Evolution or Creation?

[Andro Man]

It's all about mating and genetic lines, rather than babies being born that are spectacularly different. Such infants would noit be very likely to procreate so would be at an evolutionary disatvantage.

So what happens with the Heidelbergensis. The Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthaler are meant to have evolved from that.

There's a period of 50000 years or more of when the H.S's 'forefather' dies out and when the H.S comes.

50000 years to me doesn't seem gradual. After all the HS has already been around for 250000.

That's the first question.

And the second is what I've been on about the whole time so I'll use the example of the Neanderthaler and the Heidelbergensis, since the N's forefather was still around when the N was around. At some point in a relatively short period of time, the N. evolves from the H. at some point there's a breakoff and the H. becomes a different species.
I understand that the environment over time can change the charactereristics of a certain species(black, white, yellow, large, small)but even then there must be a breakoff point(no matter how gradual) when parents and children are different(species).

 

[joejack]

To evolve means to unfold, to change form, to adapt. Circumstances, environments, habitats are constantly changing. Why is it so hard for some to grasp that generations of living beings change over time at various rates? Change is the norm. Nothing stays the same. The earth, the moon, the stars are in constant motion. The weather changes from hour to hour. Species that do not adapt quickly enough become extinct. These are the facts. :smashfreakB:

 

[hot-rod]

It's a theory.

The existence of creationists does however make me wonder whether humans are evolving.

I think humans are evolving because the right wing seems to be fading fast. LOL

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The vastly overwhelming wealth of evidence favors evolution and natural selection. Quibbling over whether they're called "theories" is irrelevant.

 

[Andro Man]

To evolve means to unfold, to change form, to adapt. Circumstances, environments, habitats are constantly changing. Why is it so hard for some to grasp that generations of living beings change over time at various rates? Change is the norm. Nothing stays the same. The earth, the moon, the stars are in constant motion. The weather changes from hour to hour. Species that do not adapt quickly enough become extinct. These are the facts. :smashfreakB:

Change yes, but the earth is still the earth, the sun is still the sun till it dies out.

How do you get from get change (e.g characteristics) into becoming something else(different species)?

 

[Andro Man]

The vastly overwhelming wealth of evidence favors evolution and natural selection. Quibbling over whether they're called "theories" is irrelevant.

I thought despite evolutionist best efforts they still couldn't find transitional(which would be needed to proove the evolution theory) remains betweens species.

And I'd say it is relevant if something is fact or fiction(theory). Alike doesn't (have to) mean evolved from

 

[zgrog2000]

i go with theory. not because i believe in creationism but because i agree with the arguement that nothin in science can 100% be proven. i think this argument would be accepted in a phylisopical class, but scientist defined fact as somthing so probable that it would be silly not to accept it as true.

i'm a science guy and evoultion is very logical and proven to some degree, but i still think its just a theory.

your thoughts?

I think that Flynt, MI has a weak education system. Please define:
arguement
nothin
phylisopical
somthing
evoultion

 

[zgrog2000]

I was pondering this last night. As single cell organisms evolved into multi-cell organisms, which eventually evolved into the present flora and fauna, what mechanism prevented inbreeding? The odds of two multi-cell organisms being close enough genetically to reproduce and that they could reproduce at a rate high enough to develop and sustain a new genus is amazing. When the very first Australopithicus afarensis appeared on earth it had to have something that was genetically similar to reproduce with or was capable of asexual reproduction. I find it hard to believe that two Australopithicus afarensis randomly evolved at the same place and time. Now if they did, how were the genetic problems associated with inbreeding avoided? While I have trouble accepting that everything magically appeared in 7 days, I also have trouble accepting that everything logically evolved from primordial ooze. Hopefully some of the forum members trained in the life sciences can help clarify this.

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

I thought despite evolutionist best efforts they still couldn't find transitional(which would be needed to proove the evolution theory) remains betweens species.

More creationist nonsense, there are plenty of transitional forms. Every couple of years or so some early humanoid is found somewhere or other.
Look here: Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

I was pondering this last night. As single cell organisms evolved into multi-cell organisms, which eventually evolved into the present flora and fauna, what mechanism prevented inbreeding?

The evolution mechanism. Inbreeding is avoided because individuals who do it will be more susceptible to disease and dying out (although I don't think this is true of bacteria). So in many animal species, individuals are attracted to other individuals which have some difference in the genes.
Here's something about how it works in plants too: Self-incompatibility in plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honestly, you creationists would really benefit from reading Wikipedia

 

[zgrog2000]

The evolution mechanism. Inbreeding is avoided because individuals who do it will be more susceptible to disease and dying out (although I don't think this is true of bacteria). So in many animal species, individuals are attracted to other individuals which have some difference in the genes.
Here's something about how it works in plants too: Self-incompatibility in plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honestly, you creationists would really benefit from reading Wikipedia

So feelthegirth, where did all of the genetically different hominoids come from? I don't have a problem with evolutionary theory in general. My question is more of where did the animals we evolved from come from? If you drill down to the primordial ooze you run into the inbreeding problem. At some point there must have been some large scale creation to create a diverse enough gene pool within a genus/species (I'm not a taxonomy expert) to allow for successful breeding.

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

So feelthegirth, where did all of the genetically different hominoids come from? I don't have a problem with evolutionary theory in general. My question is more of where did the animals we evolved from come from? If you drill down to the primordial ooze you run into the inbreeding problem. At some point there must have been some large scale creation to create a diverse enough gene pool within a genus/species (I'm not a taxonomy expert) to allow for successful breeding.

Not necessarily. All you need to begin with is a self-replicating single-cell organism with a genetic code that controls the replication mechanism. It doesn't matter if every individual organism is the same, as long as there is a way in which one of the organisms can become different, if the genetic code becomes corrupted.

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

University of York press release

The Open Door Web Site : Biology : Asexual reproduction in single-celled organisms

Asexual Reproduction _____________________________________________________

The answer is mutation

 

[Andro Man]

More creationist nonsense, there are plenty of transitional forms. Every couple of years or so some early humanoid is found somewhere or other.
Look here: Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The easy answer would be , if the evidence is so conclusive, how come there's still the debate? It can be proven that the world is round and not flat, it can be proven that the earth moves around the sun and not vice versa. Understandibily you're dependant on Archeological findings, but still obviously not conclusive.

Also one of the key points of evolution would be that we've evolved from inanimate matter, show me how to make life out of charcoal and I'll take away all my doubts concerning evolution, then it would be fact and not fiction.

One of the other problems with evolution theory is the cambrian explosion, i.e. the rapid explosion of a wide diversity of species more or less 'out of the blue', it's still to be proven that this is the result of evolution, until then ....fiction!

And the last point I'll keep repeating concerning humans

So what happens with the Heidelbergensis. The Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthaler are meant to have evolved from that.

There's a period of 50000 years or more of when the H.S's 'forefather' dies out and when the H.S comes.

50000 years to me doesn't seem gradual. After all the HS has already been around for 250000.

That's the first question.

And the second is what I've been on about the whole time so I'll use the example of the Neanderthaler and the Heidelbergensis, since the N's forefather was still around when the N was around. At some point in a relatively short period of time, the N. evolves from the H. at some point there's a breakoff and the H. becomes a different species.
I understand that the environment over time can change the charactereristics of a certain species(black, white, yellow, large, small)but even then there must be a breakoff point(no matter how gradual) when parents and children are different(species).

 

[Andro Man]

University of York press release

The Open Door Web Site : Biology : Asexual reproduction in single-celled organisms

Asexual Reproduction _____________________________________________________

The answer is mutation

I read they did a wide range of experiments with fruit flies , but the mutations just fucked it it, didn't change it into something else, another species

 

[galaxus]

I think that Flynt, MI has a weak education system. Please define:
arguement
nothin
phylisopical
somthing
evoultion

your right it does.

but i don't have to spell correctly for u to get what i'm saying. this is a "large penis support group" forum, not the Supreme Court. i have the luxury to be as informal as i want. u should try it. it feels good.

 

[Drifterwood]

The easy answer would be , if the evidence is so conclusive, how come there's still the debate?

There isn't in the purely scientifically motivated community. They just keep developing and moving the theory forward; that's what clever people like to do.

 

[Andro Man]

There isn't in the purely scientifically motivated community. They just keep developing and moving the theory forward; that's what clever people like to do.

Zum Befohl right?
I forgot you were stupid and unscientific if you didn't think the evolution THEORY added up.

I'm no creationist btw, but none of the evolutionists here can answer my questions here with arguments....Obviously it's too much outside their box(i.e that evolution might not be the answer)to give me any more than synonyms of evolution

 

[Drifterwood]

Trust me, there isn't a debate in the purely scientific community. Theories are not absolute positions, sure people get precious about them from time to time. But the debate only comes from those who have their own absolutist position that they think is being undermined by a scientific theory.

You have been given links to some pretty good papers. I don't think any one here really has the time to give you a biology course. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't.

 

[fortiesfun]

The easy answer would be , if the evidence is so conclusive, how come there's still the debate? It can be proven that the world is round and not flat, it can be proven that the earth moves around the sun and not vice versa. Understandibily you're dependant on Archeological findings, but still obviously not conclusive.

Yet there are still people who swear that the earth is flat. Having debates doesn't mean the evidence is inconclusive. It can mean that no matter what proof you offer there are people too stubborn or too stupid to accept it.

Also one of the key points of evolution would be that we've evolved from inanimate matter, show me how to make life out of charcoal and I'll take away all my doubts concerning evolution, then it would be fact and not fiction.

Doesn’t creationism face the exact same problem? How did things start in the first place is not an evolutionary problem in particular. It is an issue for any system. (In the beginning there was God, but where did He come from?)

One of the other problems with evolution theory is the cambrian explosion, i.e. the rapid explosion of a wide diversity of species more or less 'out of the blue', it's still to be proven that this is the result of evolution, until then ....fiction!

Hard to think of a phenomenon in evolution that is more thoroughly explored and explained. You simply haven't read any literature on this subject if you think that one is a deal breaker.

And the last point I'll keep repeating concerning humans
So what happens with the Heidelbergensis. The Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthaler are meant to have evolved from that. There's a period of 50000 years or more of when the H.S's 'forefather' dies out and when the H.S comes. 50000 years to me doesn't seem gradual. After all the HS has already been around for 250000.

You've offered this point a half a dozen times and it always comes down to the phrase "to me it doesn't seem..." Fortunately, evolution does not rest on your opinion. To you it can also seem implausible that French words mean anything, or that flowers are alive. Makes no difference either way what you think. 50,000 years is long enough for substantial evolutionary change. (Because it is enough for what, 2500? maybe, generations.)

That's the first question.

And the second is what I've been on about the whole time so I'll use the example of the Neanderthaler and the Heidelbergensis, since the N's forefather was still around when the N was around. At some point in a relatively short period of time, the N. evolves from the H. at some point there's a breakoff and the H. becomes a different species.
I understand that the environment over time can change the charactereristics of a certain species(black, white, yellow, large, small)but even then there must be a breakoff point(no matter how gradual) when parents and children are different(species).

No there doesn't. There is never one day when one parent is something different from its child. I think it has been pointed out to you every time you bring this up that species evolve, not individuals. There is certainly a point at which a distant ancestor is so changed from his ancient forebearer that they are different species, but species do not emerge overnight. Monkeys don't have humans for children. Lions don't give birth to domesticated cats. Lineages develop.

Think of it like this, you put batter into a cake pan and cook it. It starts out batter and ends up cake, but there is not a split nanosecond in time at which you can declare the magic happened and what once was batter is now cake. It is a gradual process... Molecule by molecule it morphs but the whole thing is not completely liquid at one second and then completely baked into a cake at the next second. Some things are processes instead of lines of demarcation.