Darwin’s Theory of Evolution brought about a revolution in the theory of development of species. There are people who take this theory so seriously, as to think anyone who don’t believe it to be irrational and stupid.
There are facets to the theory, one being the rule of the jungle i.e. survival of the fittest and the other being the assumption that with gradual development species develop traits that are important for their survival…(like the giraffes developing long necks to reach tall trees!)
What do you think about the theory of evolution?
I think the theory of Natural Selection is a farce. The ideas that the World and the species on the planet are created through chance are absurd.
Consider the example of polar bears; they have got physique and nature tailor made for the cold Arctic conditions. Supposing that the theory of evolution is true then there would be hundreds of kinds of polar bears that were once present in the region (from whom only the present species survived). Since the region is so cold and the conditions are ideal to preserve the remains of any such species, why is it so that none have been found up till now?
You even say that Polar Bears are perfectable shaped for a life in the Antartic, so I think that's evidence that something is at work, and I myself believe that something to be Darwinian evolution, if you hav a better idea then please tell me.
There has so much evidence to suggest at Darwin's Theory is right I don't understand how you can sit there and make accusions. I understand that everyone is valid to their own opinion hoowever i think yu are being ignorant of the scientific world. Only recently a hobbit was found that breed of human died out though natural selection, I can reel of evidence all day but first i want to see your response to how Polar Bears are so we adapted to their condition, and please don't give me a stupid reason like Lamark's Theory because that just doesn't make sense.
Yeah, I’d be pleased to explain my point, but as you said earlier, we are entitled to hold our opinions.
I think that scientists have used this vague theory of chance to hide from the fact that there is a Conscious Creator as a choice maker. Instead, they attribute it to a non conscious or blind natural selection on the basis of the specie’s greater potential for survival. But then again, the potential to survive depends on the conditions…a species that would survive in case of a drought would not survive a flood. Had this been the method of nature’s selection, with no Divine manipulator to control, then I don’t think many species would have survived at all!
The polar bear I mentioned was an example to clarify that there IS a factor that had designed the polar bear specifically for the arctic conditions. I won’t go into the attributes of the bear since you would be familiar already (it would be a pleasure to explain if you want me to).
My basic point however, is that if it took the polar bears millions of years to with the exceptional features it has (that differ it from other bears) which make it possible for it to survive in the arctic. The question arises as to how many thousands of generations of polar bears would have perished in vain before they could have evolved the change of anatomy?
Again if they survived, as they must have survived for millions of years, even without the special features which make them perfectly adapted to the conditions, then, was there a need for the adaptation at all??? Consider for a moment that bears form other regions be left to survive in the arctic conditions, do you think they would survive?
In addition, how can the inhospitable conditions of the arctic change the cellular structure of a species…if chance plays its role blindly and haphazardly in every direction? Such selection would be painstakingly long changing the characteristics blindly (changing color of the bear form white to black in one generation then to blue or red, or purple for that matter ?)
Then there would have been tiny bears, and those with taller forequarters, some with dim vision or with any number of variations! Then why is there only one option left…surely some other might have survived as well?
My final question would be, where have polar bears condemned by NATURAL SELECTION have disappeared? Surely the conditions in the arctic are most favorable for preservation of the extinct specie’s remains. One should remember that some animals which existed hundreds of thousands of years ago have been found buried in the arctic deep, so completely unchanged that the flesh was edible! (Such as the mammoth elephant discovered is Siberia a few years back)
There is also the DNA, RNA, somatic and reproductive cells of all living organisms that are totally independent of the outer environment and their influences upon them!
I conclude that if GOD is removed form this intricate scheme of things then there would be a need to replace him with another creator…not some dead phenomenon. What I am sure of is that LIFE did not create itself. And death can not be the creator of life!
Will love to hear your comments.
Regards,
Pundit10
We may neither praise nor blame Charles Darwin exclusively for the concepts of evolution.
Aristotle constructed a scale of perfection that extended from inanimate matter to humans with evolutionary levels in between, and was called the “Scale of Nature” and later evolved into the “Ladder of Nature”.
I regretfully have to say that by reading your posts I am under the impression that your knowledge of evolution as a science is quite very limited.
Neither the global climate nor the specific traits would make any sudden dramatic changes as you imply.
Both of the polar bear and its habitat have so become in parallel and not one exceeding the other and waiting for the other to catch up.
As the climate grew gradually cooler at some territory, those inhabitants had to change to survive or they simply died. Alternatively, some animals migrate and must adapt to the new climate or die.
The simple and obvious result is that whatever survived must have adapted and that is why it did not die too soon.
Your example at which you wonder would be feeble when compared with insect eating plants.
Creationists would demand an explanation while asking:
”How did those plants know that they could eat insects, and how long does it take to develop such traits that enable them from becoming predators?”
The answer is too obvious for any creationist’s taste of course.
There must have been a time in the past in which the population of insects exploded and due to competition for resources many had died out and many had simply fallen on and into plants’ parts.
The decomposition (autolysis and fermentation) of the insect-protein must have given a perfect alternative to plants that had to catabolise such molecules before. Gradually, those plants began to acquire some of the features present in the dead insects that some of their genetic code found their way to plant cells.
Naturally, not all mutations would lead to a better being but some might be accidentally and exceptionally superior by mere chance and definitely would cause a boom in the degree of survival.
Natural selection is yet another method with which better and worse traits could be passed over and only the fittest would survive dropping the worse behind and keeping only the better.
It is a very complicated biochemical reaction in which food and climate play the major not the minor role.
Yet it is very gradually that anything would ever happen to be striking enough for a creationists taste.
Creationists would love to hear an alternative to magical words from God “let there be light”.
They demand an immediate dramatic cause where there is none.
Then they miss the “Time-Buss” by fixing one parameter for eternity while changing another, but nature would never abide by the thoughts of fools.
We are talking about a planet the age of which is in billions [BILLIONS] of years.
Please do not pretend to know how it feels to live for ten thousand years.
I said nothing about a million years and certainly not a billion years, because it is beyond our minds to fathom the consequences of such a long, long time.
The hypothesis of serial evolution is presented in the Bible as the idea that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Such a simplistic concept is certainly unfounded because a chemical reaction does not need to begin with a single molecule followed by all others. In reality, reactions go in parallel and so did the rise of species.
Food chains and predatory preying must be a sequential evolutionary reaction in which the prey predates the predator. I may not think of any being that can survive without its food being there first and for a very long time.
The alternative to the scientifically sound theory of evolution would be a mythological Greek God that chooses a human female and have a child from her like Hercules. That God (Zeus), would occasionally spend some time in his paradisiacal garden, creating plants and animals (as toys), for his little Hercules, to play with.
He was Ra’, then he was Osier and Isis, then the ancient Egyptian mythology was passed on to the Greeks and over to the Romans. Finally, it crystallised into three divine religions and tens of non-divine disciplines.
Yes, they served their time to give answers, but do we need mythology today!
The popular belief of life starting out in a small pond is probably wrong. Life more than likely started from the depths of the ocean at or near volcanic vents. Primitive life doesn't even need oxygen. When considering the probabilities of life emerging from random processes the odd are staggering. But if you consider the amount of material that is involve (literally thousands of tons) the odds improve dramatically. If you have a population of an astronomical number of molecules that can combine into DNA and each reaction with material builds on the path to DNA life is inevitable.
Let's assume that there are 10000 tons of raw materials to produce life in the earth's oceans billions of years ago. Lets round off the molar mass of the materials needed for life to 20 grams. Ten thousand tons is 9,071,840,000 grams. At 20 grams of molar mass that is 453,590,200 moles. Each mole contains 6.02 10^23 atoms. This amounts to 2.73 x 10^32 atoms that can combine into amino acids for life. If we allow 2.5 billion years for the most primitive life to appear then allowing for just one reaction per second for each atom we have 9.5 x 10^16 reactions per atom. Total for all material over 3 billion years is a population of 2.6 x 10^49 reactions. Given that the processes of building life are a Markovian and successful combinations continue to combine to form more complex molecules the odds of life improve.
In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey of the University of Chicago conducted an experiment where the elements of the earth’s primitive atmosphere were reproduced http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiol ogy/miller.html
10-15% of the carbon had formed into organic compounds with 2% forming amino acids. Miller and Urey proved that organic compounds can be formed from raw materials very quickly. So the 2.6 x 10^49 reactions over 2.5 billion years is conservative at best. But at 2% of the reactions forming into amino acids you get 5.2 x 10^47 amino acid formations. But as I said before the process is Markovian and so the number of reaction does not diminish with each amino acid formation. If we take the process of proteins to a millionth of percent of the amino acid population we get 5.2 x 10^41 proteins and if only a billionth of the protein population forms into DNA we get 5.2 x 10^32 DNA molecules. Given the astronomical numbers involved in the amount of atoms and reactions to process life when there are the right elements in the environment life is inevitable!
The diversity of life can also be explained by the enormity of the numbers of primitive life that form. If only a trillionth of the DNA molecules form into life forms that can survive there are 5.2 x 10^20 living cells that can reproduce. If we allow for the population of primitive life to double every year over a period of another 3 billion years which from the birth of the earth 5 billion or so years ago is about 500 million years ago there would be 3.12^30 living cells on earth. If only a trillionth of the population of those cells randomly mutate into more complex life forms that would be 3.12 x 10^18 different forms of life! Combining natural selection and random mutation and again taking only a trillionth of the population of single cell animals that form into the complex forms of life we see today there are 3,120,000 species! These more complex forms of life need only have the chromosomes to promote specific anatomical attributes through natural selection to produce a mind.
With that said a mind is inevitable, given that there are trillions upon trillions of stars and billions of those can support life.
I think the theory of Natural Selection is a farce. The ideas that the World and the species on the planet are created through chance are absurd.
Consider the example of polar bears; they have got physique and nature tailor made for the cold Arctic conditions. Supposing that the theory of evolution is true then there would be hundreds of kinds of polar bears that were once present in the region (from whom only the present species survived). Since the region is so cold and the conditions are ideal to preserve the remains of any such species, why is it so that none have been found up till now?
Interesting, your choice of polar bears.
You suggest that hundreds of "kinds" should have existed, and by "kinds" I'm assuming you mean species, but interestingly there are but 8 species of bears today. The most common being the NA Black and Brown bears. Now the range of these two species extends northward to and even overlaps that of the polar bear, but due to migration timing the bears don't share the same envrionment at the same time. Good thing for the smaller Brown/Black bears as the Polar bear is the largest land carnivore on the planet. As it is, the Polar bears hunt seals almost exclusively and do so by following the areas where the break up of coastal ice flows concentrates their prey. This is Darwinism at its best, remember Darwin discovered the basis for evolution on the islands of the Galapagos, and what he discovered were unique species of animals, that were obviously derivitives of continental species but UNIQUELY adapted to the limited food sources on the islands. Each exploited a different food source and none preyed on the limited populations of the other animals on the island.
While Darwin pondered the idea of gradual change, it has become clear that change tends to be more explosive in nature, think of it as punctuated equilibrium. A species which is successful will essentially stay the same, it takes an outside influence to cause a change. New species tend to be created when a subgroup of a species becomes isolated and then are subjected to different envioronmental factors than the main group.
The second major factor is based on genetic variation and this often has to do with a normally negative trait having positive value due to a change in environment.
For example, the NA brown bear is normally brown, but due to recessive traits brown bears can be almost black to almost white. Aha, now take a group of brown bears that travel north during the summer and due to getting trapped on an ice flow they are prevented from traveling south, Now the normally negative recessive trait of light colored hair can become very positive, so much so that potentially only the lightest colored bears survive. The next generation will of course have many more double recessive members, and quite probably a few snow white offspring.
As it turns out, the expression, "survival of the fittest" is more aptly called "non-survival of all but the fittest", when it comes to speciation. In most cases one can surmise that new species arise when the majority of the original sub-group dies off, leaving only a small number of members left and in most cases these members will share one or more normally negative traits that now get exploited.
At this point, the new species has a foot hold in the new environment, but now the Darwinian selection process moves into overdrive as each generation selects harshly those traits that help to survive in the new enviroment. This rapid change is why we find very few "transitional" species. The process is relatively rapid and tends to happen in a relatively small area.
Consider humans.
Are we evolving?
The answer is for all practical purposes, no.
Why?
Because there is nothing that is happening to the human species that is affecting the ratio of genes in the gene pool and that by the strictest definition is evolution.
Consider this example.
You and your wife have two kids, and amazingly both are born with fully funtional wings. They become famous and wealthy but also outcasts and so your kids indulge in incest. They have a dozen kids, all of which have wings. These kids, also become famous and wealthy but marry outside of the family and each has large families and 1/2 of their offsping have wings.
Now Wings are cool, but how long before wings are expressed as a normal part of the gene pool?
Answer, without an outside influence, NEVER.
Why? well there are 6 billion sets of genes that don't have wings, and no matter how prolific your kids and their kids are, they will never reproduce enough to change the basic gene pool (which is also reproducing).
Now, the polar ice caps melt suddenly (think Day after Tomorrow sillyness) and all of a sudden having wings is not only cool but essential for survival, in which case it will take but a generation for the normal human gene pool to include wings.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution brought about a revolution in the theory of development of species. There are people who take this theory so seriously, as to think anyone who don’t believe it to be irrational and stupid.
There are facets to the theory, one being the rule of the jungle i.e. survival of the fittest and the other being the assumption that with gradual development species develop traits that are important for their survival…(like the giraffes developing long necks to reach tall trees!)
What do you think about the theory of evolution?
Evolution is not science. Evolution is a religion. The people who believe it, believe it on faith, based on their beliefs of the world around them. Natural selection, on the other hand is real. It happens, we have observed it happening. Natural selection is not proof of evolution. Let's take a case of wingless beetles on a windy island. By a chance mutation a beetle loses its ability to fly. If it cannot fly, then its chances of survival are greater because it won't get blown out to sea and drown. All the other beetles that can fly has this happen to them. The wingless beetle breeds with other beetles and passes this defect on to its offspring. Pretty soon, only wingless beetles are left on the windy island. However, this is not proof of evolution. Why? Because information was lost. In order for less complex organisms to evolve into more complex organisms, information has to be gained. In this case, as with all mutations, information is lost.
The same thing can happen with artificial selection. Dorset breed of sheep was introduced in America in the 1800's. It is very good breed of sheep and very popular. When it was first introduced it had horns. Horns are not especially ideal for farmers. They get in the way, get tangled in fences, sometimes even grow back into the heads of the sheep. Farmers used to "depole" them by pulling their horn buds out at birth to prevent them from growing horns. In the 1940's a mutation caused a sheep to be born that had no horn buds. This sheep was then taken and bred with other sheep to produce hornless sheep. Pretty soon, not over millions of years, almost all honrned sheep were bred out. But what happened? Information was lost. The ability to grow horns was lost. Not evolution.
We may neither praise nor blame Charles Darwin exclusively for the concepts of evolution.
Aristotle constructed a scale of perfection that extended from inanimate matter to humans with evolutionary levels in between, and was called the “Scale of Nature” and later evolved into the “Ladder of Nature”.
I regretfully have to say that by reading your posts I am under the impression that your knowledge of evolution as a science is quite very limited.
Neither the global climate nor the specific traits would make any sudden dramatic changes as you imply.
Both of the polar bear and its habitat have so become in parallel and not one exceeding the other and waiting for the other to catch up.
As the climate grew gradually cooler at some territory, those inhabitants had to change to survive or they simply died. Alternatively, some animals migrate and must adapt to the new climate or die.
The simple and obvious result is that whatever survived must have adapted and that is why it did not die too soon.
Your example at which you wonder would be feeble when compared with insect eating plants.
Creationists would demand an explanation while asking:
”How did those plants know that they could eat insects, and how long does it take to develop such traits that enable them from becoming predators?”
The answer is too obvious for any creationist’s taste of course.
There must have been a time in the past in which the population of insects exploded and due to competition for resources many had died out and many had simply fallen on and into plants’ parts.
The decomposition (autolysis and fermentation) of the insect-protein must have given a perfect alternative to plants that had to catabolise such molecules before. Gradually, those plants began to acquire some of the features present in the dead insects that some of their genetic code found their way to plant cells.
Naturally, not all mutations would lead to a better being but some might be accidentally and exceptionally superior by mere chance and definitely would cause a boom in the degree of survival.
Natural selection is yet another method with which better and worse traits could be passed over and only the fittest would survive dropping the worse behind and keeping only the better.
It is a very complicated biochemical reaction in which food and climate play the major not the minor role.
Yet it is very gradually that anything would ever happen to be striking enough for a creationists taste.
Creationists would love to hear an alternative to magical words from God “let there be light”.
They demand an immediate dramatic cause where there is none.
Then they miss the “Time-Buss” by fixing one parameter for eternity while changing another, but nature would never abide by the thoughts of fools.
We are talking about a planet the age of which is in billions [BILLIONS] of years.
Please do not pretend to know how it feels to live for ten thousand years.
I said nothing about a million years and certainly not a billion years, because it is beyond our minds to fathom the consequences of such a long, long time.
The hypothesis of serial evolution is presented in the Bible as the idea that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Such a simplistic concept is certainly unfounded because a chemical reaction does not need to begin with a single molecule followed by all others. In reality, reactions go in parallel and so did the rise of species.
Food chains and predatory preying must be a sequential evolutionary reaction in which the prey predates the predator. I may not think of any being that can survive without its food being there first and for a very long time.
The alternative to the scientifically sound theory of evolution would be a mythological Greek God that chooses a human female and have a child from her like Hercules. That God (Zeus), would occasionally spend some time in his paradisiacal garden, creating plants and animals (as toys), for his little Hercules, to play with.
He was Ra’, then he was Osier and Isis, then the ancient Egyptian mythology was passed on to the Greeks and over to the Romans. Finally, it crystallised into three divine religions and tens of non-divine disciplines.
Yes, they served their time to give answers, but do we need mythology today!
Hemetis.
Very good, HEMETIS.
The idea that animals and plants came into being by verbal command of an all-knowing creator has been proven false.
At the same time, interestingly, no evidence at all has been presented by creationists to prove their claims.
It's like, with faith, who needs truth.
But some 30% of evolutionists are believers in a god. Apparently, they don't take "sacred" text as literally as some others do.
The Bible has two accounts for creation. The trouble is, they contradict. You can't even take the bible literally if you wanted because of all it errors and contradictions. You're forced to pick one over the other.
Anyway, evolution has a mountain of fossil evidence to support it. Creation accounts have nothing and, as I've noted, don't even harmonize with each other.
But there's more you should know.
It's called prebiotics.
RNA (/amino acids) has been successfully produced from inorganic matter thousands of times starting in 1950.
It's this stuff that, over time, evolved into DNA.
I conclude that if GOD is removed form this intricate scheme of things then there would be a need to replace him with another creator…not some dead phenomenon. What I am sure of is that LIFE did not create itself. And death can not be the creator of life!
Actually, a theory on the first living cell states that the inanimate objects that compose a cell (ventroile, nucleolus, nucleus, cyroplasm, cellular membrane, etc) while randomly floating around inside a body of water all happined to conect with each other (probobly has no play in this as it is stated that everything must happen at least once in this universe, if you believe that it is permanent) and created the first single cellular organism. then they multiplied by splitting and eventually evolved into larger organisms.
God doesn't need to play any part in life today as everying can be accounted for by nature. Cells reproduce on their own, they don't need a god to contribute.
Dead phenomenon? our body corrects more than 5000 mutations everyday! these mutations can be caused by almost anything, sometimes harmful, such as UV or alpha radiation. Sometimes not. These mutations cause evolution. It has been proven that evolution does exist, it has not yet been proven that that is where we came from, although it is thought my quite a number of scientists.
A question that has recently come to my mind considering the beginning of life on Earth is: are the conditions that originally produced the first life forms still around? They say that a condition like what occurs near volcanic events at the bottom of the ocean produced life. If these same conditions are still around coudn't it be possible that life can still begin there? Just a thought.
possibly, very possible actually, but I think it would probobly be more likely for a single cell organism to start new life than for the volcanic premordial ooze to create life again.
Mind you, with the envirnmental changes that have taken place since we humans have come to power, the new life form would probobly be different from most things that we know of.
First off, "natural selection" is not a farce.
It's an observable phenomenon.
natural selection is often associated with "evolution".
however, natural selection works "on" biological living thing's... it is not "within" biological living thing's...
Natural selection "works" by seperating animals into groups, the strongest/fittest group survives, or sometimes they both survive...
This process, which works by natural selection is called "speciation" which is also an observable phenomenon.
However, none of this has anything to do with mircobes becoming microbiologist over time. (RNA TO DNA, DINO TO BIRD, APE TO MAN)
Speciation works on genetic information already present. while popularized "evolution" works by completly revamping genetic information, bit by bit...
To give you a real life example of speciation, we can take a look at dog breeding...
There are thousands of "species" of dog's which are descendants of wolves.
The poodle, the dalmation, bull dog... etc...
Plus the fox, dingo, heyeena , wolf etc... which are wild dog's...
It's important to realize that
1# all are from the same dog/wolf kind
2# they are different shape, size, color, yet remain the same basic animal.
How does this "speciation" work?
By dividing and redistributing genetic information.
The first "proto dog's" where made by some of the smaller wolves, mating with smaller wolves, those second generation dogs, then mated with eachother untill you got even smaller dogs...
Notice no new genetic information is being added, but rather we are taking away or redistributing the already present genetic information...
Evolutionist have decided that if information can create change, that over long periods of time, the animal can become a new animal entirely...
This remains to be observed by actual data, other than connecting the dots in fossil records (I.E Guessing)
Homology is often used as "proof" of evolution as well, that certian features of two different animals must mean a relationship.
Most animals have eyes, ears, teeth, hearts... this could be because all living things share a common "designer"...
However, such a belief invokes an "intelligent agent"/God and is usually not tolerated by the orthodox/atheistic culture in the scientific community.
There are many animals that don't even have a "possible" ancestor to evolve from, such as the bat...
Bats have remained bats in the fossil record from the start... and will continue to do so in the future...
yet, one would expect to see a long tree of bat ancestory in the fossil record, from the first winged primate, to the protobat...
(RNA (/amino acids) has been successfully produced from inorganic matter thousands of times starting in 1950. )
This is in response to an earlier post...
This is true, we have created very small RNA chains, that cannot self replicate...
However, this is not LIFE... it is a tiny building block for life...
and even that tiny building block needed a "scientist" to make it, a creator.
This is far from creating a living organisim such as a cell...
And even if man could make a living organism, is that proof for a creator, or chemical evolution... (I think the answer is obvious)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Predictions
Community
Links and Downloads
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-rss.GIF "Validate my RSS feed")
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-atom.GIF "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed")