF SAID.

[confused04 14]

In reality, you are right CrazyFinger, evolution was only meant to explain diversification of life on Planet Earth. Darwin purposely avoided the question of biogenesis. He knew he could never attempt to start proving biogenesis and religous ramifications were probably enough to sway him from even formulating a hypothesis on this aspect. That is what urks me about the whole creationism versus evolution. In no way does evolution discredit the existence of God (or his equivalent). Evolutions specifically deals with "the rise of one species from another." Granted, evolution does fit nicely with current biogenesis theories out there but that is irrelevent. It is unfair to compare creationism to evolution since they do not deal directly with the same thing. You can theoretically be a creationist and an evolutionist at the same time, most of these people would be deists.

There are MANY books that deal with evolution. Currently, I'm reading the "The Plausibility of Life" which discusses the notion of novelty in evolution, which admittingly is the weakest point in the theory of evolution. How does an eye "evolve" from no eye. Evolution explains where an prototype eye evolves into a more sophisticated eye, but what leads a species to bother creating a phototype eye. But, with all things said, the theory of evolution has so much imperical evidence, that its denial is at this point is a nuisance. There will always be a search for the "missing" link between "Lucy" and Homo sapiens sapiens. There will never be a close enough evolutionary ancestor to convince creationists (or what should really be called "intelligent designists") that perhaps we actually did evolve from another ancestral primate. We could have a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % match and creationists will ask for the next species with a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999991% match. Irregardless of the evidence, creationists will remain creationists. I haven't yet seen a bonefied creationist become an evolutionist. The only instance of "switching sides" occurs in children who grow up with possibly different beliefs than their parents.

Barbossa, as I'm a biology student interested in evolution and genetics, I've read plenty of evolution papers, and I am even partaking in a small "microevolution" project, although it has more practical applications than real input into the theory of evolution.

I will have to dive into the discussion at a later point (I haven't read much of pages 2 and 3), but I have to go searching for resting eggs in a pile of sediment... WOOOOOO

[SimFox 801]

why somebody feel free to insult me with his faith? freedom of speach means i can say that it creationism is BULL***** as penn and Teller very nicelly illustrated in the above mentioned (BULL*****) show of theirs. If you belive it it's your choice... but if you try to present ti to others do bother to find proffs that don't refer to bible and some such and will hold any water.

The very notion of REASON for say life is purelly philosophical and not scientific. Why should there be a reason?? just because you want one?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Sam 163]

Can we try to stay polite and respectful of others please? Its ok to state your own beliefs, views or reasoning on the subject (politely), but please be respectful that others may have different views or ways of looking at things, to which they are entitled.

I apologise if any of what I have previously said has offended anyone or disrespected their beliefs.

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl Whoa Bixel, hey I don't think uh insulting people's faith is what this forum is about. Now lets be certain about this. What evidence has science ever presented that contradicts the existant of God, or a god or whatever? Of course I am assuming that is what is being attacked here.

Sam: Well ok then, it seems my high school science texts are a little outdated. I'll drop the macroevolution term and not cling to it like a "bulldog on a tennis ball." But the way Barbossa describes it, processes attributed to microevolution leads to speciation? Is that not what macroevolution, just broken down. And when I say macroevolution, I don't mean a dog turning into a human, I mean like neanderthal eventually becoming the upright homo sapiens that we are today. Or whatever is depicted in those cartoons, the trademark of evolution. So quite possibly I am mistaken on the new and improved updates of evolution, its hard to keep up with all the changes. If you Sam could just give me a solid current definition of evolution, I would appreciate it.quote>

I've learned to regard textbooks with an open mind and not to rely too much on any one point of view that they might present, but to check them against other sources.

The basic definition of evolution (this is not the theory though, just a definition) is probably pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago. But as others have pointed out, its mainly in the some of the finer points that refinements may have occured, especially with the advent of modern genetics and molecular biology. Remember it wasn't too long ago that no-one knew of DNA.

The basic definition of evolution, as far as I understand goes something like this:

Evolution is change in a population's inherited characteristics over successive generations.

Its not really a very interesting definition. The interesting bits tend to be in the various parts the theory (the explanatory part).

Some of the observations that our theory may need to incorporate include:

Life in general:

Living things are diverse (biodiversity)

Living things have similarities to all other living things

Some living things are more similar than others

Living things at all levels have differences to other living things (between individuals, populations etc)

Inheritance:

Living things produce offspring that tend to be similar to themselves

The offspring may have some characteristics that are different to their parents (ie not possessed by either parent)

These changes can sometimes be inherited (passed on to their own offspring)

Populations:

Individuals within a population have differences (no two are the same)

Resources (food, shelter, habitat, mates) available to a population are usually limited

More offspring are usually produced by the population than can be sustained by the available resources

An individuals characteristics may affect whether it survives long enough to reproduce

The individuals that survive long enough to reproduce may pass on their characteristics to their offspring

Populations may change over time

Biogeography:

Living things tend to be geographically distributed in relation to their relationships with each other.

(There are probably a lot of others that can be added, as evolution is a concept that unifies biology)

The modern theory of evolution incorporates Darwin's concepts of Descent with Modification, and Natural Selection, as well as the more recent advances in genetics (that were not known in Darwin's time) and population biology to explain the mechanisms of evolution (including genetic change, genetic drift and gene flow).

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Barbossa, as I'm a biology student interested in evolution and genetics, I've read plenty of evolution papers, and I am even partaking in a small "microevolution" project, although it has more practical applications than real input into the theory of evolution. quote>

I am very happy to see people taking an interest in biology! It is a wonderful field full of so many fascinating things. quote>

I agree

[CapitolAnarchy 5]

Which seems more plausible;

A) Although Earth was created around 4.5 billion years ago, life began to exist not long after. Our Solar System was still young, and the Sun was still cooling down after its creation billions of years beforehand. The unique circumstances of our Solar System and our planet gave rise to life. This was due to a number of characteristics that are exhibited by our ecosphere, the area of a planet capable of sustaining life. Venus, one of our planetary neighbors, is closer to the sun, with the planet exhibiting characteristics that would not be able to support life. On the other hand, Mars is further away from the Sun, and too cold to naturally support life. However, Earth, for billions of years, has possessed all the materials and suitable conditions for supporting life. All living things possess the element carbon within them. In light of this, Earth had to have rich supply of carbon to support a rich diversity of life. This carbon was made available by the volatile nature of the Earth in the beginning, where volcanoes spewed various elements into the Earth's atmosphere. While other elements were present, various chemical reactions began to take place which would result in the creation of new compounds and elements. One of the family of compounds created over time were the amino acids, the building blocks of protein. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein, and thus the building blocks of life. The complex organisms of today harness the biological power of proteins in a variety of ways, such as the use of enzymes as a catalyst. In general, organisms over time in the evolutionary chain have grown and become more complex in their nature, i.e. the first origins of life were likely small, simple and not diversified. One understanding of the origins of life is that it would have been very unlikely that parasites were the beginnings of life. As parasites require biological hosts to reproduce and thus survive as a species, they would have been unable to successfully continue their species during this time period. In light of this, viruses and other parasites would have developed later on in the evolutionary chain. It is believed that heterotrophs were the first beginnings of life on Earth, inhabiting the sea and absorbing the organic material that was being created by the reactions of Earth at the time (i.e. the creation of amino acids). The building blocks of life created these organisms and also acted as a food source. This is where the idea of a food chain becomes relevant. When these first autotrophs died, the organic material that they consist of would break down and add to the 'organic soup' that was feeding these organisms at the time. Alias, it is believed that heterotrophic bacteria was the first signs of life on Earth

A component of all existing life is that it adapts to survive. You either adapt or you already have adapted. If species did not have this instinctive nature via their genetic information, then they would have no desire to continue living as a species. Although the beginnings of life above were successfully reproducing, an economy of scale involving the organisms would point out that their food source (the organic soup) would not be able to sustain all life. In light of this, the organisms on Earth at the time would have to diversify over the long term to survive. It is suggested that around three billion years ago, autotrophic animals had diversified from previous species. These autotrophs are capable of synthesizing energy from inorganic material, i.e. via the sun and elements on the Earth. This had allowed life on Earth to tap into a whole new energy resource, one that was literally inexhaustible - the Sun. Life began to flourish, and the autotrophic organisms had tapped a new niche allowing the biomass of Earth at the time to dramatically increase. The autotrophs en masse were absorbing carbon and light. The light invariably would always be an available source for synthesizing energy, while the carbon was not. CO2 was constantly being absorbed by these organisms, and after the biological reactions responsible for creating energy in them, oxygen would be released as a by-product. This meant that oxygen began to accumulate in the oceans where life existed. This new material would in turn be taken advantage of by the adapting organisms, alias, leading to the creation of aerobic organisms, who used oxygen as a component of their energy creation. This is another example of life diversifying to adapt to its environment and exploit the niches that it could occupy. This type of evolution continued, where the supply of potential energy making elements and compounds outstretched the requirements of life, therefore organisms continued to adapt to fill all available niches as opposed to competing with one another. Pathogens existed by this time, and were able to leech resources from their single cell hosts, kill them, and move on to the next host after multiplying. On top of this, resources for all organisms alive at the time were being stretched by the increasing population of species' and also the diversity of unique species. Alias, the exhaustible materials used by species were limited, and they would have to 'fight for their right' to survive. To do this, natural selection would give them a competitive advantage over other organisms and perhaps relieve stress caused by competition within the species (intraspecific). One noted event in the origins of life is the emergence of protists. Although these organisms were single celled like all other organisms, they were notably bigger, some being visible to the human eye. This adaptation must have been a selective advantage at the time, either over competitors or taking advantage of an ecological niche. In fact, the adaptive change is believed to be anatomical. Unlike other organisms, the protists contained cell organelles, which meant that a fundamental difference in the way life operated had arisen in the case of the protists. The occurrence of the protists was so unique that the diversity of them substantiates the Animalia and Plantae classifications, because differentiating characteristics were noted, i.e. the presence of organelles. Basically, protists are unique because they possess a nucleus which contains the genetic information of the cell and alias the organism. Previous species were more simple in their nature, and did not possess such a complex cellular structure. The mitochondria is present in both animal and plant cells in today's world, suggesting that the arrival of the mitochondria in the evolutionary chain was slightly before recognizable taxonomical differences between animals and plants. The mitochondria is unique in the sense that the organelle contains its own DNA, which is derived from its parents. Naturally, as the mitochondria is responsible for the breakdown of organic molecules to release energy (i.e. respiration), this DNA was responsible for the reactions involved to do this. The remarkable thing about mitochondria is their striking similarity to that of a species of amoeba, where the structure of the two are similar. In this particular species of amoeba, symbiotic bacteria enact what the mitochondria does in more advanced cell structures. The end of this symbiotic relationship no doubt increased parasitism, due to the fact that cells now possessed their own energy supply, they could be exposed and eradicated by the pathogens of the time. Although geological records for this period are sketchy to say the least, evidence suggests that organelles continued to diversify in this period, further differentiating the taxon that we use today to class them. Hair like structures called cilia and flagella were developing in some species, allowing them to move with wind and water currents. This general progression and diversification has lead to the range of functions that cell organelles perform in modern organisms. The most unusual thing about natural is its repetition of a particular characteristic across a broad band of species. Such a situation arises when looking the development of unicellular organisms at the time. The organelles developing within these species all have structural similarities in relation to function. As in the example above, the mitochondria on a single cell is very similar to that of an entire species, yet mitochondria are found in almost all forms of organisms that have existed on Earth. A push-pull relationship is notable in the evolution of these organisms. In one instance, they become more similar, either because the similarity is an advantage or because environmental pressure was forcing natural selection and thus the species to evolve in this way. On the other hand, organisms were diversifying to occupy previously sterile environments, therefore adapting to better suit their new environment. On the other hand of this, other organisms (as above) would adapt closer to them, due to less competition in the habitat and natural selection favoring a move to this environment. In other words, nature at the time, both parasites and uni-cellular organisms, were more in less in equilibrium, continuing to expand but also moving away/moving closer in relation to other organisms...life continued to change into the Cambrian Period, over half a billion years ago. The beginning of the Cambrian era saw a widespread arrival of multi-cellular organisms, particularly in the form of sponges. These species, who inhabited the Earth around half a billion years ago, could grow up to 1 metre across, making this distinctly different from the previous unicellular organisms. This was the beginning of cell specialization into tissues, where particular tissues could perform functions to the well-being of the organism at large. The interesting thing about specialization at the time is the fact that if you segregated the cells of these organisms, each cell could still live independently. This is a prolonged example in evolution where characteristics within organisms are similar to that of whole organisms, as in the mitochondria example mentioned at the foot of the previous page. In fact, some multi-cellular species possess organelles that are indistinguishable from some species. The accumulative induction of advantageous characteristics held by species was obviously being learned by the genome of other organisms, i.e. the permutations and advantages are common and widespread. One major event in time is the development of sexual reproduction. Previous species method of reproduction was simply mitosis, repeated cell division which produced new organisms, and exact copy of their ancestors. Of course, mutations and other factors over time changed their genome causing them to evolve. But with sexual reproduction, genetic information is shared between organisms, meaning that the permutations involved in the long term involving the genome of species greatly increased. This is because of all the variances involved in meiosis meant that the possible genotype of offspring increased, and natural selection could take effect on the unique organisms. Consider the following: Previous life did not use sex as a means of reproduction, they replicated making exact copies of themselves, genetic diversity was only increased by mutation and new chemical reactions occurring on Earth making simple proteins, more modern organisms share genetic information by sexual reproduction, 50% of genetic material is taken from each unique parent, the offspring is unique, containing only 50% of genetic material from each parent, plus any change caused by natural selection and mutations, overall, diversity in the species is increased, causing differences, and thus selective advantages/advantages in comparison to one another within the species, and in relation to their environment. Due to the increased possibilities that life could diversify to with the advent of sex, genetic variation greatly increased, and filled the ecosystems niches to a further extent. Competition for resources with species and against other organisms would be increasing in relation to past times, as populations increased and resources diminished. In light of natural selection and 'survival of the fittest', organisms would have to fight for their right to survive, and be able to adapt fast enough to their environment to stand the test of time. In light of this predicament to life on Earth, further diversity continued, with the creation of distinct animals and plants arriving on the Earth's surface. There are over two million species of arthropods, who initially arrived on Earth in the middle of the Cambrian period. Naturally, they were more evolved than their ancestors in a variety of ways and thus possessed their own unique characteristics. Essentially, arthropods are characterized by possessing jointed limbs and an exoskeleton. They are the most successful animal Phylum on the planet, in regards to population size and species diversity. There is thought to be over 2 million types of arthropod in today's world. The exoskeleton may illustrate what life was like at the time. It is of a defensive, protective nature to possess a shell, thus this suggests that competition was quite fierce in the Cambrian era, both from parasites and potential predators. The arthropods were also the first taxon of species to exhibit more advanced receptors in the form of eyes (photoreceptors) and the development of various chemoreceptors that could be used in both the external and internal environment. Such developments have naturally been advantageous over time, illustrated by ourselves. Since the arthropods possessed such desirable features, their survival over the long term is apparent by their genetic diversity, elaborated upon below. As life originated in the sea, the sea was still a valuable ecological niche to the numerous species of the time. Crustacean means insect of the sea, and is a Subphylum of the Arthropoda Phylum. Although abundant, the crustaceans remain relatively simple in the grand scheme of life, and thus did not diversify well in comparison to other organisms. Some of the species in this class were able to occupy the freshwater ecosystem over time, though not successful as what could have been. Competition from more adaptive organisms would have been a biotic factor here. The continued use of feet was evident in these organisms, as a continuation of the organisms mentioned on the previous page of the timeline. The fact that the species' limbs were now jointed, they could move more flexibly and thus had an advantage. Many crustaceans are herbivores, meaning they obtain food from the consumption of plants. They are of great importance to aquatic ecosystems, and are above species of phytoplankton (micro-scopic plants) in the food chain. This can be related to in the freshwater ecology tutorial investigating food chains and plankton. Also, many crustacean animals feed on mollusks, the more evolutionary primitive animals mentioned on the previous page. Including centipedes and millipedes, these species take advantage of the advent of feet and organs assisting movement across the ground. Since the Myriapods have so many legs, the co-ordinated escape from predators is slow. This has led to them adapting and evolving chemical defenses when potential biological danger comes too close. They also harness the use of chemoreceptors to assist them in their external environment, as well as physiological adaptations to assist them in burrowing into the ground, another method of defense, and also a way of diversifying into ground based environments over time. Arachnids were one of the first taxon of species to occupy dry land, the first transition from dry land from the life origins of the sea. Due to these bold creatures' actions, their ancestors have successfully realized their species goal of survival, occupying previously sterile, unchallenged environments. This would have occurred around a quarter of a billion years ago, approximately the same distance in time between the present > then and then > the origin of life. As a side note, it is quite interesting to note that humans begin to occupy space at around the same time scale involving life moving from the sea to land. The Class Insecta of the Arthropoda Phylum is by far the most successful and diverse taxon on planet Earth. In fact, there are more species of insect than any other species combined. This surely illustrates that insects have particular selective advantages that allow them to take the most advantage of the environment that they live in. The development of insects was a stamping of authority by animals species on life developing at the time. Insects possess all the selective advantages of the arthropods mentioned on the previous page plus their own unique advantages with each species of them. Here are some reasons as to why insects enjoyed their continued existence over such a long period of time (beginning over 400 million years ago). Since some insects developed wings, they could easily escape from predators and travel large distances without any danger in the form of other animals in the air. The more primitive insects, most likely the first insects are wingless, thus this suggests that flying was a natural selective advantage at the time and has continued to be for many insect species. Insects would develop respiratory complications if they grew to an abnormal size. In light of this, the wide range of insect species are small in size, meaning they can occupy small areas and require a small amount of food in order for them to survive. A general rule of thumb in biology is that smaller organisms produce offspring faster, and as organisms of the time reproduced sexually, this meant that the crossing of genetic information was more frequent. This in turn meant that variation in the genome of the species increased as a whole, and thus continued to diversify and compete. Just like the other arthropods, took the opportunity to occupy dry land, and thus evolved to cater for their new environment. Evolutionary adaptations mapped out in insect species points out the minimum water transpired by the organisms, illustrating their relatively audacious transition from a wet environment to dry land. Insects also occupy the sea, though face stiffer competition from the continuous evolution that was happening there with other species, creating environmental pressure and an occupational threshold of habitats. Insects continued to evolve the sense developed by other arthropods and their ancestors, and were capable of interpreting auditory, visual and chemical stimuli. Over the evolutionary timeline we have followed, although plants have not been mentioned much, insects were heavily dependent on plant life. Both insects and plants have co-evolved with one another, and if you had removed one of them at any point in history, scores of species would have never existed in today's world. Butterflies undergo a process called metamorphosis, which is a transition from embryonic to adult form of a species. In the case of the butterfly, adults hatch eggs within plants to camouflage them against potential damage and predators who may eat the eggs. In other cases, insects are herbivores, and thus eat plants as a means of nutrition. In reverse instances, plants like the Venus Fly Trap engulf insects within their defensive mechanisms and kill them. Insects pollinate plants, providing a way for plants to create offspring and successfully pass their genome through the generations. Some species of insects are capable of communicating with one another. This would be one of the first instances of this in the evolutionary chain, and remarkably happening hundreds of millions of years ago. Bees are an example of a social insect, who perform a waggle dance in front of fellow bees from the same hive to indicate the quality and navigational source of a food supply. Indeed, insects were an important factor in life's transition from water to land. While insects and similar types of organism strived to occupy land, the sea was teaming with life aiming to secure their long term survival. As a consequence of this, reproduction occurred and genetic variation increased. This results in the arrival of fish, who were adapting to live in the largest ecosystem on earth, water. There are over 20 000 species of fish, all of which have diversified over time to aptly occupy a particular habitat. Since aquatic environments vary greatly in regards to its characteristics, fish diversity also varies greatly. Depending on season, chronological point in time, depth of water and many other factors, temperature will affect how a fish species would occupy or even exist in an ecosystem. An example is some species being better suited to tropical warm waters while others occupy the polar regions of Earth in its present day. Fish have diversified to occupy saltwater and freshwater in the best way possible. This is further illustrated in the animal water regulation tutorial page. The main reason for this being a significant factor is the effect that salt has on osmoregulation, thus fish have underwent significant anatomical adaptations to occupy the respective environments. Other species may represent competition, danger, a source of food or provide a symbiotic relationship. Nonetheless, all species are inevitably a factor, and this is indeed the same case for fish. Check out the producer / consumer relationship page in the freshwater ecology tutorial for an elaboration of this relationship between organisms. Chemical composition, amount of sunlight and numerous other factors would determine the evolutionary lines of fish from the original ancestors. Many years ago the Earth was still very unstable, rapid and extreme geological change would have wiped out adapted organisms and promoted change in the more adaptive organisms. The most primitive fish are invertebrates, of which some still exist today. These would most likely be the first fish to occupy Earth, having diversified from the primitive crustaceans that occupied the sea beforehand. These primitive and relatively unspecialized organisms would have adapted over a long period of time (millions of years) to take into account the factors above. Also, as competition increased and available habitats decreased, fish would have had to be more aggressive or more co-operative in their nature to survive in the long term. This has led to species like the shark, which is of phenomenal size and represents danger. Other species have taken a different approach, adopting chemical defenses as a means of survival. Others have adapted to occupy very low altitudes, thus avoiding some of the more competitive habitats closer to the water surface. All in all, fish, alongside the later developing mammals, would successfully dominate the seas. In the future, mammals would occupy the sea from land, but fish done the opposite; they evolved from sea on to land just like the arthropods intended. Many amphibians, like many fish and insects, were vertebrates, and are all under the Subphylum taxon Vertebrata. Amphibians are typically characterized by their incomplete transition from water to land. They are a class of organism that typically inhabits coastal areas or surrounding aquatic environments. Obtaining air outside an aquatic environment required species to have suited adaptations, and this was the case of amphibians, many of which contain both gills and lungs for aquatic and above water respiration. An interesting note to take about amphibians is that the typical life cycle of one involves a transition from water to land, just like the overall transition amphibians took as a collective many years ago. The common frog spawns its eggs with the help of plants in the aquatic environment. These young eggs develop into adults, and head towards land. The adolescent frog moves to land. When reaching sexual maturity, the adult returns to water to spawn eggs, as in step 1. So basically, the entire evolutionary emergence of amphibians is re-acted again and again in each successful generation of amphibian species - like the frog. The amphibians never quite made it on to land, but reptiles did. One of the main reasons for this is the two evolutionary adaptations developed by the common early reptile, waterproof skin a shelled eggs (containing their young). Also, although reptiles were cold blooded just like their amphibian ancestors, they were able to adapt to the warmer, dryer environments found on dry land. With this sole advantage at hand, they were provided a gateway to further diversify and occupy the habitats of dry land. At the time, it is important to note that other animals and plants were succeeding in occupying land, and thus provided a framework for the early reptiles to exist within. Although reptiles were occupying bold new environments (land / shore and sea), a degree of co-operation and competition would ensure that they would survive and prosper as a collective in the long term. No other type of animal had successfully occupied land at this time. Through another perspective, biomass on land was low, because not many animals had became adaptive enough to survive on land. With this in hand, many reptiles were herbivores, taking advantage of the hydroseres and other plants available on land or shorelines. But as these organisms occupied land, when they died, the following would have happened, which would have helped life's chances of fully occupying land. The first reptiles and amphibians to tread land, and die on land would have broken down into simpler organic compounds. This would have enriched the nutrients in the soil, allowing plants to grow, and micro-organisms to exist on a large scale. Organisms who rely on the above would migrate to land, as would any other organism capable of existing in the growing habitat. This continued ecosystem succession would inevitably allow land to support life on a scale similar to that of the sea. And indeed this was true. As the Triassic period came around, around 230 million years ago, the dinosaurs were emerging as the dominant force on land. No one truly knows how the dinosaurs became extinct, but the fact is they disappeared and a whole host of ecological niches were made available to other organisms, who could harness the resources of these niches due to the absence of competition (and predation) by dinosaurs. The dinosaurs disappeared around 65 million years ago, with many other land dwelling organisms also dying out around this time. Regardless of what killed off the dinosaurs, it was comprehensive. The general consensus is that a major geological event killed off many of the land dwelling organisms, particularly the larger ones. This would have caused an overall drop of biomass on land, and therefore 'less food to go round' all the organisms that occupied dry land. Also, many food chain relationships would have been disrupted, causing a gradual breakdown of populations in the long term, sometimes leading to extinction, essentially survival of the fittest. Insects, due to their size, were adaptable and already diverse, meaning that at least their short term survival and close relationship with plants (at the bottom of any food chain) was secured. Marine life was still plentiful, and diversifying, while mammals were emerging to be the next dominant force on plant Earth. Birds were also diversifying, and taking advantage of their proportionately larger body in comparison to insects, alongside their ability to fly. On the other hand mammals were specializing on land, and trees, which we further investigate on the next page of the timeline below. Humans are mammals, the most successful taxonomic class of organisms to colonize the Earth. The word mammal derives from the Latin meaning of breast, "mamma", where breasts are a consistent trait among mammals in mothers feeding for feeding their young. Coincidentally, the more scientific name for the breast is the mammary gland, which further illustrates the point. Mammals are a diverse group of organisms, where the majority of them develop their offspring within the uterus of the mother, though exceptions are noted. For example, monotremes lay eggs, like their common ancestors the reptiles and birds. To further diverse, over time mammals have diversified into the placentals and the marsupials. But before we get into that, first look at the ancestors of the mammals to get a better understanding of how the mammals became dominant in the first place, in accordance with natural selection and geological events. The taxonomic class Mammalia is within the Vertebrata phylum, which elementarily suggests that the direct ancestors of mammals were vertebrates. This is true of course, as it would have allowed taxonomists to order the species in light of this. Over three hundred million years ago, when life was beginning to conquer dry land, reptiles had adapted from their ancestors to live on the land, and acquire an ecological niche that otherwise had no competition. It is believed that a niche of reptiles deemed the paramammals, which have sufficient distinctions between both reptiles and mammals, to suggest that mammals indeed evolved from reptiles. Although some reptiles were beginning to possess mammal-like features, it was not for another 50 million years that the first distinctive differences were being noticed in species. Land animals were continuing to diversify and occupy new ecological niches and move away from competitive environments. Herbivores soon diversified from the reptiles, while dog-like species were becoming dominant as a competitor to the more reptile-like creatures. These dog like creatures were beginning to diversify in the land environment, and become a true competitor for land resources, unlike the more water-dependant reptiles. Characteristic changes like cold to warm-blooded, prolonged front teeth, fur and mammary glands helped taxonomists note the difference over time from the transition from reptiles to more mammal like creatures. While the tussle for resources developed, the mammals remained small and continually changed in various ways of adaptation that allowed them to fill in more land based ecological niches. However, this time on Earth saw the dominance of the dinosaurs, who also derived from the reptiles mentioned above. Well known to us, dinosaurs continued to dominate and fill a majority of land's major niches for some years to come, but alias, they did not stand the test of time. No one truly knows why the dinosaurs became extinct, but the suggestion of an asteroid hitting Earth would make it plausible to suggest that mammals survived because they were smaller with many species based underground, and also required less energy to survive. This could mean that the mammals were more prepared for such an occurrence, and thus the reason why they survived through the dinosaur extinction. However, since the dinosaurs were no longer an entity, the mammals now had a huge range of ecological niches to fill, without too much competition stopping them from doing so. Also, while the dinosaurs ruled on their own accord, true mammals were beginning to develop, exhibiting many of the characteristics you would see in any present day mammal. The other descendants of the reptiles, Class Aves (birds), were also a dominant force at the time, adopting some dinosaur like aggressive characteristics that were to prove competitive to mammals for some time to come. Such evolutionary advancement came to ultimately pave the way for human development and eventual institution of human societies.

or

B) An invisible man who lives in the sky did it

[Pixelrage 34]

Right, because everything came from thin air with no interjection of something intelligent.

[aestiva 0]

I choose...

        C) Both

"B causes A."

[Ron Swanson 1]

CapitolAnarchy: Did you wikipedia that? Because that was freaking long. But that, that is what erks me. Now the kind of evolution that Sam has presented for the most part I don't have a problem with. Except maybe no eye becoming an eye, like he said, he'll never convince me that it is possible. But that crap you posted Capitol is what I have big problems with. Because you can say that all those things happened, but where did the sun come from? And why? You can never answer that and so your definiton make look all nifty and scientific and maybe even plausable, but there is as much evidence to that theory as there to a "invisible man in the sky." So what's your point? That your theory is better, more plausable, not faith induced? Because its none of those things...

[Joesocwork 4]

I really do respect the passion and knowledge of our biologists, scientists and other member who are espousing speciation/ macroevolution (or whatever you are deeming is appropriate to call it), and I respect where your logic is taking you. No doubt about it, the species are sooo similar. But your posts are still illustrating the point that many of us who believe in creation are making, namely that there's a lot of faith involved in what you are espousing, even including the belief that you will confirm later what's not confirmed now. It's still a belief system. And there should be no shame in having belief systems, whatever they may be & whether others belittle them or not (and there's been a lot of belittling on this thread beyond simply sharing), b/c we have to act on presumptions in day to day life as a part of living anyway.

[confused04 14]

Unfortunately, I disagree with calling evolution a "belief". I liken it to someone finding a puddle of water on the floor. After searching for the cause of the leak, fiddling with pipes, following a trail of water, testing sinks and so forth and so on, evidence will lead to a conclusion as to why there is a puddle. Lets say for the sake of arguing, that the puddle was caused by a clogged sink. Whoever is doing the search did not BELIEVE in a clogged sink and set out to prove that the clogged sink was the cause of the puddle. He or she followed a trail of evidence that lead to that conclusion. I myself didn't believe in evolution from birth, nor was I instilled in an evolution based household, in fact my parents did not discuss this at all and I did go to church and school. But, I still found the evidence for evolution far more compelling. I didn't "believe" evolution to set out and prove it. I saw a series of facts that lead to that conclusion. To me, a belief doesn't need evidence to support it. Someone against capital punishment doesn't need to base their belief on facts, there are morals behind it.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: CapitolAnarchy

quote>

..snipped..

And I thought my posts were long. Some paragraph breaks would help readability and maybe some headings.

Originally posted by: Joesocwork...But your posts are still illustrating the point that many of us who believe in creation are making, namely that there's a lot of faith involved in what you are espousing, even including the belief that you will confirm later what's not confirmed now. It's still a belief system. ...quote>

Not really. There's an awful lot of evidence that I've not put anywhere near my posts since I don't want to write a semester course text, just put forward a few points.

Although I don't advocate the "scientific method" as taught in school text books, my post really only touched on the very first part of that method that people are so familiar with, ie identify a problem or question to be investigated. Its gone nowhere near forumulating a working hypothesis, collecting data, testing and refining. After all, the theory has been around for well over 150 years now, with a lot of research on it. Some researchers spend their whole career on it, and students spend years learning the basics. So its not something that's really going to be adequately explained in a few forum posts.

I did forget a few observations that I meant to add, imperfection, redundancy and duplication. But the observations are not meant as evidence (yet). They are just the starting point that raises the initial questions. There's a lot more work to do after that.

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl...Now the kind of evolution that Sam has presented for the most part I don't have a problem with. Except maybe no eye becoming an eye, like he said, he'll never convince me that it is possible...quote>

The theory of common descent is an important part of evolution theory, although it was not explicitly mentioned in what I posted, only implicitly. For some observations common descent is the only explanation that fits the observations (and this also goes back to your question about the primates).

I haven't read everything CapitolAnarchy said, although a few things that did catch my eye I did not agree with.

But if you look at an eye really closely you will start to see some strange things about it. If you look at the different kinds of eye that different groups have (and look at all phyla) and also the development of the eye in different embryo species you will start to see some really strange things, that raise quite a few questions about the eye.

[Ron Swanson 1]

I'm sure there are interesting things about the eye, they are very complex...things, for lack of a better word. Anyways, I still can't say that evolution doesn't come with some faith based issues, you haven't been able to prove all that has been theorized about, and probably never will in some areas. But evolution is an on-going study and does bring on change in theories and such, so we'll see. I once saw a documentary on the eye on PBS and whoever was presenting the argument said that because the human eye is "imperfect" it wouldn't make sense that a "supreme being" created it and therefore it was the work of evolution that was responsible for the human eye. Arguments like that cannot be made because who is to say that the eye is imperfect? Who defines perfection? Certainley not some evolutionists and so unless a more solid evidence is presented, it has to be faith based still because no one has seen a creature without and eye develop eye, at least not directly.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Arguments like that cannot be made because who is to say that the eye is imperfect? Who defines perfection? Certainley not some evolutionists and so unless a more solid evidence is presented, it has to be faith based still because no one has seen a creature without and eye develop eye, at least not directly.quote>

Perfection is easily defined. But approaching perfection is more realistic. The human eye, which I assume to be the direction of your query, is not perfect, by any definition. Evident examples are glaucoma, astigmatism, near/far-sightedness, and the prevalence of contact lenses and glasses. Surpassing these is the inability of the human eye to see in infrared, thermally, or in UV. Snakes see thermally, birds can see electromagnetically, etc. But none are perfect. There is no perfection in biology. It does not exist.

Barbarossaquote>

There is an even bigger flaw in the human eye. I wonder Sc4_cewl if you remember from the program what it was? Hint, the flaw is not possessed by the cephalopods (squid and octopus). This is where comparative anatomy comes in.

Perfection tends to be term that creationists use, especially in reference to the eye (either implicitly or explicitly). But biologist can certainly look at not only the structure of the eye, but comparatively at other types of eye in the animal kingdom and their relative structures and performance. (not to mention their comparative genetic and developmental characteristics) I don't see why evolution biologists could not make that determination, or should be expected to refrain from drawing conclusions based on that.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa But none are perfect. There is no perfection in biology. It does not exist.

quote>

Very true. In fact evolution is driven by the fact that organisms are not "perfect". What may be perfect in one set of conditions, may be very maladapted in another. If an organism was perfect and had no redundancy then there would not be the base material for change, especially if conditions changed.

Efficiency or "perfection" can be a bad thing from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution does not predict that organisms have to be efficient, just sufficient. Evolution does not predict that organisms or structures will be perfect.

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewlArguments like that cannot be made because who is to say that the eye is imperfect? Who defines perfection? Certainley not some evolutionists...quote>

why not?

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl ..you haven't been able to prove all that has been theorized about, and probably never will in some areas. quote>

I did not set out to prove evolution, certainly not in the space of a few posts here.

Your original assertion though, was that evolution is not science (I think because you believed it is not falsifiable). I really only tried to lay out some of the initial questions to be for the  theory (the observe part), and mostly from my own perspective. I did not get to any of the subsequent parts (ie the evidence, the experimental basis etc which is so important as there is a lot of experiment possible with evolution). I did however list at least one or two of the possible grounds for falsification but not all of them.

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl ...it has to be faith based still because no one has seen a creature without and eye develop eye, at least not directly.quote>

It happens all the time and has been observed. Embryos start out as a single cell and develop eyes (at least those that are supposed to have eyes do, mostly). The processes offer a lot of insight and experimental possibilities in the field of evolution. There are also other options for testing and experimentation though, especially in the comparative anatomy and comparative genetics fields. I would not consider evolution to be faith at all, it is evidence and experiment based.

[vershner 11]

Have any of you considered that fact that, by Christian standards, claiming that the Bible is infallible is a blasphemy?

Think about it, the Bible was written down by men. Whether or not it was the word of God is irrelevant. The fact remains that it was written down by men. Ordinary human men who are as fallible as you or I. Is anyone suggesting that these men were capable of fully understanding and documenting the will of God?

Suggesting that any man or group of men could produce something perfect is a blasphemy. Only God is supposed to be able to produce something perfect. Therefore the Bible is not perfect, and does not need to be taken literally.

[JanYpe 17]

Shhh, you're using logic. You're not allowed to use logic against the church, that kind of thinking gets people burned on the stake.

It's a good point though.

[Lambtropolis 0]

For anyone who has a decent educational background in Science knows that the only reasonable options here are:

God exists and he created the very first organism capable of undergoing adaptive radiation and evolution through natural selection and other mechanisms - the process by which their ancestors still undergo today?                       

Essentially: "god put things in motion, but did not create everything as it is seen today"

- Or -

God does not exist and/or he did not create the very first organisms capable of undergoing evolution - they were produced through natural processes.

---------------

So why are these the only two real choices? Because evolution - by definition, change in species over time - can actually be observed. Perhaps not as easily as gravity can be observed, but it can be observed. If you'd like some examples, please let me know. I have actually seen many in my time as a scientist (currently working on my doctorate).

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Lambtropolis  If you'd like some examples, please let me know. I have actually seen many in my time as a scientist (currently working on my doctorate).quote>

Sounds interesting, I would like to hear about the examples you've seen. What field are you working in?

[Lambtropolis 0]

Hi, sam. To answer your question, I am currently working in the field of biogeography, but I have a Master's degree in Biology (general).

One of my favorite examples of evolution we can observe in action is one that few people think about, yet affects nearly everyone at some point in their life. I am, of course, referring to the evolution of bacteria.

Bacteria, being rather simple - compared to say people or sheep - are still very complex and amazing pieces of machinery - just as complex as a modern CPU in a computer. At any rate, they are still "simple" enough that we can decode their DNA rather quickly, and keep track of literally thousands of generations, given that their individual lifespans are extremely short (minutes, in some cases).

Their short lifespan and lightning fast population-regeneration times make bacteria ideal for studying the process of evolution. I did a simple experiment in microbiology class, where we took cultures of bacteria, subjected them to various antibiotics, and observed the result. Though most of the bacteria were killed, there were always a few that were somehow resistant that lived on to recontruct the old population within a few days. But each time we subjected the population of bacteria to a new antibiotic, the entire gene pool - or frequency of alleles - changed, and we had ourselves an evolving population of bacteria. And oh yes, this obviously happens in real life, outside of the lab. If bacteria did not evolve, then there wouldn't be this current crisis with drug-resistant (or antibiotic-resistant) strains of bacteria.

I realize the above was not a very detailed or in-depth explanation of bacterial evolution, but I simply do not have the time to write more at the moment. If I may, I'd like to refer you all to a website that explains bacterial evolution - and evolution in general - very clearly and completely:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/bergstrom_01

Evolution is very real - and it has very serious implications for all of us. We can argue to no end whether God planned evolution and/or set it in motion or not, but it is real and - quite honestly - easy enough for almost anyone to understand in great detail.

Oh, it's on page 2, I believe, that Dr. Bergstrom starts talking about my bacterial friends.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[2ch.net simplayer 180]

Not only bacteria, pigs evolved out of wild boars and Japanese cherry blossom evolved out of wild species, all in man's historical timescale.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Maybe this point is covered in another post, there were so many to wade through I decided to chance it. Here goes.... To believe that living creatures can arise from non-living matter takes more faith than any religion; it is ridiculous to defend. Also, if one finds a watch on the beach, do you say, "hey, look what the ocean made in millions of years by accident"? The math involved in evolution has been calculated recently at 10 to the 87th power against, JUST TO GET TO A SINGLE CELL. That is the equivalent of 1 particle of matter in all of the known universe. If I cooked you a 7 course meal, and told you there was no cook, you would know I was lying... My point is, design requires a designer. Those of you with programming experience know this; all the wishful thinking in the world will not spontaneously spawn a written program. Not to mention, the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. A car will eventually rust away into nothing, but no amount of time, or lightning, will make a pile of rust spawn an automobile. Put away the mental gymnastics, gentlemen;  use your intellectual capacities honestly! You're running in circles to argue the impossible. Even Darwin basically recanted Evo before his death, he admitted that it was the human eye that kept him awake nights and it made evo " absurd in the highest degree"