It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm kinda confused about natural selection.....

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I have been reading into religion/science and were we came from,I looked into religion then I looked into the evolution theory for quite some time and the scientific thought took me over. I prefer using my head and my brain,rather then someone telling me whats right or wrong. I am turning 17,I have been into this creation/evolutionist stuff since I was 13,and from what I can tell I guess I'm a "atheist".I beleive that religion is causing death and war,I think that we should come together as human beings and find some common ground. We could advance so quickly if the world would just work together,form 1 government/republic.Anyways the theory of evolution has ALOT of evidence to back it up,plus it makes sense.Also correct me if im wrong but I think I read somewhere that we actually have seen microbes evolve in our life time? But there is 1 thing that bothers me,the complexity of living organisms. Now I know that natural selection plays a huge role in evolution along with mutations,but what I don't get it is how can natural selection combined with random mutations create complexity? Can anyone give me an example on how like for example....a complex cell can form through billions of years of mutations and natural selections combined? Anyone?

-----------------------------
fixed title spelling

[edit on 25/9/07 by masqua]




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
It isn't just natural selection and random mutations that drive diversity, but the mass extinctions the planet has been through before, as well as other factors.

The mistake people make when trying to understand evolution is oversimplifying it.

I can give you some very good links to explore this question.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Observed Instances of Speciation

After you've read those, I highly recommend you browse through the site, as it will probably answer most, if not all, of your questions better than I could.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by MajorMalfunction]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Yes, we have observed evolution and if you think about it, it becomes quite clear. The common Flu evolves a bit different each year and that is why we always need a different type of shot to combat it. Each new strain of influenza is a newly evolved virus that did not exist the year before.

As mentioned above, it is a bit over simplistic to think about evolution as just natural selection and mutation. There is a great deal more to it. Genetic drift, horizontal evolution, etc. and learning more is a great idea. Many creationists like to claim that there are no transitional species... a species that is changing into another one. there are numerous fossil transitional species as well as others alive today....


A different kind of transitional
Carsonella rudii, a bacterium that lives in symbiosis in the cells of a certain kind of plant-sap drinking insect,  is so reduced and so utterly dependent on its host nuclear genome that it can be regarded as a transition between a symbiont and an organelle (like mitochondria). It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle. Never let creationists tell you that there are no transitionals.
link



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Well, technically EVERYTHING is a transitional species. Nothing ever stops evolving, until and unless the species goes extinct.

If you can, get hold of the PBS miniseries Evolution.

It was really informative and puts the complexity of the entire subject into an easier to digest form.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
hmm cool I will look into it



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Recently I heard on a documentry that life evolving from nothing on earth and then reaching the stage of intelligent organisms is akin to all the ingredients in your kitchen spontaneously leaping out of the cupboards, out of their packaging, then mix themselves together and bake themselves into a cake.

The person postulating this then left the viewer with the question: "How long would that take?!"


After pondering what a mushy pea, hotdog and prawn cake might taste like, I realised I knew the answer: around 3.6 billion years, give or take, apparently.

My point is, a LOT of time has passed. No, more than that. Way more. There have been so many billions upon billions of times, when all organisms were single celled, for those who had the opportunity to cooperate to finally do so. They became more successful than their neighbours, and the rest is literally history.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by C.C.Benjamin]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Evolutionism is just like creationism, they're both theories and religion. Their followers are fanatics and think of the others as uneducated or unelightened.

If you think human evolves from apes and frogs and fish, you'd think there would be countless skeletons of each of the variations of the evolutions. That, multiply by the number of humans or sub-humans which should at least numbers in the millions, yet we see not one bone as evidence.

Evolutionists are just as fanatical as creationists, let's be clear about that.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by docklands
Evolutionism is just like creationism, they're both theories and religion. Their followers are fanatics and think of the others as uneducated or unelightened.


...creationism is a hypothesis
and evolution isn't a religion
yes, if you don't think evolution is right you're either willfully ignorant, uneducated, or you've actually come up with a better scientific theory



If you think human evolves from apes and frogs and fish, you'd think there would be countless skeletons of each of the variations of the evolutions. That, multiply by the number of humans or sub-humans which should at least numbers in the millions, yet we see not one bone as evidence.


...you're right. we don't see ONE bone, we see mountains of them.
and you really don't understand fossilization. the ending and beginning stages of a species don't often get preserved as they are the rise and decline of a species, thus the lowest populations.



Evolutionists are just as fanatical as creationists, let's be clear about that.


yes, let's be clear.
care to show examples of "evolutionists" (a silly word. don't tell me that carl sagan was a heliocentrist or a round-earthist) are fanatics?
where have we argued in the face of evidence without changing out beliefs?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
One should also mention that Humans did not evolve from apes, we evolved from common ancestors. There is a difference.

Religion is belief, based not on facts, but on faith. Science is based on trying to understand how the facts fit together. Science requires evidence. Religion does not. Science comes up with ideas that sometimes are proven false, but the end result is a better understanding, followed by more questions to research. In religion, one never questions the dogma, one simply accepts it on blind faith.

Here is another good link about evolution for those who wish to learn more. The Evolution Evidence

For those who choose to deny evolution, here is a simple test... Religion 101 Final Exam

[edit on 27/9/07 by Terapin]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join