beliefs

I, like yourself and every other person on this planet, would answer that I really dont know how life came about on this or any other planet. However evolution has nothing to do with how life arose but how life has got to this stage without the need for a creator deity. Like Madness I support the ToE but I dont happen to agree with all of its explanations, however I do find it to be as close to the correct answer as I can logically fathom.

G

Hi Adam,

I know what you mean. I personally believe in a bit of both, but how do you answer the question...

If we evolved from apes then why do we still have apes?? I know it must be a question asked every time the question of eveolution is posed but it is quite valid.

There is evidence of early man which had ape characteristics so its obvious where the Toe came from but, at the same time Im a bit torn with regards to religion.

I do believe in God and I believe that we have many lives and are connected to the universe and maybe ultimately, maybe thats what God is? I believe we are all connected to and that theres much more to life than just waking up and going to work...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by speaker
OK, give me an example of this "so called evidence" of evolution.

the fossil record
genetics
bacterial resistance to antibiotics

The fossil record is evidence that a given species existed, not that it evolved. As I mentioned, a lack of evidence in finding fossil of given species before a certain time is your reasoning here. Just because you haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Genetics is evidence of breeding, not evolution. When a species breeds, the offspring carry a similar genetic makeup. Whose to say the similarity in genetics between species is not a result of breeding between species?

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is evidence of learning by experience, not evolution. If it was evolution, shouldn't later generations have the same resistance to these antibiotics? No, each person still has to build up a resistance to them before they cease to work. If two enemies confront eachother often enough, it stands to reason that eventually they will become more adept at exploiting eachothers weaknesses.

Where is the evidence of a new species evolving? Has anyone observed this? If evolution is a case of creating new and improved versions (Humans), why are the old versions still around (Apes)? Rather than species evolving to better suit their lifestyle, isn't it more fathomable that a species adapts their lifestyle to better suit their construction?



[edit on 29-3-2007 by speaker]

Originally posted by speaker
.

Genetics is evidence of breeding, not evolution. When a species breeds, the offspring carry a similar genetic makeup. Whose to say the similarity in genetics between species is not a result of breeding between species?

Because breeding between species in usually unsuccessful. Even when we humans force it the offspring are almost all sterile thereofore they cannot pass on those genes. This is why you do not find many cases of interspecies breeding, it is nonproductive.

Originally posted by speaker
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is evidence of learning by experience, not evolution. If it was evolution, shouldn't later generations have the same resistance to these antibiotics? No, each person still has to build up a resistance to them before they cease to work.

Again, No. Later generations DO have the same resistance. Hence the reason we have antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. I can grow you an antibiotic strain in the lab in about a week. It has nothing to do with a person building resistance to the bacteria. You usually dont pick up the antibiotic strains out in public, they are mostly found in hospitals. Bacteria cannot "learn from experience" as you say by any other way but to pass resistance on in the next generation. Thier life cycle is way too short to do otherwise.

Originally posted by speaker
Where is the evidence of a new species evolving? Has anyone observed this? If evolution is a case of creating new and improved versions (Humans), why are the old versions still around (Apes)? ?

Evolution has been observed in the lab and in nature. Apes evolved separately from us. We are not descendents of that species. This is a common misconception. Also, evlolution happens when a species is isolated and is based on their environment. So, if for instance you put a species of bird in africa and the same species in North america, in a million years they would look and act different due to the adaptations that have to be made over time for a species to survive. Different climates, different food sources, different predators, all these factors play a role in evolution.




[edit to add on 29-3-2007 by kokoro]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by kokoro]

kokoro, nice job!

but i just want to comment on this

Originally posted by speaker
Where is the evidence of a new species evolving? Has anyone observed this? If evolution is a case of creating new and improved versions (Humans), why are the old versions still around (Apes)? Rather than species evolving to better suit their lifestyle, isn't it more fathomable that a species adapts their lifestyle to better suit their construction?

modern apes aren't actually less evolved than us, they're differently evolved. we have a common ancestor and every species of ape has had as much time to evolve to suit their environment.

that's the fairly specist thing about humanity, we always think we're MORE evolved

Originally posted by kokoro
Because breeding between species in usually unsuccessful. Even when we humans force it the offspring are almost all sterile thereofore they cannot pass on those genes. This is why you do not find many cases of interspecies breeding, it is nonproductive.

Well it would only take one successful attempt to create a new species, so this doesn't seem too unreasonable. At any rate, isn't it possible that both species existed from the beginning?

Originally posted by kokoro
Again, No. Later generations DO have the same resistance. Hence the reason we have antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. I can grow you an antibiotic strain in the lab in about a week. It has nothing to do with a person building resistance to the bacteria. You usually dont pick up the antibiotic strains out in public, they are mostly found in hospitals. Bacteria cannot "learn from experience" as you say by any other way but to pass resistance on in the next generation. Thier life cycle is way too short to do otherwise.

So basically what your saying is if I build up an immunity to a certain disease over my lifetime, my son should automatically be immune to it from birth?

Originally posted by kokoro
Evolution has been observed in the lab and in nature. Apes evolved separately from us. We are not descendents of that species. This is a common misconception. Also, evlolution happens when a species is isolated and is based on their environment. So, if for instance you put a species of bird in africa and the same species in North america, in a million years they would look and act different due to the adaptations that have to be made over time for a species to survive. Different climates, different food sources, different predators, all these factors play a role in evolution.

Isn't evolution all about superseding old inefficient models with new streamlined models. If this is so, shouldn't there only be apes or humans, not both? Whichever species is the more efficient should be the result of evolution. In fact if everything came from one single organism, there should only be one sophisticated, highly efficient organism now in place of it. Why the diversity?

Originally posted by speaker
Isn't evolution all about superseding old inefficient models with new streamlined models. If this is so, shouldn't there only be apes or humans, not both? Whichever species is the more efficient should be the result of evolution. In fact if everything came from one single organism, there should only be one sophisticated, highly efficient organism now in place of it. Why the diversity?

Because ecosystems have never been homogenous. While ecosystems today are in large based on the ir own biological makeup, it it not exclusively so. In the very first instance there was at least the difference between water and land. And as time goes on ecosystems become more, not less, complex due to the interaction of biology with them, which in turn then feeds back into the loop of the evolution for that biology.

Who do you think is best able to survive, multiply and pass on their genes in the jungles of Africa? You or a Chimp?

Cheers.

Originally posted by speaker

So basically what your saying is if I build up an immunity to a certain disease over my lifetime, my son should automatically be immune to it from birth?

Ill deal with this one for now and come back to the rest after I get back from work.

No that is not what i am saying. First of all, the only thig you pass on to your offspring is your DNA. So for instance you burn your hand and it leaves a scar, will you children have it? no because that burn did not cause a DNA mutaion in your sperm cells. Next, you building up resistance to a cretain disease has not much to do with your DNA. When you come into contact with a pathogen your body (through a complicated process I wont get into here ) makes antibodies that fit that specific pathogen. In this way when you encounter that pathogen again your body will launch an immune response to it. Now, this isnt a change in your DNA so it is not passed on to your offspring.


That being said you are much more complicated than bacteria. They reproduce via cell division and not sexual reproduction. So, their offspring will be just like them. most only have one chromosome and their cycle of life is very short so it is very easy to show evolution with them in the lab.

Originally posted by d60944
Who do you think is best able to survive, multiply and pass on their genes in the jungles of Africa? You or a Chimp?
Cheers.

But didn't humans supposedly originate in Africa too? By rights, only the Apes should have survived as they were better suited to their environment.

Originally posted by kokoro
That being said you are much more complicated than bacteria. They reproduce via cell division and not sexual reproduction. So, their offspring will be just like them. most only have one chromosome and their cycle of life is very short so it is very easy to show evolution with them in the lab.

In that case I would argue that this so called evolution at a bacterial level is simply a result of different bacteria bonding or merging together resulting in the offspring being the same merged pair of bacteria as themselves. Due to their simplicity, the DNA is likely to be much more accessible and prone to exposure to external elements. Us being, much more complicated, it would seem highly unlikely that the same process of so called evolution could happen with us or any other complicated lifeform with as equally inaccessible DNA as our own.

At any rate, this is not really an example of evolution, because the change or mutation should come from within, not externally. Are there any examples of bacteria mutating without any external influence? If so this could be an example of evolution I guess.

Originally posted by speaker

Due to their simplicity, the DNA is likely to be much more accessible and prone to exposure to external elements. Us being, much more complicated, it would seem highly unlikely that the same process of so called evolution could happen with us or any other complicated lifeform with as equally inaccessible DNA as our own.

If this were true then they would have died out long ago. Please, bacteria have been around long before we were. They have features that our cells do not to protect them.

Originally posted by speaker
At any rate, this is not really an example of evolution, because the change or mutation should come from within, not externally. Are there any examples of bacteria mutating without any external influence? If so this could be an example of evolution I guess.

Evolution is defined as a change over time. DNA mutates all the time on its own. PLus, contrary to your assertion here, the external environment of a species plays a huge role in its evolution.

If you put a baterial colony into a medium with very little antibiotic. And then after growth transplant those that survived onto a new medium with a little more antibiotic.. and continue to increase the concentration of antibiotic every time you change the medium. You will end up with a new strain at the end. This IS evolution, Period.


So let me get this straight, You think that all of the species we have now have all been here since the beginning and that none of them have changed?


[edit on 30-3-2007 by kokoro]

[edit on 30-3-2007 by kokoro]

No, I don't really know how all the species we have on Earth came to be. I don't pretend to know either. What I think, is that evolution's explanations of how life came to be to the present have far too many holes to place faith in. I am merely providing an alternative explanation to all the so called evidence for evolution.

Apart from the most fundamental flaw of them all, being how something came from nothing, the expansion from one to many species seems to work in direct opposition to the evolutionary process of natural selection. The evolutionary model would be much more plausable if we had many species in the past, and only a few now.

Evolution seems to be utterly dependant on one of two highly unlikey actions happening over and over again. They are as follows:

1. Genes possess memory and communication skills. Throughout the life of an animal the genes take notes in regards to what advantages and disadvantages the animal deals with as a result of it's construction. At the end of the animal's life, the genes report back to gene headquarters with their findings and recommendations on what improvements could be made to increase efficiency. Slowly but surely, through many generations, the same recommendations get raised over and over again until the grand council of genes decides to give the animals construction a little tweak to cater for these recommendations. Eventually over millions of years the little tweaks add up to create a new more efficient species. These are some clever genes!

2. Random mutations occur in the genetic makeup of an animal creating a new strain of species with some abnormality. The vast majority of the time these abnormalities disadvantage the new strain of species and it dies out. As a result many of these mutations occur creating vast numbers of different species to combat the high failure rate of new mutated species' ability to thrive in the environment. Eventually, one of these mutated species manages to succeed and become more efficient than the original version. This process happens over and over and over. Now those are some unbelievably miniscule odds!

Bear in mind that the two ridiculously unlikely scenario's above only account for one species evolving into one more efficient replacement. It fails to account for the great diversity of life we have on earth today. Therefore it faces even greater next to impossible odds to not only create one new more efficient species with one of these processes, but many different species suited to different environments.

Now some may say that evolution is not perfect, but it is as good an explanation as we have at the moment, but I'm afraid if that's the best we can come up with, I think I'll opt with all the current species we have now existing as they are unchanged from the beginning. Heck, even the ridiculously absurd version of events mentioned in the Bible is more credible!

[edit on 31-3-2007 by speaker]

Originally posted by speaker

Originally posted by d60944
Who do you think is best able to survive, multiply and pass on their genes in the jungles of Africa? You or a Chimp?
Cheers.

But didn't humans supposedly originate in Africa too? By rights, only the Apes should have survived as they were better suited to their environment.

In general humans don't live in jungles, and when they do, arguably they are less successful than chimps there anyway.

The point is that only apes should not have "survived" (but which you really mean "evolved" - because no modern apes are some of relict group that has stayed unevolved for millennia - all species are just as "modern", evolved and developed as each other). Early hominids left the jungles. Vast areas of new grassland emerged in the past due to climatic reasons. Those primates able to walk and hunt in these grasslands did so. They evolved to fill the new niches. Some evolved to fill jungles (eg chimps) other evolved to hunt on grassland (eg hominids).

However, if you are looking for a flaw, lets go right to the beginning. How did something come from nothing?

a) evolution has nothing to do with how life appeared. evolution, as the name says, refers to how life adapts to environmental changes through natural selection.

b) your question "how did something come from nothing?" is better when applied to the big bang...because life forms didn't just appear from nothing, they are made of the same kind of atoms as non-living matter, the water in your cells is the same water that runs from your tap.

I'm afraid if that's the best we can come up with, I think I'll opt with all the current species we have now existing as they are unchanged from the beginning. Heck, even the ridiculously absurd version of events mentioned in the Bible is more credible!

Then you obviously haven't understood mutations and natural selection.


[edit on 31-3-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by speaker
No, I don't really know how all the species we have on Earth came to be. I don't pretend to know either. What I think, is that evolution's explanations of how life came to be to the present have far too many holes to place faith in. I am merely providing an alternative explanation to all the so called evidence for evolution.

All you have done is prove that you havent even read any literature about evolution. You cannot refute something you know nothing about. You have provided no alternative explanations..

Originally posted by speaker

Apart from the most fundamental flaw of them all, being how something came from nothing, the expansion from one to many species seems to work in direct opposition to the evolutionary process of natural selection. The evolutionary model would be much more plausable if we had many species in the past, and only a few now.

My point above is proven here. Evolution has made no claims as to how life came to be here. All the thoery suggests is how species have changed into the forms we now see present on the earth after life came to be here. If you dont even know the basic elements and mechanisms of evolution then you cannot make any arguements againt it.

Originally posted by speaker
Now some may say that evolution is not perfect, but it is as good an explanation as we have at the moment, but I'm afraid if that's the best we can come up with, I think I'll opt with all the current species we have now existing as they are unchanged from the beginning. ...
[edit on 31-3-2007 by speaker]

If that is what you think then please show me a million year old fossil of any species we have today... If you actually think the species that inhabit this planet today have remained unchanged since the beginning of life here then its not even worth argueing with you because you ocbiously dont know anything about our world or care to know. Peace be with you and your ignorance..

All I'm doing is what defence lawyers do to win their case. I'm merely showing that there is doubt in the so called evidence for evolution, as the processes you speak of can occur in an alternate fashion to the one you present.

Originally posted by kokoro
My point above is proven here. Evolution has made no claims as to how life came to be here. All the thoery suggests is how species have changed into the forms we now see present on the earth after life came to be here. If you dont even know the basic elements and mechanisms of evolution then you cannot make any arguements againt it.

Maybe so, but in order for life to come to be here to kick off the evolutionary process, it must have comefrom somewhere. Where? Evolution attempts to explain how 1 become 2, 2 become 4 and 4 became 8 and so on. Therefore it must also explain how 0 became 1.

Originally posted by DarkSide
a) evolution has nothing to do with how life appeared. evolution, as the name says, refers to how life adapts to environmental changes through natural selection.

b) your question "how did something come from nothing?" is better when applied to the big bang...because life forms didn't just appear from nothing, they are made of the same kind of atoms as non-living matter, the water in your cells is the same water that runs from your tap.

Living or non-living matter is still something isn't it?. To say it has nothing to do with it is a cop out. It's like me trying to explain how dragons are able to generate fire out of their mouths!

Originally posted by kokoro
If that is what you think then please show me a million year old fossil of any species we have today... If you actually think the species that inhabit this planet today have remained unchanged since the beginning of life here then its not even worth argueing with you because you ocbiously dont know anything about our world or care to know. Peace be with you and your ignorance..

As I mentioned in my last post, I don't think that at all. I don't have any explanation. However if this and evolution are the only two options on the table, I choose this.

As I mentioned earlier to madnessinmysoul, the fossil record is not proof of evolution, it is LACK of proof.

I noticed that you have avoided the two alternative's I presented, that evolution depends upon. Why is that? Which ridiculously unlikely scenario is the one you adhere to? Or do you have another?

[edit on 31-3-2007 by speaker]

Originally posted by d60944
In general humans don't live in jungles, and when they do, arguably they are less successful than chimps there anyway.

The point is that only apes should not have "survived" (but which you really mean "evolved" - because no modern apes are some of relict group that has stayed unevolved for millennia - all species are just as "modern", evolved and developed as each other). Early hominids left the jungles. Vast areas of new grassland emerged in the past due to climatic reasons. Those primates able to walk and hunt in these grasslands did so. They evolved to fill the new niches. Some evolved to fill jungles (eg chimps) other evolved to hunt on grassland (eg hominids).

No, I mean survived. I'm saying that both Apes and Humans came to be at the same time. Only the fittest (or most adept) should survive. Humans should have perished. The point I'm making here is that supposedly both Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor in the same location. If evolution is all about making improvements on existing species to better suit their environment, why were both versions successful? In fact, why did both versions appear in the first place? By rights only the more efficient version (Apes) should have come to be.

Living or non-living matter is still something isn't it?. To say it has nothing to do with it is a cop out. It's like me trying to explain how dragons are able to generate fire out of their mouths!

So? Your question has nothing to do with evolution, no matter was created when life appeared.

The point I'm making here is that supposedly both Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor in the same location. If evolution is all about making improvements on existing species to better suit their environment, why were both versions successful?

Humans suit an open, flat envirronment much better than apes because they are bipedaln while apes suit treelife and are able to climb much better than humans.

By rights only the more efficient version (Apes) should have come to be.

How are apes more succesful? There are 6 billion homo sapiens on this planet, and most apes are endangered species now. Homo sapiens is also on the verge of colonizing space, making it the first known living species to exit it's homeplanet.




[edit on 1-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by speaker
If evolution is all about making improvements on existing species to better suit their environment, why were both versions successful?

Ah, but that is not what evolution is all about. Evolution is all about random changes happening which may or may not improve the individual's chances at passing on its genetics tro future generations. That is all. Evolution is random, not purposive. Things don't evolve to fill their niches. They evolve randomly and if they find a niche that fits the random changes then they do well. An ape that finds itself better able to walk on its back legs alone will probbaly not normally find this makes it stronger and/or more attractive as a mate at all. However, given a tough season, such an ape might be able to wander into a few yards of open grassland beside the forest and grab itself an injured animal in a way that its brother, who is not so good on backlegs, might be able to do. Whether or not thsi leads to election of those genes is giong to be random though. It will usually not do so. That ape might be really ugly, or gay, for example... :-)

Cheers.

darkside:
The point of the dragon breathing fire example is that evolution is attempting to explain how we got from stage 2 to stage 3, without any attempt to explain stage 1. Rather it makes a huge assumption on the state of affairs in stage 2 (Dragon's exist) and treats it as gospel.

d60944:
So, random changes implies that evolution relies on the second ridiculously unlike course of events I mentioned earlier happening countless times over and over. How many unsuccessful cycles of random mutations have to occur before a successful one occurs? 100?, 1,000?, 1,000,000?, 1,000,000,000? How many successful cycles are required for the evolution theory to come to fruition? 1,000,000?, 1,000,000,000?, 1,000,000,000,000? These must be the longest odds ever overcome.