Evolution & Creation (4/6/06)

[Medanite]

Tangled Up In Blue

Medanite

Anyway, the funny part about that website was it had questions about Christianity... Now, why in the world would people ask evolutionists something about the Christian religion? confused (Unless they were previously Christian, but if they were that into studying it why would the get out?) That seems weird to me.

You mean Talk Origins? When they touch on Christianity or any other religion it's to rebut specific anti-evolution claims made by said religion's adherents. The entire 'Biblical Creation' section of the Index to Creationist Claims is premised on refuting bible-based arguments against evolution. It's a very comprehensive index.

I don't ever want to be alone again...

As I can see. confused

...Now that I have found a love that never ends.

 

[Medanite]

Redem

Medanite

No, its the You're stupid part, so apparently, you have your mind up about EVERY Creationist before you hear them, no?

That bit's just for lulz, really wink

And I usually respond to creationists based on their merits. Those who simply copy-paste a long refuted article from a creationist website are fairly low on my radar.

I don't ever want to be alone again...

What interesting humor... o.O

...Now that I have found a love that never ends.

 

[Redem]

Medanite

What interesting humor... o.O

Yes. I thought so too. smile  

[Craigor]

My friend and I had an interesting discussion just the other day about evolution. We were talking about the evolutionary step of fish/sea creatures moving on to land. We saw a bit of a loophole in this stage, for a few reasons.

For fish to have even attempted to move on to land, there would've had to have been some advantage over living in water; something that caused them to move onto land. It wouldn't just 'happen'. So, theoretically... how might it be brought about?

Now, in order for the fish to begin surviving on land, they would've needed to be able to breathe the air... which would require lungs adapted to that particular environment. Only problem is... fish will die out of water... because they can't breathe the air. That evolutionary step could not happen unless the first fish to jump onto land were able to somehow survive, and produce offspring. Then it would require a gradual process over the next generations of offspring to bring about the full adaptation of breathing air through lungs as well as water through gills (amphibians). Evolution on such a scale would not happen right away, or over night.

So we looked at another 'potential' process: the fish developing lungs while still living in water. But there's an immediate problem there. Lungs would not be advantageous to a fish surrounded by water in any way. And if the fish hadn't gone onto land yet, there would be no reason to attempt to survive there, thus negating the need to develop a new breathing system through evolution. As well, with lungs, the fish would now be amphibious, and would need to breathe air, but since there would be nothing coded into it's biological make-up to tell it that air is outside of the water... it'd probably drown. Since lungs caused it to drown, they'd be considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage, and evolution along those particular lines wouldn't happen.

Without the move from water to land, the rest of evolution on land obviously would not happen. And since the move seems absurd and totally unnecessary... well, I think you get my point.

As an addendum I'd just like to point out that I do believe in adaptation within a species, hence new breeds of dogs, wolves being able to breed wit dogs, etc. They're all part of the Canine species. Evolving into another species altogether, however, I discredit completely. In theory, if evolution were possible, then different species could procreate with one another (cat with dog for example), and their offspring could procreate as well. But since this is not possible, it seems evident that evolution cannot happen.
Macro verses micro evolution, if you will.

God Bless =)  

[Redem]

Craigor

For fish to have even attempted to move on to land, there would've had to have been some advantage over living in water; something that caused them to move onto land. It wouldn't just 'happen'. So, theoretically... how might it be brought about?

Technically it could just happen, it's just not likely without some selective pressure to make it a good survival technique.
And the main thing is, it is good. There would be essentially no predators on land (although not exactly right, as some invertebrates also could move onto land). This is a massive survival advantage.

Craigor

Now, in order for the fish to begin surviving on land, they would've needed to be able to breathe the air... which would require lungs adapted to that particular environment. Only problem is... fish will die out of water... because they can't breathe the air.

Lungs developed apart from the ability to go onto land. The lungfish is a good example of fish with, as you amy have guessed, lungs.
And modern fishs' gills are far more complex and specialised than the simple gas exchange chambers they used to have, as well as their muscles being less oxygen greedy. It's only modern animals, in the relative high oxygen atmosphere, that need as much oxygen as we do now.

Craigor

That evolutionary step could not happen unless the first fish to jump onto land were able to somehow survive, and produce offspring.

Mudskippers, etc..
Some modern fish do just that, without having to be able to breathe in air.

Craigor

Then it would require a gradual process over the next generations of offspring to bring about the full adaptation of breathing air through lungs as well as water through gills (amphibians). Evolution on such a scale would not happen right away, or over night.

Of course, takes a while.

Craigor

So we looked at another 'potential' process: the fish developing lungs while still living in water. But there's an immediate problem there. Lungs would not be advantageous to a fish surrounded by water in any way. And if the fish hadn't gone onto land yet, there would be no reason to attempt to survive there, thus negating the need to develop a new breathing system through evolution. As well, with lungs, the fish would now be amphibious, and would need to breathe air, but since there would be nothing coded into it's biological make-up to tell it that air is outside of the water... it'd probably drown. Since lungs caused it to drown, they'd be considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage, and evolution along those particular lines wouldn't happen.

it has happened. They just need to be able to breath in air and water. Two gas exchange chambers takes care of that. One for each environment.
I probably should have read on before responding above, though, as some of this was covered already.

Craigor

Without the move from water to land, the rest of evolution on land obviously would not happen. And since the move seems absurd and totally unnecessary... well, I think you get my point.

Yes. Your point is that you lack the imagination to work out how it might have happened. No big deal, so do most people. And scientists have the advantage of fossil and genetic evidence to help them along

As for the advantage of land. That would be twofold.
Safety from predators, even if it's just laying eggs in pools of water separated from the main body of water (i.e. safe from predator).
Or a fish living in a slowly drying up swamp, with the water level isolating smaller and smaller pools of water for them to live in.

As well as that, legs also developed before moving onto land, they were used to rapidly move about in shallow water by gripping the sea/river bed rather than swimming.

The advantages of a water dwelling creature of developing lungs are also obvious. Small pools of water rapidly stagnate, and lose their oxygen. Lungs would allow the fish to survive by breathing the air, even if it wasn't as good as the water was when fully oxygenated.

So lungs, and legs, and the ability to leave the water developed separately from land dwelling animals. And they all had large selective pressures in their favour.

Craigor

As an addendum I'd just like to point out that I do believe in adaptation within a species, hence new breeds of dogs, wolves being able to breed wit dogs, etc. They're all part of the Canine species.

There is no canine species. Canines are a kingdom of their own, I think.
Wolves are not dogs, and dogs are not wolves.

Craigor

Evolving into another species altogether, however, I discredit completely. In theory, if evolution were possible, then different species could procreate with one another (cat with dog for example), and their offspring could procreate as well. But since this is not possible, it seems evident that evolution cannot happen.

Nothing in the theory of evolution says that dogs and cats should be able to reproduce. If they did, it would actually discredit it.

Craigor

Macro verses micro evolution, if you will.

Given that micro evolution is anything to do with the effects of evolution on individuals and other small scale effects, macro evolution is everything else. As these are the only two ever talked about, there seems to be no medium term evolution in these discussion.

Well, macro evolution has been directly observed, not counting the historical evidence of it.

So that's that idea gone.  

[Tarrou]

Redem

Craigor

As an addendum I'd just like to point out that I do believe in adaptation within a species, hence new breeds of dogs, wolves being able to breed wit dogs, etc. They're all part of the Canine species.

There is no canine species. Canines are a kingdom of their own, I think.
Wolves are not dogs, and dogs are not wolves.

Dogs these days are usually considered a subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus familiaris), but you're right about canines not being a species. You climbed a bit too high on the taxonomic tree, though: Canidae is a family, not a kingdom.

Still, Craigor, dogs do represent the fruits of artificial selection, which can be considered proof of concept, rather like Darwin's adventures in pigeon breeding or the domestication of some plants. If a relatively brief but intensive period of artificial selection for size and aesthetics can result in such a wide array of phenotypes, just imagine what millions of years, nature's rather more ruthless selection process, and geographic isolation could produce. Answer: Evolution.  

[divineseraph]

Craigor

My friend and I had an interesting discussion just the other day about evolution. We were talking about the evolutionary step of fish/sea creatures moving on to land. We saw a bit of a loophole in this stage, for a few reasons.

For fish to have even attempted to move on to land, there would've had to have been some advantage over living in water; something that caused them to move onto land. It wouldn't just 'happen'. So, theoretically... how might it be brought about?

Now, in order for the fish to begin surviving on land, they would've needed to be able to breathe the air... which would require lungs adapted to that particular environment. Only problem is... fish will die out of water... because they can't breathe the air. That evolutionary step could not happen unless the first fish to jump onto land were able to somehow survive, and produce offspring. Then it would require a gradual process over the next generations of offspring to bring about the full adaptation of breathing air through lungs as well as water through gills (amphibians). Evolution on such a scale would not happen right away, or over night.

So we looked at another 'potential' process: the fish developing lungs while still living in water. But there's an immediate problem there. Lungs would not be advantageous to a fish surrounded by water in any way. And if the fish hadn't gone onto land yet, there would be no reason to attempt to survive there, thus negating the need to develop a new breathing system through evolution. As well, with lungs, the fish would now be amphibious, and would need to breathe air, but since there would be nothing coded into it's biological make-up to tell it that air is outside of the water... it'd probably drown. Since lungs caused it to drown, they'd be considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage, and evolution along those particular lines wouldn't happen.

Without the move from water to land, the rest of evolution on land obviously would not happen. And since the move seems absurd and totally unnecessary... well, I think you get my point.

As an addendum I'd just like to point out that I do believe in adaptation within a species, hence new breeds of dogs, wolves being able to breed wit dogs, etc. They're all part of the Canine species. Evolving into another species altogether, however, I discredit completely. In theory, if evolution were possible, then different species could procreate with one another (cat with dog for example), and their offspring could procreate as well. But since this is not possible, it seems evident that evolution cannot happen.
Macro verses micro evolution, if you will.

God Bless =)

There are mudskippers, today, which can live in water or out of water. Frogs and other amphibians can survive in both. Moving to land would be quite handy if all of your predators could but swim. Same as birds. There is no food in the sky. But they fly regardless, because flight is their protection against ground-based predetors.

Evolution is not a single-genetation deal. You don't go from fish to beaver.

You go from fish, to fish to fish to fish to fish to slightly mudskipper like fish, to another of those, and again and again.  

[Night WingsFtty]

No such thing as evolution, and even if there is, it's the devil's work.  

[scotch0069]

I think it should be stated that there is microevolution in the idea that a species can adapt to their sourroundings in order to help further their speices. For example if you set lose a pack of horses where there werernt horses a new breed would arise out of the need of the survival of the fitest and the horses that acctually would survive better in the new sourrondings than the old. now i dont have any evidence of this handy but the idea is what i see, humans adapt to their sourroundings to become different to handle different situations...like a city person cant live in the wild for to long....again this seems to not fit the macro idea in that it is not total evolution but the idea that the species evolve to their sourroundings to better fit it.... But as for the argument of the large scale evolution seems a bit farfetched because. genes are the blue print of any creature and until we understand how to create a new strand of dna with a stable sequence and make a new animal THAT IS NOT YET DISCOVERED then the argument will always be left open... a theory is only a theory not law... And i know the argument will arise that creationalism is only a theory too...true...but its more logical that an omnipotent being (God) created all that we know everything that is seen and unseen. rather than a statistical impossibility.  

[Tarrou]

scotch0069

But as for the argument of the large scale evolution seems a bit farfetched because. genes are the blue print of any creature and until we understand how to create a new strand of dna with a stable sequence and make a new animal THAT IS NOT YET DISCOVERED then the argument will always be left open...

Come again? The chief flaw in that argument is a vague definition of 'new animal' (and why only animals?) and poor understanding of genetics. Two! The two flaws in your argument are a vague definition of 'new', a poor understanding of genetics, and a absurd (nonsensical, even) standard of proof. No, three! The three flaws in your argument are...

First, what do you mean by 'new'? Are you referring to a new species? Because if you are, nature has already provided us with several examples of the evolution of new species.

Second, yes, genes are the blueprint of life, but surely you realize that, within a species, individuals' genetic patterns tend to vary somewhat (you and I are human because we share a vast majority of our genes, but not all of our genes) and that evolution is, to really simplify things, just the accumulation of said variations within a given population until they are sufficiently removed from from their progenitors that they have become a separate species.

Third, why on earth would evolution be proven or disproved by humans genetically engineering a new species? Evolutionary theory is supposed to explain a natural phenomena, so the human ability to splice together some sort of chimera has no bearing on its validity.

Quote:

a theory is only a theory not law...

See, that just highlights your ignorance (I don't mean to be pejorative, but that's the only word for it). A scientific law is an empirical observation stating that something happens, without explaining why or how; a theory is predictive model (which may include certain scientific laws, ex. the laws of motion contained in Newton's Classical Mechanics) that seeks to explain why something occurs. Theories do not become laws in some kind of progression of validity; in fact, laws can be disproved if new, contradictory data is ever discovered. In short, do take a science class before you ever try that old 'It's a theory, not a law!' rubbish.

Quote:

And i know the argument will arise that creationalism is only a theory too...true...but its more logical that an omnipotent being (God) created all that we know everything that is seen and unseen. rather than a statistical impossibility.

Creationism isn't even a theory: a theory has to be testable and/or make accurate predictions about future similar occurrences. Creationism is neither testable/falsifiable nor predictive, and is therefore entirely faith-based and, scientifically speaking, should never be preferred to evolutionary theory.

And, no, it's not more logical, especially since you're conflating evolution with cosmic probability, which has nothing to do with changes in allele frequencies within a population of organisms. If you want to talk about the anthropic principle, fine, but it has nothing to do with evolution.  

[divineseraph]

Night WingsFtty

No such thing as evolution, and even if there is, it's the devil's work.

You're joking ,right? If not, anything you don't want to understand is devilwork?

I ask you this- You think God is stupid? You think he's too dumb to figure out how to set up an evolutionary system?  

[Tarrou]

divineseraph

I ask you this- You think God is stupid? You think he's too dumb to figure out how to set up an evolutionary system?

I'm pretty sure Night WingsFtty is a troll. Better to just ignore her, probably.  

[lordstar]

Tarrou

divineseraph

I ask you this- You think God is stupid? You think he's too dumb to figure out how to set up an evolutionary system?

I'm pretty sure Night WingsFtty is a troll. Better to just ignore her, probably.

The comment was at the least somewhat insightful
besides I thought it was funny  

[Duckslayer74]

well divineseraph and any1 else who thinks the same as his last input in this forum said we think God is to dum to make an evolutionary system its not that at all . in the bible it says that God made us in HIS likeness so why would we need to evolve thats all i got fer now .

ps yall make me fill dum yall use some perty big words confused  

[The Urban Elf]

Going along with Craigor's idea, except i went with reptiles ---> birds instead.
The development of wings specifically.

Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think that it's possible to suddenly mutate the genes for a fully fledged, working wing. Therefore in order to have developed wings it would have begun with a limb coming out of the wrong end (I've forgotten what the limb was called... the elbow to the fingers bit xp i'm working off my rudimentary high school education here) or a lump of some sort. Which i don't think would've been all that much of an advantage. I mean they would've provide wonderful little handles for any predator that came along.

Anyway, having said that i do believe in evolution to a certain extent, i just find it almost impossible to have been solely responsible for all the different species that exist today. Although i don't completely rule out the idea that God could have used evolution to create everything... seeing as i don't believe that the seven days in the beginning of Genesis were actually 7 days as we know it. Except... i don't see why God would've done so when he could just *poof* there it is. I find it more likely that God created everything and then as the world changed so did the species that he created, which he obviously knew was going to happen.