Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cimber

Evolution: A Detailed Anaylsis

125 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Cimber
Here are some questions I have never been able to get answers on, from creationists or evolutionists:

Couldn't God have created life forms, and included the tools for each life form to evolve into something higher? With all the variety he included in the earth, wouldn't it have been wise for him to give cells the ability to mutate, and give species the ability to adapt? If fundamentalist creationism is correct, why is it that the 'perfect' human mold that was created first now being improved upon? Why is it that the physical appearance of races changes based on location and environmental circumstance? What did Adam look like? And why don't all of us look like him? On the other hand, why do evolutionists so vehemently deny the possibility of a divine being, when it is possible that something started the evolutionary process?

I think evolution for the most part is irrefutable, but that doesn't mean that there is not a god. I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic, and I admit there is a possibility of some higher form. What evidence is there to prove otherwise?

There is a possibility that there is a creator. There is only one way in which theists and atheists (such as I) are similar. They both make a conclusion to a certain extreme.

Theist----------------------Agnostic----------------------Atheist

You can vaguely compare this to a conservative, moderate, and liberal political scale. The principle is the same.

why do evolutionists so vehemently deny the possibility of a divine being, when it is possible that something started the evolutionary process?

I can answer this based on my opinion as an atheist and evolutionist.

How would a creator just decide to start a evolutionary process? Such an occurrence would require that the creator created the thing in the first place. It would be much more efficient to simply create the thing to be perfect in the first place, rather than to have it evolve. If God is real and is so smart beyond human comprehension, he would have engineered us to be much more efficient. Humans strive to create the most efficient things all the time, from programming code to architectural buildings. What says that God would, conveniently, just decide to create humans or other creations, to not be efficient, to not be perfect. Why would he do something that contradicts human standards of intelligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hairston630
There is a possibility that there is a creator. There is only one way in which theists and atheists (such as I) are similar. They both make a conclusion to a certain extreme.

Theist----------------------Agnostic----------------------Atheist

You can vaguely compare this to a conservative, moderate, and liberal political scale. The principle is the same.

I can answer this based on my opinion as an atheist and evolutionist.

How would a creator just decide to start a evolutionary process? Such an occurrence would require that the creator created the thing in the first place. It would be much more efficient to simply create the thing to be perfect in the first place, rather than to have it evolve. If God is real and is so smart beyond human comprehension, he would have engineered us to be much more efficient. Humans strive to create the most efficient things all the time, from programming code to architectural buildings. What says that God would, conveniently, just decide to create humans or other creations, to not be efficient, to not be perfect. Why would he do something that contradicts human standards of intelligence?

Ive never looked at it really that way. Nice post! :yes:

Kindly,

Hairston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze
Ive never looked at it really that way. Nice post! :yes:

Kindly,

Hairston

Me either. See? That's why I ask. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hairston630

Cimber, I think you may be the only honest person I know in your field of work that doesnt seem to have an axe to grind. Im sure to have more questions for you myself :yes:

Nice work,

hairston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle

How does evolution explain the current populations? Shouldn't it be much higher now? Thanks

~Apostle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle

How do we have distinct kinds of animals (mammals, birds, reptiles) if* evolution is true? Thanks, again.

~Apostle

Edited by Apostle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
How does evolution explain the current populations? Shouldn't it be much higher now? Thanks

~Apostle

I'm not sure I understand your question Apostle. Are you asking why isn't the population of humans larger than it is now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
I'm not sure I understand your question Apostle. Are you asking why isn't the population of humans larger than it is now?

Yes, If the first homo sapien was around 200,000 years ago and they began to reproduce shouldn't the population be more then it is now, which I believe is less then about 7 billion? Shouldn't it be more around 100 billion or more? Thanks.

~Apostle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
Yes, If the first homo sapien was around 200,000 years ago and they began to reproduce shouldn't the population be more then it is now, which I believe is less then about 7 billion? Shouldn't it be more around 100 billion or more? Thanks.

~Apostle

linked-image

The human population experiences exponential growth. This rate however cannot be kept. Every population who experiences exponential growth eventually crashes. We are long overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
Yes, If the first homo sapien was around 200,000 years ago and they began to reproduce shouldn't the population be more then it is now, which I believe is less then about 7 billion? Shouldn't it be more around 100 billion or more? Thanks.

~Apostle

Apostle,

There is no rule in evolution that says a lineage must reproduce to such and such number because it has been around for X amount of time. Organisms will equilibrate with their environment, however the equilibrium is not static. "Species" are constantly rising and falling, dying off and being born. There is no moment where everyone thing is "perfect", nature is very dynamic.

Also, it seems there is species concept problem still. To say the first "Homo sapien" is incorrect. There is no and never a "first" in evolution. Species do not just spring up, they are a dynamic thing which involve the genetic and morphological changes seen in a population over time. Species are a by-product of other mechanisms in evolution, they are not the goal of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak
How do we have distinct kinds of animals (mammals, birds, reptiles) if* evolution is true? Thanks, again.

~Apostle

Umm we really don't?

Just think of how many different variations of fish we have that have split off the evolutionary tree. Look how similar the biology is between all species. Hearts, ears, eyes, etc. A lot of species have the same male and female genders. Look at our own species...our different races that are a result of our evolution taking place in different environments. We also have modern adaptation ssuch as children now being born without wisdom teeth because there is no longer a need for them.

No animal is that distinct...you can name just about any animal and there are probably at least a dozen others that are just like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax

Cimber,

Thought I would add this bit I posted in another thread to the thread since not many people seem to get speciation and this is an introductory thread on evolution.

What is speciation? Seems pretty intuitive as to what speciation might be, but its actually a little more complex than simply "creating new species". Bare with me as this maybe confusing at first. Species, or species formation is not the goal in itself. Speciation is a by-product of other mechanisms. When biologists talk about speciation what they are talking about is:

The mechanisms by which a set population attains reproductive isolation.

Reproductively isolated populations then can, as a by-product, diverge from the parent species, creating new species.

So the next question becomes how do populations become isolated? The answer is in many ways. Lets go through a few that lead to isolation, to keep it semi short lets just cover models that deal in space.

Allopatric speciation

A population is subdivided; during the separation, mutations and variation arise in each subset such that each subset changes from the original in terms of morphology, behavior, etc. When we talk of allopatry we are referring to non-overlapping distributions of populations. After such an event occurs, the populations may have changed significant ally enough, that even if reunited interbreeding is not possible. See our simple picture.

linked-image

(Diane Dodd, Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43:1308–1311)

There are two kinds of allopatric speciation.

1. Vicariance: Basically, allopatry that arises due to extrinsic factors. Such extrinsic factors may be natural or man-made, the point to take away from this is that populations become divide by some external variable. This will also be one of the examples I provide shortly.

2. Dispersal: Basically, allopatry that arises due to dispersal events of a population. This should be pretty easy to visualize so no need to provide nifty little cartoon pictures. We also call dispersal, peripatric or founder effect speciation. Small populations "striking out" on their own, are subject to genetic drift and founder effects. Which can quickly lead to fixation of traits in a population.

Sympatric speciation

Speciation without physical or spatial barrier. We often see this kind of speciation with niche partitioning and character displacement. Disruptive selection is a prime selection forcer that causes sympatric speciation.

A great example of this is Darwin's finches. A single finch ancestor came from the mainland to the Galapagos archipelago. Due to different unfulfilled niches, there was disruptive selection, the end result was speciation multiple times. What we see, with the aid of a phylogenetic tree is the divergence to present day species.

linked-image

Another great example this is what is know as the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella. This is sympatric speciation caught in the process..

linked-image

Here is the story quickly; Rhagoletis pomonella was native to the Hawthorn plant.

linked-image

In the early-to mid 19th century, the apple (a relative of the Hawthorn tree) was introduced. Apple maggots (originally only infesting hawthorn plants) have fulfilled this new empty niche partition. Recent studies show that the apple maggot and the hawthorn maggot are two diverging species. The populations from apples do not interbreed with the populations from hawthorns, the outcome of this will be two new species.

Example of one such study: Filchak, K.E. , J.B. Roethele and J.L. Feder. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 2000. 407:739-742

There are actually many more mechanisms where reproductive isolation is achieved and speciation is the outcome. But, I will leave that to you to educate yourself on such other mechanisms.

Even, though I have given numerous examples, I will give one of my favorite now. As this involves a very recent speciation. First some background.

Culex pipiens is a species of mosquito. It can be found dispersed throughout London. and much of the UK, actually throughout large portions of the world.

linked-image

During the early 20th century, the high industrial age, many underground railways where being built in London. in the 1930's and 40's all these companies of different railway lines merged into one company and the vast networks were connected together. Culex pipiens, followed a main host species (humans) down into the underground. Guess what happens?

The underground created a physical barrier between the dispersing populations. This is called a dispersal event. The ground served to sever the genetic flow between populations. The population had everything it needed to survive in the underground so had no reason to migrate back to the surface. Since then, a new species has evolved. The two species are phenotypically similar, but genetically distinct. The new species, Culex molestus, now lives in the London underground. There have again, been many studies to confirm this, one such example that dealt with crossing to check the status of reproductive isolation was:

Byrne, K., and R.A. Nichols. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity.1999. 82(1): 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nik Xues

ironically ive noticed due to the common place traits [ genders, skeletal shape, etc]

inat least vertabret that all it would take to start this off is one measly cell [call it origin]

to form from the amino acid not hundreds of species just one cell and every thing else is adapt or die

so then life appears perfect because all the innadequacies die off.

also pregnancy is a homage to that single cell origin. if you dont understand do some research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
Umm we really don't?

Just think of how many different variations of fish we have that have split off the evolutionary tree. Look how similar the biology is between all species. Hearts, ears, eyes, etc. A lot of species have the same male and female genders. Look at our own species...our different races that are a result of our evolution taking place in different environments. We also have modern adaptation ssuch as children now being born without wisdom teeth because there is no longer a need for them.

No animal is that distinct...you can name just about any animal and there are probably at least a dozen others that are just like them.

There are no separate races, I believe that was proven in the human genome project. We all trace back to one ancestor. Even if you don't think that supported creation or that it did not support evolution, I have thought you could at least get from it that there is only one race-the human race. Also, adaptation does not prove macro-evolution. But, thanks for the info.

~Apostle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
Apostle,

There is no rule in evolution that says a lineage must reproduce to such and such number because it has been around for X amount of time. Organisms will equilibrate with their environment, however the equilibrium is not static. "Species" are constantly rising and falling, dying off and being born. There is no moment where everyone thing is "perfect", nature is very dynamic.

Also, it seems there is species concept problem still. To say the first "Homo sapien" is incorrect. There is no and never a "first" in evolution. Species do not just spring up, they are a dynamic thing which involve the genetic and morphological changes seen in a population over time. Species are a by-product of other mechanisms in evolution, they are not the goal of evolution.

Ok, I get what you're saying. I have the question next and it really confuses me. The reason why, say whales and things that were first evolved from, are still around, is that because everything evolves at a different rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
linked-image

The human population experiences exponential growth. This rate however cannot be kept. Every population who experiences exponential growth eventually crashes. We are long overdue.

Are you predicting something while happen sometime in the future to drastically reduce the population of humans? That's interesting, any idea as to what it might be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
Are you predicting something while happen sometime in the future to drastically reduce the population of humans? That's interesting, any idea as to what it might be?

Yes, something will certainly happen to reduce the population of humans. No population can continue to live exponentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nik Xues

if you want to simplify the argument the entire planets ecosystem is on giant organsm

instead of different organ tissues it has different species that preform similar roles

hmm maybe i should start a thread on that pt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
Ok, I get what you're saying. I have the question next and it really confuses me. The reason why, say whales and things that were first evolved from, are still around, is that because everything evolves at a different rate?

Speciation can occur when one species splits in to two populations, both of these populations will continue to evolve down separate paths and the end result is two different species (this type of speciation is called cladogenesis).

linked-image

Evolution is always occuring, but it is possible for species to go through long periods of time without showing significant change (evolutionary stasis). So you could have one ancestor which splits in to two different species, one of these species goes through significant change becoming what we now know as the whale, while the other doesn't change too much, and still looks similar to the ancestor.

Although I'm not sure if this did happen with the ancestor of whales.

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle

Thanks for all the information so far, this is a very useful thread. I've thought of another question. I've said sometimes that macro-evolution occurs through natural selection and mutations and sometimes maybe genetic drift. Are those the only things that cause it? Or do those not cause it at all? Thanks in advance,

~Apostle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle

Hello, I was wondering about this quote from Darwin,

". . . To my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting it's foster brothers (from the nest),-ants making slaves-the larvae of ichneumonide feeding with the live bodies of the caterpillars,-not as especially endowed or created instincts, but as one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings [mankind included],-namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." (Origin, final paragraph of Chapter Eight on Instinct, 6th edition)

What exactly is he saying here? Thanks,

~Apostle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
Hello, I was wondering about this quote from Darwin,

". . . To my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting it's foster brothers (from the nest),-ants making slaves-the larvae of ichneumonide feeding with the live bodies of the caterpillars,-not as especially endowed or created instincts, but as one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings [mankind included],-namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." (Origin, final paragraph of Chapter Eight on Instinct, 6th edition)

What exactly is he saying here? Thanks,

~Apostle

Here is what he says just before this excerpt...

This theory is also strengthened by some few other facts in regard to instincts; as by that common case of closely allied, but distinct species, when inhabiting distant parts of the world and living under considerably different conditions of life, yet often retaining nearly the same instincts. For instance, we can understand, on the principle of inheritance, how it is that the thrush of tropical South America lines its nest with mud, in the same peculiar manner as does our British thrush; how it is that the hornbills of Africa and India have the same extraordinary instinct of plastering up and imprisoning the females in a hole in a tree, with only a small hole left in the plaster through which the males feed them and their young when hatched; how it is that the male wrens (Troglodytes) of North America build "cocknests," to roost in, like the males of our kittywrens,- a habit wholly unlike that of any other known bird. Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination...

Darwin is simply saying that Natural Selection is a better explanation, for these examples he gives, then creation. Its a 'deduction' in his words. These instincts are an offshoot of natural selection, because in the end, the strongest of the population is surviving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
You all can stay at the zoo but I will always believe humans were created with dignity and grace and our existance is not just by mere coincidence. Evolution to me is like this, you take all the complex pieces of a grandfather clock and disassemble it completely and leave all the thousands of parts inside the grandfather clock. If you shake it over trillions of years every part will eventually fit back perfectly in its original position and make the clock functional again. You woul have to shake it for a pretty long time i'd say, and I don't think that those parts would ever go back to their original positions. And evolution is 10x more complex than the grandfather clock analogy. To me evolution sounds bogus just as to you creationism does, so who's right and who's wrong? I guess we'll see in the end, because if evolutionists are right then we don't have to be responsible for our actions to anybody, and we just turn to dust and our complex and beautiful minds cease to work. But if creationism is correct, and their is an intelligent creator, I feel for atheists because It won't be pretty.

Well, then I guess you can stand outside my cage and gawk at me.

See, you call evolution bogus (nice word, btw :)) just as creationism is to people like me, but you do so in the face of overwhelming evidence pointing towards evolution. There is nothing about evolution that takes away from the dignity of being a human being. Oh, and not all evolutionists are athiests. The Catholic Church welcomes the idea of evolution as something to deffinately look into. Evolution and faith can go hand in hand. Give it a chance, I think that were there a God and he was behind evolution that would make him alot more interesting than and God who just snapped his fingers and bam, theres the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dog Fish

"Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!"

--EnemyPartyII, Christianforums.com

This is undeniable proof people!! Undeniable!!! :w00t:

Edited by Dog Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
(From www.christianforums.com)

"Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!"

This is undeniable proof people!! Undeniable!!! :w00t:

Jesus Christ. I just lost three IQ points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.