The Implications of Evolution

reply to post by Has2b

I see you avoided the questions except to make a "nit pick" point about OP's reference to the timing or implications of the supposed Big Bang?

If you want answers to the OP's questions, persuade the OP to answer mine and prove good faith. I'm not the one who's wriggling here.

reply to post by Astyanax


Do you question everyones level of education? I'm sure you do not and I'd like to know why you call mine into question. Is it odd to find someone with knowledge of physics and amateur astronomy on ATS? Hardly...

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I'm sure you do not and I'd like to know why you call mine into question.

I have already explained myself clearly.

I patiently await your answers to my questions.

[edit on 12/11/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


If you have no background in physics then there's absolutely no need for me to explain myself because I've already "dumbed" it down so as not to detract from the thread for those that don't have knowledge in a particular subject. If you DO have a background, you already understand my questions. Why would I need to elaborate further? To prove my level of educational attainment to a troll?

If you don't question everybody then why ME? Because you think I'm a creationist? I guess respectable scientists don't question theories such as evolution and the big bang. I guess respectable scientists already know everything and don't need to learn anything past their respective fields. I guess I should just run with my limited knowledge of evolution yet take it as fact. Give me knowledge to help me understand or simply stay out of the thread. There's no need for trolling.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
If you have no background in physics then there's absolutely no need for me to explain myself because I've already "dumbed" it down so as not to detract from the thread for those that don't have knowledge in a particular subject.

Actually, the first set of questions suggests you are not a very knowledgeable physicist. A physicist would know better than to ask such questions; she would regard them as rather silly. If you disagree with this statement, please explain why you do.

If you DO have a background, you already understand my questions. Why would I need to elaborate further? To prove my level of educational attainment to a troll?

No, to prove that you are not an agenda-promoting creationist.

There's no need for trolling.

This is not trolling. I am attempting to engage you in discussion. I am simply asking you how you arrived at your questions. It's a perfectly legitimate inquiry. Why are you so reluctant to answer it? Your intransigence in the matter is derailing the thread.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Any trouble with the description I gave? I admit it took a few readings of the concept to really click, because the scope of it is rather staggering.

For the record, I don't much care if you're creation-trolling or not. I happily educate them just the same as I do the merely curious

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I understand that what you're saying is that it's all simply microevolution and with that statement then there is no need for the "micro" classification. I suppose that's true in a certain respect, I just have difficulty grasping concepts that have no subjective* evidence.

Perhaps I used the wrong example(birds to reptiles) but I guess basically what I'm saying is - how can we defintively say that these creatures evolved from one to the other if we really don't know? What is the methodology that biologists use to distinguish ancestry of evolution? If one common ancestor exists then biologically speaking I don't think that DNA comparisons would do any bit of good. There are different genetic combinations and mutations but at random. How then does one discern which came first and from which pre-existing species? Basic radiological dating processes and such? Do they simply date the creatures estimated time line and then link it to it's evolutionary ancestor by date of existence?

Do fossil records show definitive transitional species? And would we even know it was a "transitional species" if we saw one?

edit: subjective in the respect that I personally have never verified the validity of evolutionary claims.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

I understand that what you're saying is that it's all simply microevolution and with that statement then there is no need for the "micro" classification. I suppose that's true in a certain respect, I just have difficulty grasping concepts that have no subjective* evidence.

Truthfully, you'd probably be better off hitting a library for this stuff, 'cause, y'know, ATS has a character limit

Perhaps I used the wrong example(birds to reptiles) but I guess basically what I'm saying is - how can we defintively say that these creatures evolved from one to the other if we really don't know?

You example of dogs was a much worse example, truthfully. The Canis genus is a case study in why the concept of "species" is basically useless. Every member of the canis genus is crossfertile. Dogs (of all four major branches of the dog family), coyotes, all three wolf species, and all three jackal species can get it on with each other and crank out perfectly fertile offspring.

What is the methodology that biologists use to distinguish ancestry of evolution? If one common ancestor exists then biologically speaking I don't think that DNA comparisons would do any bit of good. There are different genetic combinations and mutations but at random.

There are several methods. However, it's important to note two things.
1) the rate of mutation is not random. While mutation can be caused by damage done to the DNA of an organism through radiation or certain viral infections, most organisms have a more or less steady rate of mutation. While there's a margin of error, it is traceable.

2) The vast majority of mutations occur in the "junk" DNA... this makes sense because most DNA is junk. If I have a mutation in my DNA like this, it doesn't affect me in any way. But I have it, and it will be passed on to my descendants, and their ancestry can be traced back to me because of it.

How then does one discern which came first and from which pre-existing species? Basic radiological dating processes and such? Do they simply date the creatures estimated time line and then link it to it's evolutionary ancestor by date of existence?

This is where that library would be handy It's hard for me to remember, much less explain without materials in front of me.

So I'll take a cheap out and refer you to wikipedia.

Basically by comparing species' genetics, and knowing the rate of mutation for that species, a decent guesstimate can be made for when that species happened to branch off of its ancestral population. Of course we're not really able to pinpoint which "pre-existing species" that was, - the best we can do is pinpoint its closest relative among living or recently extinct organisms.

So we can't say "humans canme from chimps" any more than we can say "chimps came from humans" - what we can say is that chimps and humans definitely share a common ancestor. And knowing the rate of mutation for humans and chimps (or even just humans, really) we can make a pretty secure statement that this split happened somewhere around six million years ago - and we can also tell through the same methods that chimpanzees and bonobos diverged from their common ancestor around two million years ago.

Do fossil records show definitive transitional species? And would we even know it was a "transitional species" if we saw one?

Every organism is "transitional." This is the really short version of what I was saying before. At no point does a species "stop" or "start".

However, there are examples of fossils that show a pretty good walkthrough of this process - whales are a fine example, as are horses and humans (though primate fossils are always plagued with publicity stunts). Canines and hyenas also have some fine material in their fossil record.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Thank you very much. I appreciate the effort you put forth in trying to educate those such as myself.

I definitely understand the theory of evolution to a better degree than before this thread. It is however, a long process of understanding. There are still many things that don't quite resonate with me but I'm sure with due patience I'll learn. Thank you again.

reply to post by Oscitate


But I thought self preservation was the most basic of instincts when dealing with evolution. But what he is saying is that one will sacrifice himself to save the others. That could have religious implications.



Oh and S&F OP...Very good thread.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Conclusion]

reply to post by Conclusion


I guess it could go either way really.

Scenario A) Gazelle shows off it's superior strength and speed in an attempt to get lion to chase it, in effect, saving the weaker much slower gazelles. An example of altruism

Scenario B) Gazelle shows off it's superior strength and speed in an attempt to persuade lion to NOT chase it, in effect, saving itself. An example of self-preservation

I really cant believe how you could be attacked for asking honest questions that you need help with, i am by no means a highly educated person and will not claim to be, however, i do have common sense and it seems to me that the people who attack you for having an agenda may have one of their own, and so are a lil paranoid when faced with these questions, its funny to me how creationists have a bad reputation when it comes to being open minded and willing to learn or except anothers views, when in reality its the evolutionist who immediately start the accusations and insults to whom doesnt believe in what they believe in.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Yes it could go either way. Hmmmm. What if we put 50 people in an arena and then released the lions. What would you do? Run? Fight? Both? Or sacrifice your self to give the others time? It would be hard to be philosophical at that time I grant you. Instinct would tell you to run. Will something else compel you to help anyone?

the way i interpret evolution is "the path of least resistance". changes come and go, but what works is what sticks.

time doesnt necessarily equate to further development. we are a product of our environment. not because we are forced to, but because we see profit in less effort. a river bends and turns for obvious reasons, if it had optimal conditions it would run straight.

it is possible to defy nature and ride the storm so to speak, but few forms tread such a path and even outright fail for such an attempt.

sharks for example dont find themselves in a position that requires them to change, they have very few hazards/obstacles. however they do need to maintain the status quo, for if they deviate from there current position the results could be costly.

now island birds have a larger variation because they dont have to change nor do they have to maintain. experimentation is open to them because they are privileged with a safe environment. they will continue to seek stability till its achieved.

can life choose to mutate? or the possibility that when a mutation occurs does life have the choice to adopt or abandon?

i stand on the the side of choice, but i chose to. while not having the the full data to make that choice. case in point


[edit on 20/11/09 by Glyph_D]

reply to post by Conclusion


Well, now you're beginning to compare a thinking human to an instinctual gazelle. However, I think at first all the humans would run. The only time an altruistic behaviour may be deemed necessary is if one of the others is caught. If we can all get away with no sacrifices, it's much better than sacrificing one of us.


Glyph_D
Great post. I do think evolution would be the path of least resistance. With 99.9% of all species that have existed on earth now being extinct, what works is definitely not what stays in all cases. If that was the case, I think a lot of species would still be around.

I know there are instances of natural disasters and such like with the dinosaurs that have caused extinction. Also the introduction of bacteria and disease to a foreign land in which the animals have yet to build immunities. However, I also think there have been adaptive traits that led to an animals extinction as well. Of course, I don't have any evidence right now to support that ideal but I stand by it regardless until someone says otherwise.

On another note, I was wondering what evolutionary evidence supports biodiversity? For instance, polar bears can be found in the arctic, but not the antarctic. For penguins, it's the opposite. Does evolution explain the diversity or does it simply point to a common ancestor that was once separated in that geographical region and then evolved?

reply to post by Conclusion


If I give my life so that a member of my family will live, then a majority of "my" genes will be passed on, since that person shares a majority of genes with me.

As human societies have grown, there's been a cultural move to regard strangers as a sort of "family" - it's basically the only way we can live in such large groups. Even so, if faced with a choice between saving the life of an immediate family member, and your very close but unrelated friend, which would you go with?

Most answer "family."

Altruism isn't really altruistic. Most people who help out someone else are seeking personal gain - whether through direct return of favors, the benefit of their own family, or, more abstract, a concept of karma or happy afterlife or such.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
On another note, I was wondering what evolutionary evidence supports biodiversity? For instance, polar bears can be found in the arctic, but not the antarctic. For penguins, it's the opposite. Does evolution explain the diversity or does it simply point to a common ancestor that was once separated in that geographical region and then evolved?

Plate tectonics actually addresses this question. Anarctica became an isolated continent when South America finally separated from it 23 million years ago. The earliest "bears" developed three million years later, in Europe. "True bears" such as polar bears, are a pretty new kind of creature, thought to have arrived on the scene as recently as five million years ago. Bears made it to South America a few hundred thousand years ago, and never swam the strait between South America and the Antarctic.

Penguins are pretty recent, too. However, they are far more mobile than bears, since they don't need land. It's conceivable that, given enough time, penguins would make it to the northern hemisphere. They already have Galapagos populations, after all. However, being a polar species, they would need quite a bit of time to adapt to the tropics, and what arrives in the northern hemisphere might not be very penguin-like after all.

Interestingly though, both ecological niches are filled already. Or rather, were - there was a northern "penguin" - the great auk was nearly identical to a penguin in habits and appearance, despite being unrelated. By a similar token, the role of the polar bear is filled in the antarctic by the leopard seal.

Anarctica became an isolated continent when South America finally separated from it 23 million years ago. The earliest "bears" developed three million years later, in Europe. "True bears" such as polar bears, are a pretty new kind of creature, thought to have arrived on the scene as recently as five million years ago. Bears made it to South America a few hundred thousand years ago, and never swam the strait between South America and the Antarctic.

I am not sure I understand. If Antarctica was isolated 23 million years ago and the earliest bears showed up 3 million years later...how the hell did the bears get on antarctica?

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


There are no bears in Antarctica. I think you may have misread me

I'll put it simply...if antarctica separated 23 million years ago, with no bears on it, where did the polar bears come from?