Questions about evolution?

Question

The classic view of evolution is that random alterations in the biology of individuals make some more adaptable than others to their changing environment. These adaptive traits are “selected,” and the fittest survive in succeeding generations until, eventually, a new species evolves.'

It seems to me that the sting is in the last five words.

1. Why is this asserted as fact when it has never been observed? I have heard of the black-winged moths surviving better in sooty conditions, and human selective breeding of dogs, as examples of this, but in neither case has a new species been created. Creatures like fruit flies and rats have gone through millions of generations, with no new species being created. Ok, a rat with serrated teeth would have an advantage with opening plastic packets, but it will still be a rat, able to interbreed with others. How and when could it develop so far as to be a new species? Wouldn't that cut it off from the breeding pool anyway?

2. I have heard that 'modern humans appeared about 200,000 years ago, which I have no wish to dispute, but this sort of figure argues a fairly rapid appearance. Before, there were hominids. There are no 'missing links'. How could a creature so different appear so quickly on the basis of random mutation agreeing with natural selection?

3. As for natural selection, doesn't nature prefer a steady state? That is, there have to be fast antelopes, to escape the lions and breed, but there also have to be slow antelopes, or the lions will go hungry.

BTW I do not believe the world was created in 4004 BC or the literal truth of the Book of Genesis.

Answer 1

the scientific community is very well funded by it's governments and  organizations who'd want to fund something that mightn't be true or isn't controversial, theirs much speculation that scientist in the c.r.i.o and similar resource groups are extremely corrupt and have no problem lying to get more money. physiologically people don't want to believe in god and evolution really helps with that, so the faith spreads like a wild fire. global warming is also a bit like this seen as their is certain abnormality that when people are confronted with they just turn in evangelicals and talk about water rising and so on, most of the time judging those making the accusations or maybe everybody.

if your looking for abnormalities against evolution then the best place is stuff that disputes randomization of the universe or age of the solar system.

Answer 2

While it is true that creatures evolve, it is NOT a Fact that creatures evolve into other creatures. Big Foot is the easiest example to disprove evolution. Big Foot is one of the MANY creatures that should come during the evolution of Monkey to Man. Evolution is an on-going system that never ends. So, there should ALWAYS be creatures in the stage of evolution between each current creature. In other words, if monkey exist and man exists.. then the creatures that took Monkey from Man should ALWAYS exist. That is why Big Foot is called The Missing Link. and that is why Evolution is called the THEORY of Evolution.

As for the Book of Genesis. I think the literal context is true. The question is, what makes King James' version of The Bible any more accurate then any other version? Take a literal translation of The Bible, and all of your questions will be answered.

EDIT: I have TONS of ways to disprove evolution, and the Big Bang Theory. They are junk. Here's another one.. the problem with one animal evolving into another, is that when a baby is born different then its parents in the wild, the parent almost always kills it. So, the evolution process could never have even gotten past reptiles.

Also, evolution created dinosaurs.. then due to some unknown circumstance, the dinosaurs died out. Then evolution began again, from the sea. So, evolution should have lead down the same path as before, and the world should be inhabited with reptiles and dinosaurs, not humans.

Face it, God is real.

Answer 3

Actually dogs are your best case-in-point.

If biologists discovered the diversity of dogs today then they would designate theme many separate species.

"If domesticated dogs were discovered today they would be classified as hundreds of different species and considered quite distinct from wolves."

Answer 4

1. It takes tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years according to the fossil evidence, history has not been recorded that long.

2. As species develop, their predators and prey develop to adapt as well.

Answer 5

> "1. Why is this asserted as fact when it has never been observed?"

But it *has* been observed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-spec...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciati...

> "Creatures like fruit flies and rats have gone through millions of generations, with no new species being created."

Actually, one of the examples listed in the above websites is the derivation of a new species of Drosophila fruitfly. Two populations of the same species of Drosophila were bred separately, and eventually became unable to interbreed any more - they had therefore *speciated*.

> "Ok, a rat with serrated teeth would have an advantage with opening plastic packets, but it will still be a rat, able to interbreed with others. How and when could it develop so far as to be a new species? Wouldn't that cut it off from the breeding pool anyway?"

No. You are missing the point that *individual* organisms do not evolve; it is *populations* of organisms that evolve.

In your above example, if a group of rats were isolated from other rats, and developed serrated teeth (while the main population did not) - then that isolated population would have evolve separately. If they were kept apart from the main population for long enough, they'd become unable to interbreed, and you'd have separate species (one with more serrated teeth).

> ". I have heard that 'modern humans appeared about 200,000 years ago, which I have no wish to dispute, but this sort of figure argues a fairly rapid appearance. Before, there were hominids. There are no 'missing links'. How could a creature so different appear so quickly on the basis of random mutation agreeing with natural selection?"

The "missing link" argument is fallacious and impossible to answer.

If I have two species: species A from 2 million years ago, and a modern species C, and I think that C evolved from A, then anti-evolutionists can insist I find an intermediate. Let's say I get lucky, and I find species B from a million years ago, which is anatomically halfway between the two. Now the anti-evolutionists can insist that I find an intermediate between A and B, and another between B and C. I have just *doubled* my problem.

But for human evolution, we actually have a remarkably full timeline of the species which arose and evolved into moder H. sapiens. There is no "missing link".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolu...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hum...

> "3. As for natural selection, doesn't nature prefer a steady state? That is, there have to be fast antelopes, to escape the lions and breed, but there also have to be slow antelopes, or the lions will go hungry."

Of course, in your example there is a selective pressure on the antelope, making them faster and better able to escape from the lions. But there is also a pressure on the lions - making them better hunters.

The two species evolve together.

And there is also the "punctuated equilibrium" model for evolution which notes that evolution seems to proceed in fits and starts: long periods of slow evolution, interspersed with short periods (only a few tens of millions of years) of much more rapid diversification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_...

In the above example, if a new disease wiped out all the antelope, then the lions would be under *tremendous* evolutionary pressure to find new prey in order to survive. They may very well all die out - but if they didn't then it is most likely you'd end up with several different kinds of "neo-lions", each of which was specialised in hunting a different prey type.

Answer 6

>"These adaptive traits are “selected,” and the fittest survive in succeeding generations until, eventually, a new species evolves."

> "It seems to me that the sting is in the last five words."

That's because your description was accurate ... until those last five words.

You're missing a major piece ... the role of *BRANCHING*.   You correctly describe the process by which a population of individuals (like a species) changes over time.   But if the species is separated into two subpopulations that are genetically isolated from each other, then the two will change (evolve) in different directions until they have accumulated enough genetic differences to where individuals from the two populations can no longer interbreed.  It is at that point that you have *TWO SPECIES.*

>"1. Why is this asserted as fact when it has never been observed?"

But it *HAS* been observed!

"Observed Instances of Speciation":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-spec...

"Some More Observed Speciation Events":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciati...

>"2. I have heard that 'modern humans appeared about 200,000 years ago, which I have no wish to dispute, but this sort of figure argues a fairly rapid appearance. Before, there were hominids."

Yes, about 3 to 4 million years of hominids.  Is that what you mean by "rapid"?

>"There are no 'missing links'."

What is a "missing link"?   This is a red herring thrown out by Creationists who insist on a perfectly continuous fossil record.   The fossil record is not, cannot be, never has been claimed to be, perfectly continuous.   It is not a "movie".  It is a bunch of snapshots buried in the sand ... like photos of a child as it grows, we see the child at age 3, 4, 5, 7,and 8 years old ... we don't lament that the lack of a picture at 6 years old is a "missing link" and throw up our hands and conclude that we are looking at pictures of many separate children!

>"How could a creature so different appear so quickly on the basis of random mutation agreeing with natural selection?"

Because rapid evolution is caused by a population crisis.  If some natural disaster threatens a species to extinction, but then it bounces back, then during that period there will be rapid evolution and rapid change (because changes propagate quicker in a smaller gene pool), and secondly, the number of fossils being left will go down at the very moment the Creationists demand to see a fossilized "missing link."

>"3. As for natural selection, doesn't nature prefer a steady state?"

Sometimes yes.  This is called 'equilibrium.'  If the world consisted only of antelopes and lions, then evolution would slow to a crawl.    But environments change, and sometimes a small thing ... like a mutation that provides a new advantage, or the appearance of a new predator, or an epidemic that nearly wipes out the population ... many many things ... and suddenly change can be very rapid, both for individual species, or for entire genera, and sometimes for entire ecosystems.   This is called 'punctuated equilibrium'.

So your point is precisely why the fossil record can seem erratic ... with long periods of relative stability, followed by fairly rapid change, and the seemingly instantaneous change in the fossil record.  But it is rapid by *geological standards* (much change in a few hundred thousand years, which is a sliver in the rock layers).  Again, at the very time the most significant change is occurring, the organism is going through a population crisis that is leaving fewer fossils.

But if you think that fossils are all we have to go on, you are completely missing the far bigger evidence provided by DNA.   Fossils give us an idea of what the ancestral forms looked like, but they are not the only evidence of ancestral relationships to begin with.  In fact, if not a single fossil had ever been found, the DNA evidence *alone* is enough to demonstrate conclusively that modern species share ancestral relationships.

>"Most of the arguments so far are pretty WEAK ones."

No they're not.  You're just determined to misunderstand them.

>"Like photos in the sand - ok, if you know already they are of the same kid."

No.  You miss the point of the analogy.   Photos of a kid in development have certain features that *indicate* that they are the same kid ... especially if the photos have dates on them that tell you how old the photo is (the way that we can date fossils).   Just as you can look through a box of dated photos of many kids, and through physical features tell which ones are different kids, and which ones are the same kid in development, the same is true of fossils.  The absence of a snapshot of a kid at a certain age of development does not invalidate the entire record.

The point of the analogy is just to debunk the simplistic "missing link" argument.

>"And the one of the '200,000 years ago' - so it could have been 2,000,000 years ago? Come on!"

You are referring to KTDykes response ... and you missed his point.  Read it again!   It's 200,000 years if you're referring to the *species* Homo sapiens, but his point is that it's 2,000,000 years if you're referring to the *genus* Homo.   And my point is that it is 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 years if you include hominid precursors  to Homo (like the genus Australopithecus and Ardipithecus).

Both of us are making the same point ... that Homo sapiens does not appear out of the blue in the fossil record.   When scientists say that H. sapiens is about 200,000 years old, that figure does not imply in any way that there was no development leading up to Homo sapiens, or that his appearance in the fossil record was so "rapid" that it doesn't qualify as "evolution" or can't be explained by natural selection.

Perhaps if you would actually *READ* our replies instead of ridiculing them, we might have a good discussion.

Answer 7

"EDIT: I have TONS of ways to disprove evolution, and the Big Bang Theory. They are junk. Here's another one.. the problem with one animal evolving into another, is that when a baby is born different then its parents in the wild, the parent almost always kills it. So, the evolution process could never have even gotten past reptiles."

^^Wow you have a great understanding of evolution. LMAO

The problem with you is that you're debating about something you have absolutely no knowledge about. You think reptiles gave birth to mammals? YOU'RE FLICKlNG MORONIC!

Ok, back to the question.

Your view of the "classic view of evolution" is incorrect. It's not random, it's not mutations, it's natural selection which is NOT random. In fact it seems like your understanding of the basics of evolution is incorrect. Evolution is just the change in frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next. If you don't agree with this just turn off your computer and go live in a hole.

It follows that allele frequency is always changing. If a population is separated geographically they can't interbreed. Their genes will drift until they can no longer mate and make fertile offspring even if they were to meet each other. They are now permanently separated. However, they have a common ancestor. This can easily be traced through the DNA. If you don't understand how, look up endogenous viruses. The just of it: viruses have transplanted their DNA into our genome. In fact, over 8% of our genome is made up of dormant virus DNA. If you compare that to chimps, which we are ~95% similar too, it provides irrefutable evidence that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Either that or God is cruel for intentionally providing us the evidence to make such a conclusion. It would be like God making rocks that appear old, creating dinosaur bones and sticking them in the ground without having an actual living organism produce those bones, causing us to think that the world is much older than it is.

It is clear that none of you so far have a grip on evolution. Study it, it is amazing. I am a Christian, science does not threaten my beliefs. Studying evolution has put the awe of God in me.

For you Bible thumpers out there,

Creation: Literary genre

Exodus: Literary

Moses: Fictional Character

....

Ether: Fiction

Stop taking the Bible so literally, you're making fools of yourselves.

Answer 8

First of all I am religious and I think the world was by God as the Book of Genesis says.

Answer 9

  Ans1).The genaretion of new species does not take place within  1 or 2 years,it is a long process which need so many years.

for genaretion of new species followong steps are nessecary.

1).changes in the anotamical stuctures basing on evironmental conditions,habits,resources, etc.

2).for the anotamical changes,genetical changes must be occur,which require long time.

3).Due large genetical changes and accumilation of these changes,organism modified in such away that,reproductive isolation occur.This leads the genaretion of new species.

Ans2).Same answer as above.

Ans3).Natural selection prefer steady state equilibrated changes.ecological balance is maintained, if there is a balance in ecological nich.For eg:

If the number of antilopes increses then sorce of food that is grass and plants decreses,if these are decreased antilopes will not survive due to scarcity of food.

If number of lions increses,number of antilopes decreases,which cause decrease in lion number.

In this way nature and environmental conditions maintain balance between species.But humans are spoiling this balance without having foresight.    

Answer 10

<<I have heard of the black-winged moths surviving better in sooty conditions, and human selective breeding of dogs, as examples of this, but in neither case has a new species been created.>>

You're confusing your not having heard of new species arising with new species not occurring.  As new species have been observed to arise...

<<Creatures like fruit flies and rats have gone through millions of generations, with no new species being created.>>

Observed instances of speciation have occurred with fruit flies.

<<2. I have heard that 'modern humans appeared about 200,000 years ago, which I have no wish to dispute, but this sort of figure argues a fairly rapid appearance. Before, there were hominids. There are no 'missing links'.>>

There are 'links'.  The genus /Homo/ has a fossil record going back for over ten times the figure you mention.

<<3. As for natural selection, doesn't nature prefer a steady state? That is, there have to be fast antelopes, to escape the lions and breed, but there also have to be slow antelopes, or the lions will go hungry.>>

Does nature "prefer a steady state" and, if so, so what?