An interesting flaw in evolutionary thinking

[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. >>


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



Are you trying to make a joke or just showing your true intelligence here?

 

[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? >>



Are you trying to make a joke or just showing your true intelligence here? >>


You mean you got some examples which clearly show that you're right?

 

[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. >>


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



Are you trying to make a joke or just showing your true intelligence here? >>


You mean you got some examples which clearly show that you're right? >>



Google has thousands.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microevolution
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=macroevolution

Have fun.

 

[Czar]

<< 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? >>


The first lifeforms on earth were bacterias that lived in the sea, they did not need other lifeforms to survive, all they needed was a habitat(water) and source of energy(either thermal or solar). From those lifeforms other lifeforms evolved. One thing leads to another.

 

[reitz]

<< There is no evidence that man evolved apes or any other animal for that matter. >>

Homo sapien and pan troglodytes share more than 99% of their genetic material. The evidence doesn't get much more compelling than that.

Your "flaw" in evolutionary thinking is due to your flawed understanding of evolution.

 

[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? >>



Are you trying to make a joke or just showing your true intelligence here? >>


You mean you got some examples which clearly show that you're right? >>



Google has thousands.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microevolution
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=macroevolution

Have fun. >>


I asked for specific examples from credible sources.

 

[911paramedic]

Know about life at the bottom of the ocean?

Here, however, the bottom of the food chain isn't anchored by little green things looking up to the sun. It's anchored by little frosty-glittery bacteria that use the sulfur from the hot rock itself to zap chemicals to life. If the sun flashed out tomorrow, we'd all go hungry. Down here, in the demolished cities of lava, the squatters would have another helping of stone soup and go on about their business.

Entire article

 

[Arkitech]

<<

<< 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. >>



If apes and humans evolved from the same animal, then what is the original animal?

Why did apes and humans take different evolutionary paths?

Should'nt apes possess more of the intellect that we as humans possess?

Should'nt the original animal still be alive? If not why?

What other examples are there of 2 different species evolving from another?






<<

<< 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. >>



I'm no scientist or biologist but how is it possible to compare simple cell organisms to that of organisms that are literally more than a billion times more complex? Would'nt there be millions of differences that would throw off any comparison between the two?




<<

<< 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. >>



I don't think food sources would play a significant factor in this particular case, in fact apes are probably doing better with their limited food choices as opposed to humans. I'm almost positive apes don't deal with lung cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, cholestrol diseases and other problems related to improper diet. That does'nt explain why humans adapt to their surroundings better than apes.




<< 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.[/i] >>



What are your sources for that information? I seriously doubt that people are taller now than they were many years ago

 

[Elledan]

<< I'm no scientist or biologist but how is it possible to compare simple cell organisms to that of organisms that are literally more than a billion times more complex? Would'nt there be millions of differences that would throw off any comparison between the two? >>


The mechanisms behind evolution don't appear to discern between single- and multi-celled organisms.



<< I seriously doubt that people are taller now than they were many years ago >>


lol... Just taking a look at some older buildings (build 400 years ago or longer back) will provide you with enough evidence, unless you're convinced that people enjoy avoiding hitting the doorframe with their head everytime they enter a room.

BTW, people living in Northern Europe (including the Netherlands, Germany and some other countries) are among the tallest people in the world (on average).

 

[911paramedic]

This thread is going nowhere really fast.

Nobody here is going to change anybody else's point of view. Most wars are fought over differences in religious beliefs, or disbeliefs.

If you can settle this argument for everybodies different beliefs, in this thread, you will get a Nobel prize.

P.S. It is not going to happen.

 

[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? >>


The first lifeforms on earth were bacterias that lived in the sea, they did not need other lifeforms to survive, all they needed was a habitat(water) and source of energy(either thermal or solar). From those lifeforms other lifeforms evolved. One thing leads to another. >>



OK lets just say that I accepted the beleif that life started as bacteria that in itself leads to a multitude of questions.

For example where did the bacteria come?

Why was there even a need for bacteria to evolve? And if the enviroment stimulated the bacteria to evolve what changed the enviroment?

 

[Elledan]

<<
Why was there even a need for bacteria to evolve? And if the enviroment stimulated the bacteria to evolve what changed the enviroment? >>


Change is a prerequisite for existance.

 

[Elledan]

<< OK lets just say that I accepted the beleif that life started as bacteria that in itself leads to a multitude of questions.

For example where did the bacteria come? >>


Anorganic molecules => organic molecules (including amino-acids) => first cell => bacteria.

A highly simplified overview.

 

[BDawg]

I don't know that people growing taller is anything more than better nutrition and health care. Ever notice how really poor people from Mexico are all very short?



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



A: Humans didn't evolve from apes or monkeys.

B: Not everything from a species evolves to the next level. Some are out competed for resources, others end up evolving into other species. Some never evolve at all. Just because a mutation can give a competetive advantage, doesn't necessarily mean it gives the species the ability to totally out compete all ancestors.



<< 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. >>



Well the main difference in apes and humans is tool usage. Humans have a much larger capacity for making and using tools than apes do.



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



I love the grass growing analogy.

 

[Fausto]

<< 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: >>


Ever hear of PCR? DNA sequencing? It's pretty irrefutable despite the stoneheaded OJ jurors thinking otherwise.



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


No pressure = no evolution. Various events forced a split in populations, each population has its own set of evolutionary pressures, each evolves differently and to a different extent.



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


Has anyone actually looked for proof? Who says they're not 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. >>


Again, it's all about pressure. Our ancestors at some point started spending more time on the ground than in the trees and thus those better adapted to this new habitat lived to reproduce. Obviously apes and their ancestors never needed to forage on open ground for any extended period. Granted I'm oversimplifying somewhat, but you (might) get the general idea.

Fausto

 

[Arkitech]

<<

<< I'm no scientist or biologist but how is it possible to compare simple cell organisms to that of organisms that are literally more than a billion times more complex? Would'nt there be millions of differences that would throw off any comparison between the two? >>


The mechanisms behind evolution don't appear to discern between single- and multi-celled organisms.



<< I seriously doubt that people are taller now than they were many years ago >>


lol... Just taking a look at some older buildings (build 400 years ago or longer back) will provide you with enough evidence, unless you're convinced that people enjoy avoiding hitting the doorframe with their head everytime they enter a room.

BTW, people living in Northern Europe (including the Netherlands, Germany and some other countries) are among the tallest people in the world (on average). >>



You used the term "don't appear" to discern between single and multi-celled organisms. That would suggest that scientists and evolutionists are unclear on that matter. Just off the top of my head however a single celled organism will invariably have a vastly different lifespan and needs than that of more complex multicelled organisms. With that being the case its entire life cycle will likely be hard to compare to something more complex. Things such as reproduction, response to stimuli, feeding, etc. Its hard to imagine basing human evolution on that of an amoeba

 

[BDawg]

<< B: Not everything from a species evolves to the next level. Some are out competed for resources, others end up evolving into other species. Some never evolve at all. Just because a mutation can give a competetive advantage, doesn't necessarily mean it gives the species the ability to totally out compete all ancestors. >>



Just to expound on this a bit further. Physical barriers (mountains, rivers) can prevent an more evolved species from interacting with the ancestor they are able to out compete.

Remember, evolution occurs over millions of years. During that time, mountains rise, oceans shrink, rifts grow, etc. Check out the Grand Canyon squirrels (I believe they're the ones) and the Galapagos for evidence on geographic boundaries to evolution.

 

[911paramedic]

Arkitech have you even taken a science class?

I refuse to have a battle of minds with an unarmed person.

 

[Czar]

<< If apes and humans evolved from the same animal, then what is the original animal? >>


Unknown, called the missing link.



<< Why did apes and humans take different evolutionary paths? >>


different ways needed to survive.



<< Should'nt apes possess more of the intellect that we as humans possess? >>


If they needed intelect to survive then yes, but they didnt so no.



<< Should'nt the original animal still be alive? If not why? >>


No, because other animals evolved from the first one because the way the original animal used to live wasnt good enough for it to survive.



<< What other examples are there of 2 different species evolving from another? >>


Rhino, hippo, elephants. Cats, lions, tigers. So many examples.



<< I'm no scientist or biologist but how is it possible to compare simple cell organisms to that of organisms that are literally more than a billion times more complex? Would'nt there be millions of differences that would throw off any comparison between the two? >>


Simple organism evolve into more complex one if needed. There is also just a certain amount of difference from one generation to another can have so its nearly impossible to have million differences at the same time, also many of the different evolutional tests die out because they were not more efficiant then the original one.



<< I don't think food sources would play a significant factor in this particular case, in fact apes are probably doing better with their limited food choices as opposed to humans. I'm almost positive apes don't deal with lung cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, cholestrol diseases and other problems related to improper diet. That does'nt explain why humans adapt to their surroundings better than apes. >>


It does play an important factor, the most important factor. If lets say there is this certain type of ape that only eats one type of fruit from a tree type called "Tom" (just some name ), then there is another type of ape that eats fruit from "Tom" and from "John", for some reasons "Tom" dies and the first ape type is impossible to eat so it starves to death. The other ape type survives because it has another food source.



<< What are your sources for that information? I seriously doubt that people are taller now than they were many years ago >>


Source, ermm... one example, when you look at beds made 1000 years ago they are alot shorter so that a normal human today cant sleep in them. Also skeletons have prooven that.

 

[Elledan]

<< You used the term "don't appear" to discern between single and multi-celled organisms. That would suggest that scientists and evolutionists are unclear on that matter. >>

Nope, I used the term because the evolution mechanisms are as of yet unclear, so although they might appear to work the same for single- and multi-celled organisms, there might be differences, but none have been observed so far.


<< Just off the top of my head however a single celled organism will invariably have a vastly different lifespan >>


Which only speeds up the evolution process.


<< and needs >>


Searching for and assimilation of nutrious substances, excretion, procreation, defending and attacking. What's so different?


<< than that of more complex multicelled organisms. With that being the case its entire life cycle will likely be hard to compare to something more complex. Things such as reproduction, response to stimuli, feeding, etc. Its hard to imagine basing human evolution on that of an amoeba >>


All 'differences' you mentioned are irrelevant in this topic. They're rather similarities than differences, in fact.

 

[Elledan]

<< Arkitech have you even taken a science class?

I refuse to have a battle of minds with an unarmed person. >>


LOL !!

 

[Arkitech]

So far I'm enjoying this thread, not a lot of mud slinging for a change.

I admit that I'm no expert on evolution so some of these terms are new to me. (macro and micro evolution) I guess its obvious that I'm an creationist adherent but I consider myself to be an openminded person and who one does'nt dismiss argumentation without at least listening to it first. With that being said I find it extremely hard to grasp the idea that the complex planet that we share with billions of other complex entities and creations were the product of millions of years of evolution. In my mind to accept evolution means that I have to accept quite a bit of other notions that can't easily be proven. (of course the same can be said of creation)


It seems to me that if humans evolved from apes into intelligent beings with vast intellectual abilities, it would stand to reason that there should be other animals on the planet as well with similar or perhaps even superior traits. Also with the technological aresenal at scientists disposal should'nt it be reasonable to conclude that they would have the ability to accurately chart the progress of evolutionary growth of certain animals or other organisms? And then there's still the issue about the amount of time it takes for organisms to evolve, if evolution is truly a valid scientific explanation for life then there should myriads of examples of changes on the planet that did'nt thousands or millions of years to happen.


Finally one other thought, can someone give me a thorough explanation of the word evolution? Does the word simply mean to change or adapt or does it mean to change or morph into something completely different?

 

[Ryan]

<< For example where did the bacteria come? >>


The first living cells were actually very simple. All they consisted of were Ribozymes within microspheres.


<< Why was there even a need for bacteria to evolve? >>


There isn't a need, it's just something that happens. There can be genetic mutation - and if it doesn't harm the organism, it'll be passed on to it's offspring - which is evolution.


<< And if the enviroment stimulated the bacteria to evolve what changed the enviroment? >>


As some organisms evolved to use sunlight, they gave off a biproduct gas called Oxygen. After about 1.5 billion years, significant amounts of oxygen had accumulated in the atmosphere.

If you are in high school, take AP Biology, of if you're in college, take Biology 2. All of your questions will be answered.

 

[Czar]

Arkitech,
I agree, this isnt turning into a flame fest or anything, and I must commend you on this thread and how you have acted here you have asked very good questions and not tried to push the creationism theory into this, just questioned the evolution theory and people should always question everything

 

[Elledan]

<< can someone give me a thorough explanation of the word evolution? Does the word simply mean to change or adapt or does it mean to change or morph into something completely different? >>


You should have looked this up to begin with:

evolution - 1 the process by which different kinds of living organisms are believed to have developed from earlier forms, especially by natural selection. 2 gradual development.
(non-relevant entries have been omitted)
(source: Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition)