I will answer every question about evolution you have

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
What are your comments on the distinction between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthalensis as separate species despite some evidence of interbreeding existing?

Hybridism occurs in nature. Simple as that. It's when closely related species mate and produce healthy offspring.

Modern dogs would be a great example of this same incidence. Modern dogs can bread with Foxes, and wolves and coyotes, but foxes and wolves and coyotes cannot reproduce with each other.

On one hand you have the middle-ground, being the dog, which hasn't drifted far enough genetically from any of those other ancestors, allowing interbreeding to actually work. However, the Foxes and the wolves, even though they share much of the same DNA and features, cannot breed effectively simply because the two branches have diverged far enough away from each other that their no longer compatible.

I've heard a few theories that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis had at one point interbred, and it doesn't seem at all like an unreasonable claim.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
What are your comments on genetic modification as pertaining to how it affects evolution.

Genetic modification hasn't really stopped evolution from occurring. Even genetically modified organisms have natural mutations per generation just like any other living organism, so in that sense, Evolution isn't really effected.

It certainly removes some form of nature from the organism, but only in that some genes were synthetically modified. Nevertheless, Evolution still exists within these organisms, considering new genetic information is added naturally, regardless of our own additions.

a reply to: peter vlar

Okay, so it's just what I suspected with the advances.
Media just doesn't sensationalize in the way that my ears
would hear it. Something to be noted about the way we
receive information.

If you were a beautiful woman

And how do you know I'm not a beautiful woman?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
Science makes break thrus in medicine, prosthetics,
robotics the space program, geneology is another one.
If there are any in the field of evolution maybe they're
just not exciting enough to be news? We don't really
hear of them from evolution. i'm not saying I know this
to be true. But do they have any break throughs of
note in evolution?

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, you've actually listed a number of cases where studying evolution has helped those fields.

Understanding evolution helps us solve biological problems that impact our lives. There are excellent examples of this in the field of medicine. To stay one step ahead of pathogenic diseases, researchers must understand the evolutionary patterns of disease-causing organisms. To control hereditary diseases in people, researchers study the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing genes. In these ways, a knowledge of evolution can improve the quality of human life.

Agriculture is another field that the study of evolution has aided. We've produced fertilizers, pesticides and biotechnology to help aid the growth of crops/plants. But, biological systems evolve. Insects and diseases evolve as new technologies are introduced. Similar to the medical incident, a knowledge of evolution can improve our crops qualities, as well as preparing for the mutations of insects and disease, thus saving our crops.

Conservation of natural resources and life in general requires a knowledge of how Evolution functions, as well as a knowledge of the biological history of as many organisms as we can learn about. it is a critical part of how we think about the complex issue concerning natural conservation.

There are more, but these are a few that we deal with on a regular basis.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
Also it always seems odd to me that any thing could cause
evolution to be selective. The word selection seems to descript,
requiring a thought process and a decision.

Yes, I agree that it is a bit of a misleading term, 'natural selection'. Did my response regarding natural selection clarify your concern?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar

If you were a beautiful woman

And how do you know I'm not a beautiful woman?

Pics or it didn't happen lol

a reply to: peter vlar

No worries I couldn't afford the change if I wanted one.

originally posted by: EviLCHiMP
Question: What becomes of the theory of natural selection in a population that dwells in an unnatural environment? Is it not too far off to suggest that technological societies have basically brought their evolutionary processes to a figurative extinction?

Just as a note, there is no 'theory of natural selection'.

Natural selection is a mechanism within Evolution.

Basically, what is meant by "natural selection" is that mutations are either carried on or erased from the gene pool due to certain factors. Those factors are things like predation, or environmental change, or disease; basic obstacles of survival that every organism faces.

When a mutation is beneficial to an organism, that organism now has a higher chance at reproducing - or in other words, carrying on that mutation in successive generations. Natural selection is simply the term used to describe the process of the continuation, or deletion, of genetic information to a gene pool.

So when we have these 'unnatural' environments, like cities, they can be very destructive to most species, but actually quite beneficial to others. For insects and rodents, as an example, there are a lot of stable and unreachable shelters (think, vent in a house), where they are totally protected from predation. And on the flip side, there's also a ton of food and resources everywhere thanks to how much humans waste.

So it natural selection still exists in an unnatural environment, it's just that the unnatural environment has it's own positive and negative traits, not to mention it can change very rapidly.

We've actually noticed a lot of behavioral changes in many species that use cities as a safe environment for themselves as well.

originally posted by: EviLCHiMP
When we conclude that synthetic life is the future of evolution we are simultaneously concluding that science can and will break the balance of universal laws by replacing natural evolutionary processes with unnatural, synthetic processes.

At the moment, humans still rely heavily on nature for just about everything. Power, Energy, Food, Resources, they all come from natural sources. Synthetic life isn't the future at a global scale, but it may indeed be the future of the human race exclusively.

However, so long as life exists, so too will Evolution (as far as we know).

a reply to: Ghost147

Yes, I agree that it is a bit of a misleading term, 'natural selection'. Did my response regarding natural selection clarify your concern?

You always give great responses and Peter as well.
I love to argue so if you shut me up it's a good indicator.

Here's what I do get. The word exists and it has meaning. The word
exists to decribe something that happens. So if it wasn't happening
somewhere, there would be no word for it.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
That's a silly answer for children in early years of schooling

Actually, it directly answers your concern. Again, if you look for the other post I made earlier on, I go into more detail about the onset of Sexual Reproduction.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How can evolution occur on populations, is evolution a virus now

Well, evolution isn't a very quick process.

Evolution changes the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms that share a common gene pool through different generations.

Every new generation produces a slight variation within their respective allele frequencies. DNA can be effected in many ways, and one of those ways is through the environment. So a population that shares a common gene pool that lives within a specific environment, are all being effected by that same features of that environment.

Lets say we have a moth. It has a blotchy, spotted black color on it's white wings. It's environment is a forest, and within that forest are trees that have white and black bark. The moths rest on the trees, and their coloration prevents predators from spotting them easily.

The black spots vary in number from moth to moth, and some are so covered with these black spots that they tend to visually stick out when they are resting on the white trees. So, the population of the moths with more spots begins to dwindle.

That is Natural selection. And this incident im writing about has actually happened. Soon later, a factory was build next to the forest, and the pollution that the factory gave off covered the white trees with black soot.

Suddenly, the predators were then eating all the whiter moths, and the moths with more black on them began to raise in population.



That is how Natural selection occurs at a population-based scale.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What came first, male or female, how and why.
did they both evolve together one day?
Did they evolve on separate days, how did seamen gain a genetic code that works with another, totally different body.

Firstly, nothing evolves "in a day", it can take thousands, or even millions of generations for a larger mutation to really make its mark.

Again, I've already answered this question in an earlier post. Since you seem reluctant to look it up. The post is in the middle of Page 2. It's a response to Elementalist when he asked "1. Why did the random and non-intelligent "force" create male and females?"

The response also answers your question.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Not chickens and eggs, codes is the question, dna
That was a childish answer ghost

It's the exact same question, actually.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

Yes, I agree that it is a bit of a misleading term, 'natural selection'. Did my response regarding natural selection clarify your concern?

You always give great responses and Peter as well.
I love to argue so if you shut me up it's a good indicator.

Here's what I do get. The word exists and it has meaning. The word
exists to decribe something that happens. So if it wasn't happening
somewhere, there would be no word for it.

Haha. Perhaps if you word your question differently I might be able to answer it with more clarity?

originally posted by: Ghost147
I've actually given several examples of observed, tested evidence of Evolution in this very topic. I think the issue you're having with my responses is not that they don't prove Evolution, it's that your concept of what Evolution is isn't accurate to begin with. Here's some more evidence, nonetheless:

First, I agree with what Randy said earlier, your responses are light years ahead of the average ATS poster...

Not only did you read what I posted, you responded to it professionally as well.

Usually I ignore the typical childish comments that tend to dominate conversations in these types of threads.

Mr. spygeek's references to rubbish, horseradish, and nonsensical garbage on page 2 are perfect examples...

You on the other hand attempted to address my very long post item by item and I was very impressed by that.

Out of respect for your effort I went through them one by one but it left me in quite a conundrum...

I believe it would be a waste of your time as well as mine to try and refute your list.

Not because I believe you are correct, but simply because I believe nothing I say would convince you and that is not the purpose for this post anyway.

Mainly I just wanted to let you know that it's pretty awesome to read an intelligent and respectful post on ATS simply because they are so freakin' rare here and it reminds me of something that another poster wrote:

originally posted by: Skyfloating
@OP: Its a nice OP, thanks. I create a plane, then there is a plane. It follows that things initially come into existence through creation. Makes perfect sense.

But you want to know what actually convinced me of the ID crowd? 10 years of seeing the completely spiteful, mocking and ignorant behavior of atheists/evolutionists on online forums, with their childish remarks on "you believe in the toothfairy, nanananana!"

Seeing such a stark contrast in mentality, decency, respect and kindness makes it pretty obvious which if these sides have refined and cultured minds and which are of more simple and coarse intelligence.

FYI: Just in case you are curious as to what motivates me to post in threads such as this the way I do...

A few years back I reached a place where I became 100% convinced of the reality behind evolution.

Basically what I learned was solid undeniable proof which took me from a place of just believing to knowing.

Thanks again for the post...

@Ghost:

How large are our gaps in knowledge, do they exist at all?

a reply to: Murgatroid

In reference to the attitude some atheists/evolutionists(?) display, you should keep in mind that similar behavior exists in the religiously fundamentalist, the UFOlievers, the Mayan Prophecy believers, so on and so forth. They are not like that because they they are atheist, they are like that because they are human. To have another repeatedly deny what to you seems incredibly obvious is infuriating beyond belief. I am sure you are aware.

A few years back I reached a place where I became 100% convinced of the reality behind evolution.

What reality? If you're saying that evolution does not exist at all I will be forced to disagree with you quite profusely. If you are saying that it is a system in which some God or other possibly jump-started the process, or has meddled in it slightly. The question isn't "Is evolution real?" The question should be "How much of the path life on this planet is evolution responsible for."

Basically what I learned was solid undeniable proof which took me from a place of just believing to knowing.

If it is something you learned, then it is also something others can learn. Will you show me?

originally posted by: Murgatroid
First, I agree with what Randy said earlier, your responses are light years ahead of the average ATS poster...
Not only did you read what I posted, you responded to it professionally as well.

Thank you very much. I too agree that most of the topics surrounding subjects like this usually get way out of hand.

I feel that a respectful approach is usually the best approach. Not only is it less antagonistic for the person who original had the questions, but they are more open to contemplating that answer, rather than simply walking away because the person directly insulted them.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Out of respect for your effort I went through them one by one but it left me in quite a conundrum... I believe it would be a waste of your time as well as mine to try and refute your list.

Not because I believe you are correct, but simply because I believe nothing I say would convince you and that is not the purpose for this post anyway.

On the contrary, I would love to hear what you would have to say. There are plenty of things that can disprove Evolution, after all. In fact, in order for something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable in the first place (and thereafter).

Honestly, I would rather hear about a legitimate find that disproves evolution, than one that furthers it's validity. If something were to disprove evolution, then that would simply mean there is a lot of new information that we can search for and discover; not to mention give us a more accurate description about life around us.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
@Ghost:
How large are our gaps in knowledge, do they exist at all?

Could you specify to what that knowledge pertains to exactly?

Specifically, the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Actually, I've already discussed this topic a bit earlier on page 3, in a response to japhrimu's question: What is the evidence for the origins of mitochondria?

a reply to: Ghost147

You don't seem to mention the nucleus. That's what I was particularly interested in.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Ah, I see.

Well, considering how difficult it is to study how the nucleus first formed, we need to resort to studying the current living organisms that depict possible ways that the event could have happened.

There are four main hypothesis that attempt to explain how this formation could have occurred:

1) syntrophic model: This hypothesis suggests that a symbiotic relationship between the archaea and bacteria could account for the creation of Eukaryota cells that contained a nucleus .

2) viral eukaryogenesis is a model that basically suggests that the nucleus originated from an infection of a prokaryote by a virus.

3) The exomembrane hypothesis posits that the origin of the nucleus is due to a mutation win a single celled organism that allowed for a second, exterior membrane to the cell's membrane.

4) The final hypothesis suggests that that proto-eukaryotic cells evolved from bacteria without an endosymbiotic stage.

They all have modern living organisms that give credit to their individual hypotheses, some have a bit more evidence than others, and there isn't one specific hypothesis that prevails over the rest. It's one of those incidences where we may simply not be able to know beyond any reasonable doubt that it likely occurred 'this' specific way.

We do have clear observations that suggest the process could have happened a specific way, but just nothing (currently) that really clarifies a lot

a reply to: Ghost147

I was just curious. Something a lot of evolution detractors generally tend to not consider is just how rare fossils actually are. Though I can't say for certain, it's almost a guarantee that there are species we'll never know existed because their habitat or physiology were unsuited for creating those fossils to begin with. Even if a fossil does exist, we still have to find it first...

While this is a bit tangential to evolution, where did viruses come from? I've personally always found them an oddity. They aren't even technically a living organism...

Viruses are evidence of (malevolent) intelligence design.
Well, not really.

Just one more question: The common ancestor for human HIV strains has been traced back to around 1918 and the Spanish flu pandemic. They've not been able to identify what form it took before that. It appears to have just 'popped up'. If evolution occurs over multiple generations why isn't it possible to trace the ancestry of human HIV before WW1? ((HIV, they say, has been around for millions of years.)

Just this: The chemical formulae for the four bases of DNA share common 'small numbers'. They can be arranged into a perfect circle of 12 which is symmetrical, following the ecliptic path zodiac elements air, wind, fire and water. Phosphorous is the sun in the centre common to all. The bases combined with the zodiac 'sun signs' mirror the four seasons.

Symmetry does not exist in nature, not perfect mathematical symmetry. It is a human concept requiring intelligence to identify it. How does evolution explain an attribute of DNA that is not naturally occurring?