What is evolution?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Describe evolution and make evolution more understandable to me and others not familiar with it in total. I believe in evolution more then a creator. But I don't know much or really anything about evolution. How can various types of creatures evolve to a much better and improved creature over time. Above all how can someone really bring to the table proof that evolution is true and that they can back it up.




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 



Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations


Evolution

During the natural course of life organisms are born, most organisms have mutations in their DNA. Most of these mutations are entirely harmless, a few are damaging and some are beneficial to the organism. There is the chance that these mutations can be passed down to the next generation.

There is also Gene Flow and Genetic Drift.

The thing is that evolution, in order to fully understand it, takes quite a bit of research. This is because our understanding of evolution is expanding exponentially and has become rather complex.

Generally speaking though evolution is merely the gradual changes in the genetics of an organism through various mechanisms over the course of several generations. These gradual changes, over a great deal of time, can add up eventually leading to Speciation (the point at which one species becomes another). And speciation is what leads to diverging branches of the "tree of life" (such as dinosaurs becoming birds) as diverse populations drift farther and farther apart over millions of years.

Spend some time on wikipedia and other sites learning about Evolution and you'll be surprised by the wealth of information out there. Some of it may be hard to understand but it is far better to educate oneself than to fall into the ignorance of slapping on a "God did it" label like the Creationists.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 
definition of evolution:www.thefreedictionary.com...

To better understand evolution go here:www.tufts.edu...



hope this helped, just to let you know I too believe in evolution more than creationism!




[edit on 23-5-2010 by XxRagingxPandaxX]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
How can various types of creatures evolve to a much better and improved creature over time.

In the eyes of natural selection "better" simply means "best able to make babies". Since this planet is different in every place "better" means different things in different places. Those that are best suited to make babies pass on their traits to their babies. Add in mutations (that occur far more often than people think) and evolution is what you get.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


evolution is basically beneficial mutations being passed down through generation after generation of a species. and don't believe Lamarck, that was not a really good theory.

like from fish to amphibians, amphibians to lizards, lizards to birds, and finally birds to mammals.

ok, its basically that mutations in a parent get passed to their offspring, because they help in life. like the giraffe. those with shorter necks died out because they were unable to reach the leaves on a plant, and the food near the ground was scarce. so, the longer necked ones bred, and that gave way to a long neck.

and, if there was a mutation that was deemed good, that would be passed down. like if there was a reindeer with a bright red shining nose, and he helped santa on Christmas, and all the female reindeeresses loved that now, that would show up more in offspring.

so, thats basically it.

and lamarck had the theory of acquired characteristics, that said that if you did something with one particular part of your body, like stretched it in your life a lot, that part of your offspring would be longer. which was how he said the giraffe got a long neck.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LocoHombre
like from fish to amphibians, amphibians to lizards, lizards to birds, and finally birds to mammals.

More like
from unicellular to plants,
from unicellular to fungi
from unicellular to protists
from protists to fish
from fish to amphibians
from amphibians to lizards
from lizards to dinosaurs
from dinosaurs to birds
from lizards to mammals

Birds and mammals are sister groups. There's no straight lineage from birds to mammals.

btw.

One does not believe in evolution. One simply understands, or doesn't understand it. It's not a question of belief. Instead it's a matter of comprehension.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


yes true lol sorry... i was wondering if someone was going to yell at me lol



Romantic rebel, hope that our posts help at least a little


[edit on 23-5-2010 by LocoHombre]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 





I believe in evolution more then a creator


You sort of HAVE to believe in evolution, as it is an indisputable fact that is occurs.

The theory of evolution however, isnt about whether evolution occurs, it describes where, when, how, and the precice mechanisms by wich evolution occurs.

The therory is universaly accepted is because every dicipline in biology confirms it, independantly. Over 150 years of scientific testing and not a single observation or experiment has been made, which has falsified the theory.

[edit on 23/5/2010 by Daniem]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LocoHombre
 



ok, its basically that mutations in a parent get passed to their offspring, because they help in life. like the giraffe. those with shorter necks died out because they were unable to reach the leaves on a plant, and the food near the ground was scarce. so, the longer necked ones bred, and that gave way to a long neck.


The reason for a Giraffe's long neck is now believed to be a result of sex.
Giraffe males battle each other by using their neck as a bat. The one with the longest neck is probably also capable of delivering the strongest blow. So he gets to mate with the female.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Evolution is a theory, there is no scientific evidence today to proof evolution. no human was there to see how the universe was created, or how evolution took place.... over "million of millions of years.

the whole "scientific method" says that if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced. that means that there should be a way to proof evolution, but there is not.

There are two "Universal Laws".
1- mass cannot be created or destroyed,
2- the energy decreased when an event happens... some of the energy becomes unavailable.
the second law said basically that mass and energy ) continually proceed to lower levels of usefulness.
that means that every cause has an effect the its less than the cause.

but evolution said that is the other way, what we actually see (says evolution) is the opposite. instead of decreasing the effect, it increase and you see more elaborated creatures, and animals adapting and jumping into another kind of animals... so how come evolution face an universal law that its proof to be true??????

Maybe evolution is not what people think... remember that Darwin did all he did 150 years ago... so think in the possibility that he could made some mistakes on his theory.

there are thounsands of holes in the theory, and Scientifics are still trying like crazy to proof it, looking for "missing links" but sadly for them... every new "discovery". is used against them...

Also time was created, so if you ask what happen in time before time was created is kind of dumb... understanding time and the universe and infinity is like measuring the universe with the 1 foot ruler you have in your desk. i say this because we tried to understand things that are so complicated and minute by minute we see how complicated is life, way more complicated to be created by a random mindless process. at this point of life, science and technology is destroying the whole theory.

Neantherdals, lucy, homo sapiens, and all the others... are still questionable...

The problem with the creation theory is that people is to proud to accept the existence of God. which is understandable, because of all the crap the "church" have done in the past... but a lot of questions would be answered if you only see the bible as historical documents and no fiction. For example, if you see the genesis flood like an historical event i bet so many holes in the evolution theory would be answered.

sorry if i wrote to many things... you can go to www.icr.org for more info.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Ive been watching, You cannot answer a simple question without the God attack at the end.

Evolution is a farce.
Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula

Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.

There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.






posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


You can't know whether or not genes can be added or not unless you're some sort of super human who lives billions of years. Either way, the evidence in favor of evolution is beyond substantial.

Just out of interest, what theory do you believe in?


Also, whoever uses IRC as a source can't be serious. Their number one "proof" for creation is this:



The best explanation for the cause of the reality we experience is an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, and loving God.


I think they're confusing "proof" with "making a random, completely unverified statement that lacks any evidence whatsoever"


It's like telling someone the sun is pink, and when they ask you to prove it, you tell them "easy, the is pink because...drumroll...the sun is pink". Retarded!!

@OP: As you can see, the bible humpers won't help you look at evolution logically. If you're into fairy tales, by all means, listen to them. But if you want REAL, SCIENTIFIC information, read this It's very informative, and crushes most of the lies creationists try to spread about evolution. I dare any evolutionist to take apart that source, should make for some good comedy...especially if they try to prove their "super deity" theory at the same time


[edit on 24-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Edit add: And no you can't ask me that it would be off topic.

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution. The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."

You might ask "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human.

Darwinists tell us that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. They claim that life on Earth first began about 4 billion years ago as the simplest form of single-cellular bacteria, called prokaryotes and the prokaryotes evolved into ever more complex organisms, such as multi-cellular bacteria, then crustaceans, and then fish followed by amphibians, some of which evolved into reptiles, and some reptiles branched out and became dinosaurs and birds, while some other reptiles evolved in another direction to become mammals, which include humans.

Scientists do not know how many genes the earliest prokaryotes had but the simplest bacteria of today have about 500 genes. Humans have about 22,410 genes. Because humans have about 22,000 more genes than prokaryotes, the only way prokaryotes could have evolved into humans would be by ADDING GENES to their genome. In fact, the only way any species could have evolved to become a more complex organism is to increase its Gene Count. (The Gene Count is the number of genes in a genome.)

Darwinian Evolution claims every species evolved from a predecessor species. An organism has to increase its Gene Count if it is going to evolve into a more advanced and more complex organism. In order for Darwinian Evolution to work, there has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a gene. But there is no way to add a gene. Darwinian Evolution is fatally flawed.

If the Theory of Evolution were correct, the prokaryotes and their descendants would have had to increase their Gene Count tens of thousands of times to go from 500 genes to over 22 thousand genes in order to evolve into Homo sapiens.

The ability to add genes is a required part of the Theory of Evolution. Since increasing the Gene Count is absolutely necessary for Darwinian Evolution, how come evolution scientists NEVER talk about it? You have never read or heard any of them discuss this required part of Darwinian Evolution.

he average ape gene has 100,000 base pairs (a base pair is essentially 2 amino acid molecules). How can 100,000 base pairs suddenly materialize inside of an ape's sperm? And even if 100,000 base pairs can materialize out of thin air, how could all the base pairs be perfectly sequenced so that they form a gene that actually helps the ape evolve into a man?

There is no evidence that it ever happens

Supporters of the Theory of Evolution never talk about the Gene Count because there is no genetic mechanism for adding a gene.

Both common sense and logic tells us it is impossible to add a gene to a chromosome.
Darwinists claim they have tons of evidence mutations occur and this is genetic evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution.

There is a ton of evidence that mutations occur - but a mutation is a change to an existing gene and mutations never result in actually adding a gene.

What is the true origin of life? How did life actually begin? Darwinists have a theory but their theory makes no sense at all.

They claim life on Earth began accidentally about 4 billion years ago when a chance bolt of lightning struck a lake full of primordial soup!

For over fifty years, most evolution scientists believe that the first living organism on Earth was accidentally created when a chance bolt of lightning struck some water that contained all the building blocks of life, which they call the "primordial soup."

OK?!@?!? If we take off our logical hat and puff the magic dragon for a few hours, we can almost buy into the lightning stuff as a really remote possibility. But then what? How did the first living organism then add genes thousands of times in order to advance up the evolutionary ladder?

For example, how did the ape that we all supposedly descended from add the genes needed to make the transition to Homo sapiens?

Are the Darwin-lovers telling us that the ape was swinging from a tree in a lightning storm, got struck by a "fortuitous bolt of lightning," then fell into a primordial pond, and instead of having its testicles fried, they started to produce sperm with a miraculous new gene?

See how absurd Darwinism really is?


[edit on 24-5-2010 by Loken68]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


I suggest you read this scientific study because I'm afraid you are grossly misinterpreting how evolution works.

If that's too much reading for you, here's a summary by the NewScientist.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I can do that. which would you like to discuss?

Would you like to debate the non use of a mathematical formula, that all scientist will tell you is the key to proving any fact.

Or maybe you'd like to delve into the nonexistent fossil record?

I think evolutionists are grossly misinterpreting there fantasy .

If e-mail had came along fifty years ago evolution would be setting side by side with its hoax partner Global warming.

Edit add: I read the article u posted. THE issue with the theory of macro-evolution concerns the fact that natural selection removes DNA information, but does not add new information. Natural selection thins the gene pool, but this theory demands that information must be added. This is due to the DNA code barrier. The only way for macro-evolution to be possible is if new information could be added to the DNA. Im afraid you have no grasp of your subject.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Loken68]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Loken68]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


Which according to NewScientist has been proven to happen...so your argument that no new information can be added is just plain wrong.

As for a mathematical formula, I'm afraid you are wrong too.

LOL, stop getting your info from darwinconspiracy.com...that site is full of lies. Check our real scientific websites/books/journals instead, they're not poisoned by the bible humpers' false interpretation of evolution



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 



Loken68....

Will you please stop copy and pasting the same answer on every board about Evolution.

Now I fully understand your own ideas about the universe are "copy and pasted" from the Bible. So original thought is not your thing. But the rest of us have brains we like to use.

Weather God gave them to us or not.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


What a joke...The Hardy-Weinberg theorum. It basically proves evolution because it does not hold true in practical situations due to the requirements for it to work, including no selective mating. Flawed science!

I do not use conspiracy sites for resources. However some of my post on evolution are already prepaired.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


Prepaired and false...yet you continue to post them in every thread


I'd really be interested in how you believe things played out...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Don't just make statements and leave it at that. Show me what I've said that was false.





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join