Evolution

[SailorAlea]

nono I meant the


"Origin of Species" .. you know the Title of Darwin's book when explaining evolution.

From my logic, you need to know the origins of life to know the Origins of a species.. and I believe the way it was used on Darwin's book was a General sense of the word which referred to all species..

The entire book is called:

"On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg

It's about evolution--the evolution of pre-existing life. Darwin did not research abiogenesis, he researched evolution.

If you want to know more about it, I suggest you actually read the book.

 

[VideoJinx]

The entire book is called:

"On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg

It's about evolution--the evolution of pre-existing life. Darwin did not research abiogenesis, he researched evolution.

If you want to know more about it, I suggest you actually read the book.

wait wait wait... lol "Preservation of favoured races" I see nothing wrong with this.. it's when the evolution of today claims that evolution creates new species <__<

 

[SailorAlea]

wait wait wait... lol "Preservation of favoured races" I see nothing wrong with this.. it's when the evolution of today claims that evolution creates new species <__<

Favored races as in favored by natural selection. It's precisely natural selection and mutation that lead to new species and evolution.

Like I said, if you read the book, or the information I posted earlier, it'll make more sense to you. It is all based on evidence he documented and gathered on the HMS Beagle. Darwin himself didn't know about mutation, only natural selection. Over time, new evidence has been added to the theory and the theory has changed.

None of it makes claims about abiogenesis.

 

[VideoJinx]

Natural selection doesn't create a new species.. it explains how the more adaptive species will survive...

As for mutations.. I see that as the big flaw of the thoery.

the mutation bit soooo HIGHLY unlikely, especially when considering all of todays negative/neutral/Super rare positive ones (if any )..

 

[The_Real_Legend]

Natural selection doesn't create a new species.. it explains how the more adaptive species will survive...

As for mutations.. I see that as the big flaw of the thoery.

the mutation bit soooo HIGHLY unlikely, especially when considering all of todays negative/neutral/Super rare positive ones..

Not really. The good mutations aren't so much rare, as they just aren't detected or searched after because no disease or disadvantage involved.

I just can't see how people can't "believe" the fact of evolution. I see it as ignorance

 

[SailorAlea]

Natural selection doesn't create a new species.. it explains how the more adaptive species will survive...

As for mutations.. I see that as the big flaw of the thoery.

the mutation bit soooo HIGHLY unlikely, especially when considering all of todays negative/neutral/Super rare positive ones..

Natural Selection does create new species. How?

Take a species living in the desert. They have some hair, but not much. The environment changes, becomes much colder.

All but the ones with the most hair die off. Those ones with the most hair continue to spread their genes. The children of those hairiest creatures live on, and due to mendelian gene processes--they have varying amounts of hair (just as you are not exactly the same as your siblings). The hairiest ones have a higher chance of spreading their genes on, and so far.

As time goes on, until they reach a point where the whole population can survive, they'll get hairier and hairier.

This is how the evolution of dogs played out. In some cases, it was "artificial selection." Breeders take the smallest dogs of a pack, and breed them with other smallest dogs. Then, out of their children, they take the smallest dogs and breed them with other smallest dogs.

By favoring certain genes, either artificially or naturally, the population changes slowly into a new species that can look entirely different.

Mutation adds an entirely new level to evolution. Mutations aren't rare; both positive and negative ones are rarer, but still happen.

 

[Spunky]

...Why don't you buy the book and find out for yourself?

As you might say, "search 4 urself"...

 

[VideoJinx]

going afk for a whilez.......


as for the hair bit.. they're the same species .. one alittle more hairy then the other..

just like skin tones in humans.. being black doesn't make you a different species =o


Edit ---

i dont have to buy it.. I've come across it before.. because it is now an ONLINE book that can be read for free...

 

[SailorAlea]

going afk for a whilez.......


as for the hair bit.. they're the same species .. one alittle more hairy then the other..

just like skin tones in humans.. being black doesn't make you a different species =o

Given enough time, they will evolve into different species. This is how the birds that Darwin observed in the Galapagos became different species. They were separated, and didn't interbreed; each adapted through natural selection, to their environment over ages.

If people from North America and say, Africa, were isolated for millions and millions of years, we would likely take different evolutionary routes and become different species.

This all boils down to learning the theory. You're attacking it without understanding it. Even if you don't agree with it (for whatever reason), you should "know thine enemy." Read the book--it's not that long.

 

[VideoJinx]

Given enough time, they will evolve into different species. This is how the birds that Darwin observed in the Galapagos became different species. They were separated, and didn't interbreed; each adapted through natural selection, to their environment over ages.

If people from North America and say, Africa, were isolated for millions and millions of years, we would likely take different evolutionary routes and become different species.

This all boils down to learning the theory. You're attacking it without understanding it. Even if you don't agree with it (for whatever reason), you should "know thine enemy." Read the book--it's not that long.

I have understood it, yet it doesn't make logical sense.

Notice tho, we have "theoretically" narrowed down evolution into a single category called Natural Selection(Macro Evolution) which I can agree with to a degree.

Types of evolution:

Cosmic Evolution - time, space + matter origins..

Chemical Evolution - higher element origins... from hydrogen...

Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Origin of stars and planets.

Organic Evolution - origin of life.

Macro Evolution - changing from one species/kind into another

Micro evolution - Variations in a species/kind. (This one has been observed)

Evolutionists declare Natural Selection to be method of evolving or "growing" into a new more adaptive species through positive "mutations".

1) Natural Selection leads to a loss of "variety" in genes available, over time...not the "creation" of new genes through mutation

2) According to Evolutionst, Natural Selection must have "mutations" in order for their to be an evolution process or progression... without a good chance of "positive" mutations... the entire evolution theory/process becomes Highly Unlikey/ unlogical. Even over a vast amount of time.. mutations would do more harm then good.

3)

Unfortunately for evolutionists, the vast majority of mutations that occur are harmful to life, with a few exceptions. As a matter of fact, the only mutation I know of (If there are any others, please tell me) that can be considered beneficial to humans is sickle cell anemia, and that only if you live around areas with a large amount of disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Source:
http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com/2005/06/sickle-cell-anemia-beneficial-mutation.html

However, on the contrary, the clear scientific findings say NO, as I will show you. The evidence I will discuss clearly demonstrates that mutations, for practical purposes, are always useless or harmful. In homo-sapiens they can often be fatal. They cause diabetes, club feet, hemophilia, Down's Syndrome, colour blindness, Turner's Syndrome, Klinefelter's Syndrome, Sickle Cell Anemia, Cystic Fibrosis, Phenylketonuria, Albinism, Metabolite as well as substitution, addition/inversion of genes and thousands of other such tragic afflictions.

Source:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...utionFact/GeneticMutation/GeneticMutation.htm

 

[MC]

There's more to Evolution than Natural Selection. And Natural Selection isn't a form of macro evolution. Natural Selection is a process in which favorable traits become more common while less favorable traits become less common. This occurs over the span of many generations as a species reproduces.

 

[VideoJinx]

You obviously missed the part where Alea suggests that Natural Selection is the cause of species branching off into new species..

 

[MC]

You obviously missed the part Alea suggests that Natural Selection is the cause of species branching off into new species.

Natural Selection is one of the causes, yes.

 

[kam!]

You obviously missed the part where Alea suggests that Natural Selection is the cause of species branching off into new species..

If you devide one population and put them in vastly differing environments, natural selection will
drive them apart (genetically) to the point where they are seperate species. A key element to evolution is isolation.
without it, new traits would be spread evenly across a population
(again, you can look up hardy-weinberg equilibrium to see a list of conditions where no evolution happens).

 

[VideoJinx]

Natural Selection is one of the causes, yes.

You agree that it is...


I posted why I agree that it isn't..

for natural selection to be a cause of it.. postive mutations would have to be Significant and consistant...

as for "it takes MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years"... Let me also say there is a HUGE debate on the actual date of the earth... and Millions/Billions of years doesn't seem to be adding up.

@ kam.. thats just the thing.. they wont divide into a different species/kind.. they'll simply lose the variety of genes they hold....


Edit::

MC... feel free to put up any other causes you see that "cause evolution"

 

[DaRkOwNs]

as for "it takes MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years"... Let me also say there is a HUGE debate on the actual date of the earth... and Millions/Billions of years doesn't seem to be adding up.

while they are debating about it, its generally accepted that its MORE than 3,000 years old.

they probably wont get an exact date, as nothing is perfect, but carbon dating is very effective in dating the earth. as we find more animals/dinosaurs that have been around longer the age of the earth will keep rising, as it will when we unearth the land masses that existed that long ago. its basically fact that the earth is well over a million years old.

 

[VideoJinx]

Carbon Dating is highly inaccurate ...

Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains. As scientists will often claim something to be millions or billions of years old (ages that do not conform to the Biblical account of the age of the earth), Christians are often left wondering about the accuracy of the carbon-14 method. The truth is, carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as it’s also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.

Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph......

Continue here:
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

 

[SailorAlea]

I have understood it, yet it doesn't make logical sense.

Notice tho, we have "theoretically" narrowed down evolution into a single category called Natural Selection(Macro Evolution) which I can agree with to a degree.

Types of evolution:

Cosmic Evolution - time, space + matter origins..

Chemical Evolution - higher element origins... from hydrogen...

Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Origin of stars and planets.

Organic Evolution - origin of life.

Macro Evolution - changing from one species/kind into another

Micro evolution - Variations in a species/kind. (This one has been observed)

Evolutionists declare Natural Selection to be method of evolving or "growing" into a new more adaptive species through positive "mutations".

1) Natural Selection leads to a loss of "variety" in genes available, over time...not the "creation" of new genes through mutation

2) According to Evolutionst, Natural Selection must have "mutations" in order for their to be an evolution process or progression... without a good chance of "positive" mutations... the entire evolution theory/process becomes Highly Unlikey/ unlogical. Even over a vast amount of time.. mutations would do more harm then good.

3)



Source:
http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com/2005/06/sickle-cell-anemia-beneficial-mutation.html


Source:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...utionFact/GeneticMutation/GeneticMutation.htm

Again, for your first link--you're using a blog post with no sources as a source of information.

It's also wrong. The majority of mutations are harmless, some are harmful, and a few are beneficial. What does an actual source have to say about it?

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Natural Selection leads to new species by favoring those best suited to survive the environment. However, not all populations of the same species interbreed.

So how is a new species created?

Take a species of birds.. during their normal migratory route, there's a huge storm that blows some of them to an area they couldn't reach by flying previously.

There are now two isolated populations--the ones in the previously unreachable area, and those on their regular breeding grounds. The ones best suited to the new environment will survive and those who aren't, won't. Over time, natural selection will continue to favor the best-suited specimens of the isolated group (due to the everpresent competition for resources, evading predators, etc). Given long enough, both groups--the ones on the original homeland and the ones on the newly isolated place, will take different evolutionary paths and become distinct species--given enough time. We're talking hundreds of millions of years, if not more.

Darwin's entire theory is about how natural selection causes the difference in species we see today. DNA wasn't known back then, and he didn't know about genetic mutation. His book is "The Origin of Species." I keep telling you: read the book.

Your second source is just laughable. There is no controversy over radiocarbon dating; it's widely accepted in the scientific community. Your source is religious and boils down to "carbon dating is wrong because it contradicts the Biblical timeline of the universe." Weren't you the one arguing not two weeks ago that "The Bible is BS(IMO)." You say the Bible isn't a good source on Biblical events; but somehow it's a scientific source in the 21st century now?

 

[DaRkOwNs]

Carbon Dating is highly inaccurate ...






Continue here:
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

reading the article, carbon 14 dating seems to be assumed faulty based off of events that didnt happen. for example, you dont base science off of the incident of "noah's ark".

while some of the article is true, it doesnt change the fact that numerous tests were done, and while not all were the same, they agreed on a certain period. maybe 1 test could be inaccurate, but thousands most likely won't be.

 

[MC]

You agree that it is...

I posted why I agree that it isn't..

for natural selection to be a cause of it.. postive mutations would have to be Significant and consistant...

Significant as in easily noticeable? Over time, yes. Immediately, no.

Let's take a nuclear bomb for example. A nuclear bombs destructive power comes from the splitting of atoms. When an atom is split, it releases energy. It's the releasing of this energy through the splitting of atoms which gives a nuclear bomb it's destructive power. Now, let's say you detonate a nuclear bomb in which only one atom is split (just for the sake of argument). What happens? Nothing. There might be a boom and a small flash, but no nuclear explosion. Now, let's say you detonate a nuclear bomb in which many atoms are split. What happens? A incredibly loud boom and a blinding flash.

The same principles applies to Natural Selection, though at a much slower pace. It's the accumulation of many tiny, seemingly insignificant mutations that you start noticing a significant mutation taking place.

as for "it takes MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years"... Let me also say there is a HUGE debate on the actual date of the earth... and Millions/Billions of years doesn't seem to be adding up.

I didn't say it will take millions/billions of years. I stated that Natural Selection spans over many generations.

As for carbon dating, it's not 100% accurate, but it's the most accurate and reliable form of dating available.

MC... feel free to put up any other causes you see that "cause evolution"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms