An interesting flaw in evolutionary thinking

[Arkitech]

I read some interesting information last week about the age old debate of evolution vs creation. Basically in a nutshell the author of the book I read questioned the long held belief that it takes thousands or even millions of years for the planet or animals to evolve or adapt to its enviorment. If it really took an animal or organism that long to adapt to its surroundings then there's a very high probability that the organism in question would have perished before being able to evolve into the next state.
I found this statement to make a lot of sense. After all Darwin's philisophy is basically "survival of the fittest", so with that in mind its hard to beleive that a harsh enviorment would give an organism enough time to develop whats needed to survive. If an organism is not fit to deal with its situation or surroundings then chances are that it will likely perish before it can evolve into something else.



I thought this would make for some interesting conversation because whenever I speak with individuals about evolution the conversation ultimately leads to how evolution is a process that takes millions of years?


Whats your thoughts on this?

 

[Nemesis77]

<< If it really took an animal or organism that long to adapt to its surroundings then there's a very high probability that the organism in question would have perished before being able to evolve into the next state.
I found this statement to make a lot of sense. After all Darwin's philisophy is basically "survival of the fittest", so with that in mind its hard to beleive that a harsh enviorment would give an organism enough time to develop whats needed to survive. If an organism is not fit to deal with its situation or surroundings then chances are that it will likely >>



Basically, if a life-form is able to form in harsh conditions (like ancient Earth) it already has the necessary characteristics to survive in those conditions. It is kinda of "survival of the fittest", the inferior life-forms never even got the chance to multiply and grow, whereas the one that was most fit survived.

 

[MichaelD]

The whole idea of a superior being just instantly creating a human being where none had previously existed just a moment ago is flawed and utterly ridiculous IMO.

We are clearly evolved from apes/monkeys. Modern birds are evolved from dinosaurs. The sheer fact that we have things like Kimodo Dragons and the like is clear evidence to me that evolution indeed is responsible for the plant and animal life that we have today.

I understand what you're saying about the organism not being able to survive. But organisms DO adapt in order to survive. The virii that cause Flu are a perfect example. I.E. last year's vaccinne is ineffectual against this "new strain" of virus, and things of that nature.

But, you will get responses from the Bible-Throwing-Zealots, quoting Genesis this and Jacob that.

To each his own. I'll stick w/Science, thanks.

Good idea for a flamefest thread! Should make for an interesting Monday.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< We are clearly evolved from apes/monkeys >>



Negative on that one. What evolutionary theory suggests is that apes and humans have a common ancestor. It does NOT say that humens have evolved from apes.

 

[IGBT]

The one confusing variable in evolutionary study is the effect of mass extinction. We know from the fossil evidence it has occured numerous times on a large scale. And the equator has changed as well.

 

[Czar]

The best way to look at how a big enviromental change affect animals is to look at rats. Rats adopt to anything, you poision them and you manage to kill 60-80% of the rats the rest will just get immune to it.

 

[IGBT]

I recall reading bio notes on small pox and an interesting fact came out of the soviet bio-weapons research on small pox. They discovered dna evidence that small pox may have started out in....rats.

 

[Arkitech]

We are clearly evolved from apes/monkeys.


There is no evidence that man evolved apes or any other animal for that matter. Whats interesting about that subject is that virtually every scientist who has tried to use fossils as the missing link between the so called prehistoric man and modern man has ultimately been proved a fraud.

 

[Nemesis77]

Hopefully this thread doesn't degenerate in to a evolution vs. creationism flamefest....

 

[911paramedic]

Uhhhh, don't believe everything you read.



You don't even have to believe this post...but you should.



Evolution happens.


Hopefully this thread doesn't degenerate in to a evolution vs. creationism flamfest.... <---already is, LOL

...now where is my asbestos suit?

 

[Fausto]

<< There is no evidence that man evolved apes or any other animal for that matter. Whats interesting about that subject is that virtually every scientist who has tried to use fossils as the missing link between the so called prehistoric man and modern man has ultimately been proved a fraud. >>


So it's just a coincidence that we share 99% of our DNA with chimps? Or do you not believe in DNA either?

Fausto

 

[Phunktion]

<<

<< There is no evidence that man evolved apes or any other animal for that matter. Whats interesting about that subject is that virtually every scientist who has tried to use fossils as the missing link between the so called prehistoric man and modern man has ultimately been proved a fraud. >>


So it's just a coincidence that we share 99% of our DNA with chimps? Or do you not believe in DNA either? >>


I was just about to say that.. DNA proves it for all intents and purposes.. the missing link isn't necessary as proof..

 

[Bulk Beef]

<< After all Darwin's philisophy is basically "survival of the fittest", so with that in mind its hard to beleive that a harsh enviorment would give an organism enough time to develop whats needed to survive. >>

Your "flaw" assumes an organism that can't survive as a starting point.

 

[ddjkdg]

<< I read some interesting information last week about the age old debate of evolution vs creation. Basically in a nutshell the author of the book I read questioned the long held belief that it takes thousands or even millions of years for the planet or animals to evolve or adapt to its enviorment. If it really took an animal or organism that long to adapt to its surroundings then there's a very high probability that the organism in question would have perished before being able to evolve into the next state.
I found this statement to make a lot of sense. After all Darwin's philisophy is basically "survival of the fittest", so with that in mind its hard to beleive that a harsh enviorment would give an organism enough time to develop whats needed to survive. If an organism is not fit to deal with its situation or surroundings then chances are that it will likely perish before it can evolve into something else.



I thought this would make for some interesting conversation because whenever I speak with individuals about evolution the conversation ultimately leads to how evolution is a process that takes millions of years?


Whats your thoughts on this? >>



Evolution isn't necessarily adapting to survive the environment, it's the survival of the fittest. If a select few survive then their offspring will carry the same trait which will let them live. Then, the same cycle recurs. It has a lot to do with mutation. If an organism develops something that will allow them to survive better in the environment than other creatures, they will be the ones who ultimately survive.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

For those doubting evolutionism for its (as yet) unknown factors, creationism seems a better choice. Until, that is, you realize the multitude of choices offered by religion, which will basically force you to draw a line somewhere. All three main monotheistic religions seem (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, in order of apparition) share a similar idea about Genesis since they evolved from a single, older text. Note - they evolved!

Of course, other religions have different stories about Creations and the like, and a different outcome. And unless you're a stuck-up fundamentalist, you don't really have the right to say your religion is better than others - only an impartial arbiter could judge on that.

Even the religious need to clarify their stance, and that's just as hard for them as it is for atheists (and others) to sustain a bulletproof theory of evolution. However... since science has proven right about so many other things and we have yet to see a case in which religious dogma is right over science, a simple reduction would seem to indicate that science has the upper hand. To quote a long-dead monk, the simplest solution must be the correct one.

The moment we'll come in contact with an alien lifeform will probably also be the end of the road for many religious thoughts. Especially if the aliens are intelligent. But even a flea would be enough to send creationism (or at least anthropocentrism and geocentrism) to the dustbin of history.

 

[Elledan]

<< I read some interesting information last week about the age old debate of evolution vs creation. Basically in a nutshell the author of the book I read questioned the long held belief that it takes thousands or even millions of years for the planet or animals to evolve or adapt to its enviorment. If it really took an animal or organism that long to adapt to its surroundings then there's a very high probability that the organism in question would have perished before being able to evolve into the next state.
I found this statement to make a lot of sense. After all Darwin's philisophy is basically "survival of the fittest", so with that in mind its hard to beleive that a harsh enviorment would give an organism enough time to develop whats needed to survive. If an organism is not fit to deal with its situation or surroundings then chances are that it will likely perish before it can evolve into something else.



I thought this would make for some interesting conversation because whenever I speak with individuals about evolution the conversation ultimately leads to how evolution is a process that takes millions of years?


Whats your thoughts on this? >>


There is no evolution vs. creation (genesis) debate. There never was. The two topics are respectively biogenesis vs. genesis.
However, since the latter is based solely on lack of evidence [for other theories/thesises], it has no credibility.

Darwin's theory of the 'survival of the fittest' has been disproven already, since it disagrees with empirical evidence gathered after Darwin's death. Many different species which feed from the same source of nutrition can live in the same area. Due to changes in the environment, neither species can become dominant and wipe out the other species.

And once more, evolution is a fact, it are the exact mechanisms behind evolution which are currently being researched.

 

[Arkitech]

<<

<<

<< There is no evidence that man evolved apes or any other animal for that matter. Whats interesting about that subject is that virtually every scientist who has tried to use fossils as the missing link between the so called prehistoric man and modern man has ultimately been proved a fraud. >>


So it's just a coincidence that we share 99% of our DNA with chimps? Or do you not believe in DNA either? >>


I was just about to say that.. DNA proves it for all intents and purposes.. the missing link isn't necessary as proof.. >>




For starters I'm a bit suspicious about the claims that humans and apes have 99% of the same DNA. But if that were true then there are a million questions that need to be answered:

Why are there any apes and monkeys at all if they have evolved into man?

Why don't we see or have any proof apes are currently evolving?

If animals evolve to adapt to their surroundings why would have apes evolved into humans to begin with? Apes are stronger, more agile and ultimately better suited to survive in the wild than humans are. In fact the only advantage humans really have over apes is intellect.

Should'nt humans be evolving right now? If so what proof is there that he is doing so?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Everyone please learn to differentiate between macro and microevolution.

survival of the fittest (micro) != species evolving from other species (macro)

They are not the same thing. Know what you are aguing about before you do so.

 

[Elledan]

<< Why are there any apes and monkeys at all if they have evolved into man? >>


Primates share a common ancestor.

-

The display of so much ignorance in this thread by certain individuals is making me feel sick.

 

[Elledan]

<< Everyone please learn to differentiate between macro and microevolution.

survival of the fittest (micro) != species evolving from other species (macro)

They are not the same thing. Know what you are aguing about before you do so. >>


I see little reason to differentiate between the evolution of bacteria and multi-celled organisms. Do you?

 

[Jzero]

<< Should'nt humans be evolving right now? If so what proof is there that he is doing so? >>


Opposable Thumbs--Index fingers of the new millenium.
Whould have thunk that Nintendo would push the species to the next level? In 1000 years, we're just going to have 10 thumbs.

 

[Czar]

<< Why are there any apes and monkeys at all if they have evolved into man? >>


Like said before, apes and humans evolved from the same animal.



<< Why don't we see or have any proof apes are currently evolving? >>


Evolution takes time and we have only been documenting animals for few hundred years at most. The longer the birth cycle the slower the evolution, thats why its best to look at micro organism to studdy evolution.



<< If animals evolve to adapt to their surroundings why would have apes evolved into humans to begin with? Apes are stronger, more agile and ultimately better suited to survive in the wild than humans are. In fact the only advantage humans really have over apes is intellect. >>


And intelect is a very important factor, but most importantly why we survived better is because humans can adopt much quicker to enviromental changes than apes can. Most importantly humans are not stuck with one food source.



<< Should'nt humans be evolving right now? If so what proof is there that he is doing so? >>


We are, we are now a good deal 40cm taller or so than we were 1000 years ago. Just like I said before, the longer the birth cycle the slower the evolution process.

 

[911paramedic]

Why don't we see or have any proof apes are currently evolving?

You said yourself that it took millions of years, you can sit and watch if you want.

Ever see grass grow when you look at it? No.
Is it growing? Yes.

I know growing and evolution is totally different, but it worked for my example.

 

[Arkitech]

My problem with evolution and its theories is that we are supposed to beleive that all the factors that are needed to make up the planet and its life sustaning process came into existence accidentally. When you look at the planet and how everything ties in together you realize that one process can't exist without the other. So the question that needs to be answered how is it possible for organisms and other processes to take millions of years to evolve when current science shows that the Earth needs those conditions to survive. For example, plants need carbon dioxide which animals and humans give out. Humans and animals need oxygen which plants put out, so if one of those factors took millions of years to develop how was the other life sustained?

Thats a very simplified example, but it gives us an idea of how the planet's ecological system works. There are thousands upon thousands of processes that work together in order for our planet to sustain life. If you were to completely remove or alter those processes then life would cease to exist, what evolution fails to explain is how would life continue if these things were not in place while millions of years in the evolving cycle took place.

 

[Czar]

<<

<< Everyone please learn to differentiate between macro and microevolution.

survival of the fittest (micro) != species evolving from other species (macro)

They are not the same thing. Know what you are aguing about before you do so. >>


I see little reason to differentiate between the evolution of bacteria and multi-celled organisms. Do you? >>


only difference I see is that macro evolution takes alot longer, if you rule out macro and still belive that micro exist then cats and dogs and humans are all just mammals and not different species. All depends on how far you go and how much of a difference animals must have to be considered a new species.