Evolution - Possibly Not True

[gc]

Re: Evolution - Simply Not True

So, if evolution really happened, then

1.) how did it happen over a period of only 3-3.5 Billion years
2.4-2.9 Billion of which were spent evolving in to the SIMPLEST form of animal life, Then only 420 Million to get to the Oldest form of dinosaur and then an amazing 180 Million years to develop in to humans. It seems the more complicated the changes got the faster they happened... this seems a little counter intuitive doesn't it. Especially seeing that over the past 65000 years (using the same dating methods for everything else) there has been no change in ANY species, including humans, when there should be a change of at least 0.0361% the difference of the very first dinosaurs and humans, and actually more considering the rate of acceleration of evolution.

2.) Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000's of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms.... something doesn't seem right here either.

Now those were the easier ones to argue away.

3.) Natural selection before there was something to select. If there was a primordial goop of amino acids, how in the world did they naturally and randomly combine to form even the simplest DNA, which is REQUIRED to replicate. More over, how did the proteins get created without the DNA guiding their creation. Proteins which the cell and DNA depend on to live let alone divide. Never mind the other mechanical devices required to create the proteins.

The fact is evolution doesn't have an answer and really can't answer these questions.

1. Look at the evolution of technology. How long did it take humans to build even the simplest machine? How long did it take to transition from machines to computers? How long did it take to go from early computers to modern computers which are much, much more powerful. Like technology, evolution builds on previous advances which is why it makes sense that evolution would speed up.

2. Not many animals actually leave fossils to discover, I think it is quite rare actually. So unless there are a large number of a particular species it is unlikely that they will leave behind any trace.

3. I don't know if you've read up on any theories on the "RNA world", but if you haven't it might be worth reading. There are still some things left to be explained, but it is a start.

 

[Graeme]

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Same with quantum physics actually, and it half makes me sad to say so, the theory is riddled with holes which are passed off as unobservables, I have never heard of a science saying, well I theorize that we can't possibly know, so I will stop looking for an answer.. The only place I see that is religion.

 

[dekhqonbacha]

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

No theory is perfect. They are accepted as theory because there is not an alternative.

 

[#juan]

Re: Evolution - Simply Not True

I am simply saying that there are significant problems which can't just be ignored, and pretty much require a complete revamp of the theory of life.

It appears that people trained in this field don't agree with you. Making broad, unsupported, statements doesn't prove anything.

 

[gc]

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

science has never observed a positive mutation.

This is simply not true. Look at the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria. Those bacteria have a genetic mutation which allows them to "pump" the drugs back out of their cells (or they can have genetic mutations which prevent the drug from working in other ways, but I won't go into too much detail). So basically these bacteria have a mutation which increases their chance of survival, and these mutations are passed on from generation to generation. That is what is known as Evolution.

 

[dekhqonbacha]

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Graeme

I would suggest you to omit "Simply" in your topic.

Because many people believe in what believe to. They will disagree with you at any point, thinking that you are completly ignoring the current theory.

Your opinion will be rejected no matter what. Because it is not proved yet.

It's better to have a smooth discussion. Where people don't ignore 100% other person's point of view.

 

[Graeme]

Re: Evolution - Simply Not True

1. Look at the evolution of technology. How long did it take humans to build even the simplest machine? How long did it take to transition from machines to computers? How long did it take to go from early computers to modern computers which are much, much more powerful. Like technology, evolution builds on previous advances which is why it makes sense that evolution would speed up.

2. Not many animals actually leave fossils to discover, I think it is quite rare actually. So unless there are a large number of a particular species it is unlikely that they will leave behind any trace.

3. I don't know if you've read up on any theories on the "RNA world", but if you haven't it might be worth reading. There are still some things left to be explained, but it is a start.

1. the science behind the technologies has always been there, it just had to be discovered. The fact that now-a-days we live in a society which allows the devotion of ones life to a particular science or technology without worrying about what is for dinner is what accounts for our exponential leap in science. This also doesn't really make the massive slow down in evolution make sense. Over the last 65,000 - 150,000 years we don’t' see any advancement in evolution in any species. I have already given the percentage of difference there should be in contrast to previous time gaps and evolutionary spread.

2. well this would be acceptable if it wasn't for the fact that some creatures we see over a period of millions of years, and yet they are the same from when we first see them in the fossil record until we see them last in the fossil record.. We SHOULD see at least some transitional species buried with them. Also it is interesting to note that the fossil record as a timeline is pretty complete, there are not really HUGE gaps of time (except way way back)

3. I love the subject, even if the theory part might not be correct the data is pretty awesome. I find mtDNA to be quite interesting as well.

 

[sanch]

Re: Evolution - Simply Not True

So, if evolution really happened, then

1.) how did it happen over a period of only 3-3.5 Billion years
2.4-2.9 Billion of which were spent evolving in to the SIMPLEST form of animal life, Then only 420 Million to get to the Oldest form of dinosaur and then an amazing 180 Million years to develop in to humans. It seems the more complicated the changes got the faster they happened... this seems a little counter intuitive doesn't it. Especially seeing that over the past 65000 years (using the same dating methods for everything else) there has been no change in ANY species, including humans, when there should be a change of at least 0.0361% the difference of the very first dinosaurs and humans, and actually more considering the rate of acceleration of evolution.

2.) Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000's of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms.... something doesn't seem right here either.

Now those were the easier ones to argue away.

3.) Natural selection before there was something to select. If there was a primordial goop of amino acids, how in the world did they naturally and randomly combine to form even the simplest DNA, which is REQUIRED to replicate. More over, how did the proteins get created without the DNA guiding their creation. Proteins which the cell and DNA depend on to live let alone divide. Never mind the other mechanical devices required to create the proteins.

The fact is evolution doesn't have an answer and really can't answer these questions.

Informational Video on how Cell Division works: http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix-video.htm

All of this is only an issue if one uses a gradualist argument that assumes a great level of uniformity in the evolution of any given life form. If one uses a punctuated perspective where ecological or demographic factors can lead to rapid speciation than the world looks quite different. As an example homo sapiens (our species if you’re curious) emerged about a 100,000 years ago as a result of a punctuated event in Africa and quickly expanded into other regions displacing archaic hominids in Asia as well as Neanderthals in Europe. They recently discovered a dwarf like home erectus species in Indonesia if you are interested in what one archaic species may have looked like.

There is plenty of evidence of what may be transitional species for hominids. This includes fossil as well as mitochondrial evidence. According to the molecular clock the pongid/hominid split probably occurred about 5 million years ago. There is a lot of fossil evidence for the period of 4 to 5 million years ago where there are very ape like hominids like ardipithecus ramidus. Paleontologists might dispute which of these species is a direct ancestor but a disagreement on some facts does not mean that evolution did not occur.

 

[Graeme]

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Graeme

I would suggest you to omit "Simply" in your topic.

Because many people believe in what believe to. They will disagree with you at any point, thinking that you are completly ignoring the current theory.

Your opinion will be rejected no matter what. Because it is not proved yet.

It's better to have a smooth discussion. Where people don't ignore 100% other person's point of view.

yeah you are right.

 

[Graeme]

Re: Evolution - Simply Not True

All of this is only an issue if one uses a gradualist argument that assumes a great level of uniformity in the evolution of any given life form. If one uses a punctuated perspective where ecological or demographic factors can lead to rapid speciation than the world looks quite different. As an example homo sapiens (our species if you’re curious) emerged about a 100,000 years ago as a result of a punctuated event in Africa and quickly expanded into other regions displacing archaic hominids in Asia as well as Neanderthals in Europe. They recently discovered a dwarf like home erectus species in Indonesia if you are interested in what one archaic species may have looked like.

There is plenty of evidence of what may be transitional species for hominids. This includes fossil as well as mitochondrial evidence. According to the molecular clock the pongid/hominid split probably occurred about 5 million years ago. There is a lot of fossil evidence for the period of 4 to 5 million years ago where there are very ape like hominids like ardipithecus ramidus. Paleontologists might dispute which of these species is a direct ancestor but a disagreement on some facts does not mean that evolution did not occur.

You are correct we can see things that look as if it is between us and "apes" (not really apes but you get my point)
but there should be a at least SOME continual evidance.

I would not take the gradualist approach to evolution either, but then we should see spurts of an abundance of transitional species during those time periods of quick evolution.

 

[Graeme]

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

science has never observed a positive mutation.

This is simply not true. Look at the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria. Those bacteria have a genetic mutation which allows them to "pump" the drugs back out of their cells (or they can have genetic mutations which prevent the drug from working in other ways, but I won't go into too much detail). So basically these bacteria have a mutation which increases their chance of survival, and these mutations are passed on from generation to generation. That is what is known as Evolution.

This is convenient, but actually there is no evidance that they didn't always exist. Simply that we see them now because we can kill off the other ones.


I TAKE THIS BACK!! HAHAHA

 

[Graeme]

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

science has never observed a positive mutation.

This is simply not true. Look at the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria. Those bacteria have a genetic mutation which allows them to "pump" the drugs back out of their cells (or they can have genetic mutations which prevent the drug from working in other ways, but I won't go into too much detail). So basically these bacteria have a mutation which increases their chance of survival, and these mutations are passed on from generation to generation. That is what is known as Evolution.

This is convenient, but actually there is no evidance that they didn't always exist. Simply that we see them now because we can kill off the other ones.

although I could be wrong about that!!!

even if they have mutated to survive we can't say that is any different than people getting taller and stronger over the years.

 

[BitWhys]

Now that the topic's changed to to simply align itself with why its called a theory and not a law this entire thread is really very much a non-event but...

1) It seems entirely possible to me that the pace of change, assuming there really is a metric for that sort of thing, on the molecular level has been constant and using the manifestations of those changes, the species as they present themselves is a bit of a red herring. That's not an original explanation, btw. I read it in passing somewhere.

2) Last year I also read in passing about a northern climate bird of some sort, a finch of some sort maybe, that has a such a wide range that birds in the western part of the range cannot successfully mate with birds from the east. If that's the case there would be your transitional species. Not that my word on it is proof of anything. Just mentioning it so somebody who actually cares about this silly topic might want to check it out.

3) I never thought the scope of evolutionary theory was meant to include an explanation for the creation of life itself.

 

[dekhqonbacha]

The thing that I've heard but I'm unable to watch is that newly-bords babies are little different then they were 40-50 years ago.

Has anyone else witnessed this or heard about this or studied this subject?

I was thinking that this is also evolution, but at the same time I don't think that it's going that fast, so that the people who had seen newly-born babies about 40 years ago and now are able to see differences.

 

[Calliope]

RE: Evolution - Possibly

Evolution has much more credibility than creation. Will knowing how we got here change anything or anyone, does it really have an impact on your life? It's interesting but that's all. The time and money that has been wasted on this is enormous.
But I have to ask, why is everyone always so concerned about where we came from, more important is where we are going. The past is only good for one thing, learning from it. IMHO.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Transitional species would have a better chance of being around if it wasn't for oh...the occasional problem of Extinction due to environment, climate change, or invasive species.

Your entire question on the time frame I cannot answer but you'd be able to find reasonable articles or essays from university sites.

And as for number 3, well that's what is still the big question that many are researching. What really does bring these chemicals together to create the initial spark of Life...Well we can only guess, maybe that's where Gawd fits in after all.

And with all of the questions, it seems to display the most common form of inquiry: If this did happen then why.... Well, the difference between scientific analysis and Religion is that the scientific approach is a continual road of discovery...you're not going to get a fast food answer and conclusion because there's always more to learn.

If you want the instant gratification of your questions, then Religion gives you the quick answers... Um, Gawd did it. There. Pretty cut and dry. And who really wants to question the big androgenous being in the sky eh?

 

[Calliope]

RE: Evolution - Possibly

Why is it that people need to know where we came from, isn't more important to know where we are going. The past is the past and the only thing it is good for is to learn from it.
We spen so much energy trying to find out where we came from. Will it change anything will it impact your life, will it help us to find a cure for what ails us. (JMHO)

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[dekhqonbacha]

No, He is Jew.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: RE: Evolution - Possibly Not True

No, He is Jew.

:scratch: