Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
No, adaptation is any change in habbit or a mild, outer-force-induced change that continues to allow a species to exist, even in a change of habitat. According to you, if I species changes habitat, it will eventualy mutate to the point that it will become another species of animal.
That is part of the theory. Small adaptations can lead to new species. I forget how many adaptations it takes before a species is unable to breed with the original species, but it's pretty large. If your friend disbelieves the ability of species to change over time, direct her attention to dogs. Look at the number of dog breeds. Now look how many are found in the wild. All of the dog breeds were bred out of wolves. That's a lot of change in a short period of time. Is it possible that such change could happen without human intervention? Of course. Humans did not create the potential for change, merely exploit it. http://www.akc.org/breeds/recbreeds/breeds_a.cfm
How, then, do you explain animals who adapt? Cyotes who live in cities, which are an environment obviously created from humans? wouldn't it benefit these Cyotes to evolve into humans and thus take better advantage of their habitats? Additionally, Humans can thrive on the savanah, nomads have been doing it for generations, so why do there still exist tigers, antelope, even insects?
Cartoon view of evolution. Cities have been around for maybe 5000 years. Already species are adapting to them. If you think that every niche in a city can be filled by humans how many humans do you know that can survive on insects and waste products, and can fly. Ok, how many pigeons do you see in cities?
Additionally, The reason I didn't go into the loopholes in Darwins theories was mostly because I assumed you'd heard them all and didn't want to hear them again. just trying to respect your time and the other readers' time as well ^-^
Dinky stupid arguement. If you can't elaborate then don't mention a point. I have seen flaws in Darwin's original theory, but as it stands evolution lacks flaws signifigant enough to suggest discarding or even majorly revising the theory.
Last time I checked, a theory was an unproved scientific statement. Also, last I checked gravity as a concept exists, and it is taught as such: A concept. But the actual force that holds us on the ground is very very real. Gravity, though there is still much speculation and theory behind the cause, has become a term for us not flying off into space. the Study of gravity is something more, but gravity as a noun and gravity as a principle are often two different subjects. Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.
It is taught as a theory. A scientific theory. Yes you can't practically view the macro version of it in everyday life (though the fact that you get a flu shot each year for clearly new strains of the flu shows you the micro version). It's not a force. Neither is the theory of relativity. Both make predictions about what should happen if the theory is correct. Both have been repeatedly verified. No other hypothosis has been posited that meets those conditions. Therefore the theory of evolution is the only theory that sucessfully makes predictions and explains the evidence.
No, adaptation is any change in habbit or a mild, outer-force-induced change that continues to allow a species to exist, even in a change of habitat. According to you, if I species changes habitat, it will eventualy mutate to the point that it will become another species of animal.
there are numerous examples of speciation. the faroe island mouse being one of them. what I suspect your friend thinks I mean by speciation though is "if you stick a dog in a room with trays of whiskas cat food, bowls of milk and fish then after a few million years, it will turn into a cat" this is of course not what I mean.
How, then, do you explain animals who adapt? Cyotes who live in cities, which are an environment obviously created from humans? wouldn't it benefit these Cyotes to evolve into humans and thus take better advantage of their habitats?
no, that isn't how it works. that is the cartoon version of evolution, I suggest your friend gets an education in evolution, I see little point debating against strawmen arguments. However we do se eexamples of evolution in cities; raccoon brains have tripled in size for species which exist in cities, as the environment they live in is immensely more complex than a forest. rats have evolved, mosquitoes have evolved (there are species in the london underground that cannot breed with mosquitoes outside the london underground) Birds have changed their songs to cope with ciry noise, and so on.
Additionally, Humans can thrive on the savanah, nomads have been doing it for generations, so why do there still exist tigers, antelope, even insects?
beacuse those animals have their niche.
Additionally, The reason I didn't go into the loopholes in Darwins theories was mostly because I assumed you'd heard them all and didn't want to hear them again. just trying to respect your time and the other readers' time as well ^-^
well go on then. it isn't wasting my time at all. I have a fortnight off work, fill it in.
Last time I checked, a theory was an unproved scientific statement. Also, last I checked gravity as a concept exists, and it is taught as such: A concept. But the actual force that holds us on the ground is very very real. Gravity, though there is still much speculation and theory behind the cause, has become a term for us not flying off into space. the Study of gravity is something more, but gravity as a noun and gravity as a principle are often two different subjects. Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.
a theory explains the evidence. theories tend to be very robustly tested, and evolution is very very well tested. there will never be "proof" of evolution in the past, but there are, and will be millions and millions of things that cannot be explained any other way, except by a divine liar. Incidentally, evolution, decent with modification and natural selection as a selecting force, has been proved in the present, since we see it every day. there are many examples of evolution in action.
Again I suggest your friend gets an education in evolution. I don't wish to sound nasty, but when people say that cyotes should evolve into humans (and the very vague "one species should turn into another", it is clear that they don't understand what they are talking about.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
'Cities' have not been around nearly long enough to see any clear and specific adaptations among the species we have today. It was merely thousands of years ago (a wink in the evolutionary time-line) that humans would have lived in a tropical climate, with little or no shelter...and we were FAR less populous, just like the other high order mammals. So the speciation we see today is basically THE SAME as it was 15000 years ago when there were no cities and towns at all. (although some species have become extinct)
actually there are quite a few examples of adaptations in cities, though it tends to be brain adaptations. Alot of animals have become much cleverer in cities because of the complex environment. examples are things like raccoons, rats and so on. I will hunt come down for you, but all the examples I know of wre in one of David Attenborough's books.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Oh...someone gave me a kiss in response to Jet's response. I feel bad keeping kisses that aren't mine...so..here..
*kiss from Nanuri*
I also feel a little bad asking you guys to answer these questions for me. Understanding I can do..explaining, however, is a different thing.
__________________ "Blue eyes...blue Countless sorrows soon become deep darkness. Blue eyes...blue The memories of when I felt someone's warmth are too distant... Blue eyes...blue" --Nakago
"Wait for me, Eternity I would come find you in Heaven But I have no wings..." --Me
"Merry we have met and Merry we have been; Merry we shall part and Merry Meet again." --Unknown
"Maybe some things are that simple..." --Simple and Clean
actually there are quite a few examples of adaptations in cities, though it tends to be brain adaptations. Alot of animals have become much cleverer in cities because of the complex environment. examples are things like raccoons, rats and so on. I will hunt come down for you, but all the examples I know of wre in one of David Attenborough's books.
Thats interesting...
Certainly here in Canada there are raccoons that live in the midst of large forests that have never seen cities ,etc. Are there differences in these raccoon's brains and those that live in the city in terms of brain size?
On these kinds of time scales, you'd think this would represent micro-evolution, correct? Variability in brain size would be a product of the natural diversity in populations of mammals like these. So larger-brains may have been selected in the micro-evolutionary sense.
On these kinds of time scales, you'd think this would represent micro-evolution, correct? Variability in brain size would be a product of the natural diversity in populations of mammals like these. So larger-brains may have been selected in the micro-evolutionary sense.
Yes. But that natural diversity exists in all populations of all kinds of life forms, even in non-living replicators like viruses. The larger brains were selected in a micro-evolutionary sense. Eventually some other trait may show up. Later, another. And another. A few hundred thousand or million years from now, you might have a population of animals with all those accumulated traits, that look and act very little like their raccoon ancestors. Voila, macroevolution. Natural diversity->natural selection->microevolution->macroevolution.
But I believe that these adaptations take place as God wills, and not as a mistake or an accident.
This has nothing to do with science; it's your friend's personal preference on a matter of theology. As long as her major requirement here is a theological one, it'd be nice if she'd stop pretending that her problem with evolution was scientific.
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.
I wonder what your friend thinks scientific theories are for, then. I mean, she's talking as if theories exist in complete isolation from anything in the real world. In science, theories are explanations of bodies of observed facts; the theory of evolution by variation and selection is the currently accepted and strongly supported explanation of the fact of evolution (descent with modification from common ancestors). Even if the current theory of evolution were completely discredited (hard to see how, given the large amount of support, but that's another matter), the fact of evolution would still exist and would still require an explanation based on the scientific method (in other words, would require another theory).
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
Linear Mode
