Evolution questions for the science people

Chilldogg77

Dei, Amoris, Veritatis
Jul 6, 2003
405
23
41
Kansas
Visit site
✟15,660.00
Faith
Catholic
I don't know if I believe in macroevolution or not. I find that God usually likes to work over time in my life, and evolution can be thought of as God's continuing work of art in creation over millions of years. It seems cool, and like something God would do. But I have some questions, and I thought maybe some of you people with more knowledge of science could help me out.

Are there any living species that scientists believe are the direct ancestors of other living species? Macro-evolution works by a beneficial genetic mutation that gets passed along to the offspring, right? But I would think that in at least some cases the original species would not be wiped out by the species with the genetic mutation. If no living species is the direct ancestor of another living species, I see this as a big problem, because when you consider the great number of species, mathematically, not every single original species would die out. Can scientists prove with genetic testing if one species is the ancestor of another?

Another problem I have is that we have never seen a beneficial macro genetic mutation. How many years should we wait without seeing this before we start to seriously doubt the theory? When we consider the rate of change from single celled organisms to humans and lions, when would statistically expect to see this? Let's give a starting date on when our observation of the environment was sufficient to expect to see this and count from then. Are we talking 200 more years? 500? I don't know, I'm looking for someone to tell me.

That brings me to my next question. Is evolution falsifiable or verifiable as a theory? Newton's theories are now laws, relativity is not a law instead of a theory, so what findings would make evolution make that leap? And what findings would make scientists reject the theory?
What do you think about the Pre-Cambian (I think that's the right term) explosion?

Thanks,
Greg
 

RedAndy

Teapot agnostic
Dec 18, 2006
738
46
✟8,663.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
Are there any living species that scientists believe are the direct ancestors of other living species? Macro-evolution works by a beneficial genetic mutation that gets passed along to the offspring, right? But I would think that in at least some cases the original species would not be wiped out by the species with the genetic mutation. If no living species is the direct ancestor of another living species, I see this as a big problem, because when you consider the great number of species, mathematically, not every single original species would die out. Can scientists prove with genetic testing if one species is the ancestor of another?
The answer to your question is probably "no," there are no living species that are ancestral to any other living species, because populations accumulate genetic change at more or less the same rate. So any one population is just as "evolved" as any other.

Another problem I have is that we have never seen a beneficial macro genetic mutation. How many years should we wait without seeing this before we start to seriously doubt the theory? When we consider the rate of change from single celled organisms to humans and lions, when would statistically expect to see this? Let's give a starting date on when our observation of the environment was sufficient to expect to see this and count from then. Are we talking 200 more years? 500? I don't know, I'm looking for someone to tell me.
There is no such thing as "a beneficial macro genetic mutation." Any mutation large enough to cause macroevolution in a single generation (i.e. one individual giving birth to another of what can only be classed as a different species) would be wiped out because the offspring would have nothing to breed with. Individuals do not evolve, populations do, and evolution does not predict macromutations as the basis for evolution. Rather, it is accumulated genetic change over many, many generations that drive evolution.

That brings me to my next question. Is evolution falsifiable or verifiable as a theory? Newton's theories are now laws, relativity is not a law instead of a theory, so what findings would make evolution make that leap? And what findings would make scientists reject the theory?
J.B.S. Haldane was once asked what would falsify evolution, and he immediately replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." If we found a fossil well outside of its normal geologic stratum, we would have to rethink evolution. The fact that this doesn't happen is pretty good evidence - if circumstantial - that the theory of evolution is a good explanation of how organisms change over time.

What do you think about the Pre-Cambian (I think that's the right term) explosion?
I assume you mean the Cambrian explosion. Generally it is interpreted as being the first time when organisms developed hard parts that could be fossilised. Creationists like to inflate it as being evidence of a sudden creation, but what it probably points to is the first development of body parts that were easily preserved. Before that, organisms would decay almost completely, leaving nothing for us to find. So it is no surprise that there is little evidence of complex life in the Precambrian.

Thanks,
Greg
No problem. Glad to help. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

ReverendDG

Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET
Sep 3, 2006
2,548
124
44
✟10,901.00
Faith
Pantheist
Politics
US-Others
I don't know if I believe in macroevolution or not. I find that God usually likes to work over time in my life, and evolution can be thought of as God's continuing work of art in creation over millions of years. It seems cool, and like something God would do. But I have some questions, and I thought maybe some of you people with more knowledge of science could help me out.
all macroevolution is, is a name used by people to split the things they don't mind from the things they don't like
just to explain this all macro is is micro on a higher level, macro is all small steps going into big ones

Are there any living species that scientists believe are the direct ancestors of other living species?
what do you mean? at species at this time are modern, nothing has stopped evolving, i assume what you mean is do we have species that have lived for millions of years still? yes sharks and crocidiles are species that have existed for millions of years, both survived the dinosaurs
Macro-evolution works by a beneficial genetic mutation that gets passed along to the offspring, right?
no, macroevolution is the term used to mean changes above the species level, large term changes such as say hmm going from hmm ground based to flight would be one
But I would think that in at least some cases the original species would not be wiped out by the species with the genetic mutation.
NS would wipe out a species if they couldn't survive the envirirment they live in, if it becomes too cold for them and they do not have the insolation for it , they will be filtered out, the ones that do will survive
If no living species is the direct ancestor of another living species, I see this as a big problem, because when you consider the great number of species, mathematically, not every single original species would die out.
what do you mean orignal species? i'm not understanding what you mean, all species are modern species that fit the enviriment they live in, if they didn't they would have died out

do you mean, say a population of ground squirrels gets split in two and one stays in the same enviriment and the other survives in another? would the one they split off from be its ancester? being that both populations evolve they arn't really don't work that way.

both are branchs, one just hasn't evolved as much as the other one, the split between the two is not a direct line.

i think i have it though, you need to understand that its a tree of classification not a linier line as some people like to claim, so there are no direct anesters, a current population spliting into two is still two populations, the population that split in two, split from an eariler one


Can scientists prove with genetic testing if one species is the ancestor of another?
no because thats not really how it works, no species is the same as it was after a split, or else it would die out
Another problem I have is that we have never seen a beneficial macro genetic mutation
that depends on how you define benefical, i would say a lactose mutation allowing us to drink cows milk would be, or bacterum that can eat nylon would be, but it depends on what you mean when you request it
. How many years should we wait without seeing this before we start to seriously doubt the theory?
considering how hard people make it for others to understand what they mean when they ask for examples,, they already have decided for or aganst it, and only want an example to say "thats not one!"
When we consider the rate of change from single celled organisms to humans and lions, when would statistically expect to see this?
a lot, but its rather irrelevent how much it happenedm though people love to point out the probiblity as if ita an argument, it happened, i want to know how, and when, not whats the percentage of the probiblity of it happening
Let's give a starting date on when our observation of the environment was sufficient to expect to see this and count from then. Are we talking 200 more years? 500? I don't know, I'm looking for someone to tell me.
science estimates life begain hmm somewhere around 1.5 bya, for a billion is was all 1 cell organisms, then the enviriment changed, most likely due to some changes in how the earth worked
That brings me to my next question. Is evolution falsifiable or verifiable as a theory?
heck yes it is, the genetic information alone shows it, but fossils back it up, behavor studies, anatomy of living things and other things make it verifiable
and yes its fasifiable, i'll give you an example of how it would be: if we find an animal that nothing else is like in the world, geneticly structurely or chemically. or we find bones of say a human (fossilized of course, not buried) before dinosaurs, or we find flowering plants before blue-green algae
but we never see this, people like to claim that they find things from a younger age before an older one, but tis only because the earth has folded over itself
Newton's theories are now laws, relativity is not a law instead of a theory, so what findings would make evolution make that leap?
first you need to understand something about laws, its an archaic term really, newtons laws are still theories, but very simple ones. the only reason we call it the law of gravity, is because it has one statement, stuff falls
while evolution is way more complex and built on more than just one thing, i mean natural selection,sexual selection, gene drift, etc
much more complex than newtons law, though i supose you could say all life evolves could be a law
And what findings would make scientists reject the theory?
What do you think about the Pre-Cambian (I think that's the right term) explosion?

Thanks,
Greg

what would make them reject it would be, another theory that has more evidence for itself and explains things better than evolution or we find something that shows the theory is flatout wrong, such as what i listed before

cambrian explosion, and its still being faught over by scientists, the problem it seems is , most of the examples we have happened long after it started, about 35 mya, so its not really pin pointed
i think it was the culmination of many things over a long period of time, but i'm no expert on it
 
Upvote 0
G

GoSeminoles!

Guest
Are there any living species that scientists believe are the direct ancestors of other living species? Macro-evolution works by a beneficial genetic mutation that gets passed along to the offspring, right? But I would think that in at least some cases the original species would not be wiped out by the species with the genetic mutation. If no living species is the direct ancestor of another living species, I see this as a big problem, because when you consider the great number of species, mathematically, not every single original species would die out. Can scientists prove with genetic testing if one species is the ancestor of another?

Yes. Dogs are a direct descendant of wolves.



Another problem I have is that we have never seen a beneficial macro genetic mutation.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory called a macro genetic mutation. All changes are slow and gradual. From one generation to the next there is never a big sudden change.

That brings me to my next question. Is evolution falsifiable or verifiable as a theory?

Yes. Scientists are constantly devising hypotheses to test evolution by natural selection and its predictions. Evolutionary theory predicts what kind of fossils will be found in a given place and at a given spot in the geologic column. So, when scientists are interested in finding, say, a sea-to-land transitional species they have a good idea where to look (and where not to look).

In "Desent of Man," Darwin predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found only in Africa. This was a bold prediction because Neanderthals had already been found in Europe. Turns out he was right. We've been digging for fossils all over the world, but by far the oldest hominid remains have been found in east Africa, not the Americas, Europe, or Asia.


Newton's theories are now laws, relativity is not a law instead of a theory, so what findings would make evolution make that leap? And what findings would make scientists reject the theory?

Scientists don't think of things so much as "laws" any more. There are ideas with tremendous amounts of data to support them, and ideas with no so much or none at all. Evolution has lots of data behind it.

In principle, a fossilized rabbit in the pre-Cambrian would falsify evolution. Practically speaking, at this point nothing can falsify it because there is so much evidence from so many different fields of science to support it. If it were wrong, then whatever replaces it will have to explain why evolutionary theory was able to make so many accurate predictions.
 
Upvote 0

Hydra009

bel esprit
Oct 28, 2003
8,593
371
41
Raleigh, NC
✟18,036.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Newton's theories are now laws, relativity is not a law instead of a theory, so what findings would make evolution make that leap?
Laws refer to mathematical relationships regarding matter or a generalization of the physical behavior of matter. Since you brought up Netwon, F=ma is a good example of a scientific law.

On the other hand, a scientific theory acts as a model, it makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models. Basically, a scientific theory is an organization of facts into an explanation that makes falsifiable predictions and is subject to falsification as new facts are discovered.

I can't stress enough that in scientific usage, the word theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, like it is colloquially used.

It's also important to say that a scientific theory, no matter how well supported, will never graduate to the status of a law. The idea that the Earth orbits the sun is a theory and will always be a theory, even for an astronaut who is literally watching the Earth orbit the Sun. Other examples of scientific theories include germ theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics, general relativity, etc.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
re there any living species that scientists believe are the direct ancestors of other living species?

an interesting recent example of speciation is in the apple maggot evolving from the hawthorn fly.
start at:
http://www.nd.edu/~aforbes/
this is a particularly good example because the mechanism is pretty well understood and that apples are an import into N.America so the timing of the event is known (early 19thC)
 
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't know if I believe in macroevolution or not.
Learn the meanings of these terms first.
Are there any living species that scientists believe are the direct ancestors of other living species?
Aside from the other examples already given, the last of the aurochs, (direct ancestor of western domestic cattle) died in captivity in the 1600s. Is that the sort of thing you mean?
Another problem I have is that we have never seen a beneficial macro genetic mutation.
Are you sure of that?
That brings me to my next question. Is evolution falsifiable or verifiable as a theory?
Yes, both in whole and in part.
Newton's theories are now laws, relativity is not a law instead of a theory,
But all theories include laws.
so what findings would make evolution make that leap?
What leap?
And what findings would make scientists reject the theory?
If we found one of these, that would do it.
Pegasus.gif

What do you think about the Pre-Cambian (I think that's the right term) explosion?
I liken it to the early days of aviation, when any design might work and every design was tried before a common group of standards was eventually set. The same thing happened when life went multicellular.
 
Upvote 0

Hydra009

bel esprit
Oct 28, 2003
8,593
371
41
Raleigh, NC
✟18,036.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

I_Love_Cheese

Veteran
Jun 1, 2006
1,384
53
✟9,374.00
Faith
Agnostic
Originally Posted by Chilldogg77
Another problem I have is that we have never seen a beneficial macro genetic mutation.

If by macro you mean large, check out chromosome 2 in the human genome, it is a combination of two chromosomes from an ancestor, these two in chimpanzees are separate as chromosomes 2 and 13.

otherwise macromutation doesn't really mean anything outside of X-men
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
There are examples of speciation in progress called Ring species. Ring Species are made up of adjacent populations that form a ring are able to interbreed with the one next to them. however, the two species meeting at the ends of the "ring" cannot interbreed.

Examples include the Greenish Warbler and the Ensatina salamander

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chilldogg77

Dei, Amoris, Veritatis
Jul 6, 2003
405
23
41
Kansas
Visit site
✟15,660.00
Faith
Catholic
Okay, I'll try to explain what I mean a little better. Some of you have told me that all species are always evolving at about the same rate. But I thought that cockroaches, and crocodiles, for example, have existed in basically the same form for longer than other species. And why would all species evolve at the same rate? If some have always thrived, why would they evolve?
do you mean, say a population of ground squirrels gets split in two and one stays in the same enviriment and the other survives in another? would the one they split off from be its ancester? being that both populations evolve they arn't really don't work that way.

both are branchs, one just hasn't evolved as much as the other one, the split between the two is not a direct line.

i think i have it though, you need to understand that its a tree of classification not a linier line as some people like to claim, so there are no direct anesters, a current population spliting into two is still two populations, the population that split in two, split from an eariler one
Here's an example of what I mean. A crocodile has a genetic mutation, breeds and the genetic mutation is passed on, the mutation is continually passed on through generations (is that how it works?), that population leaves and goes to a different environment, there are more genetic mutations that are succesfully passed on in the new population, so they become a different species in a different location than the crocodiles. But the crocodiles haven't evolved much because they continued to thrive in the same environment they were in. Thus crocodiles would be the direct ancestor of the new species. Has that scenario ever happened? If it did, wouldn't that prove evolution?
There are examples of speciation in progress called Ring species. Ring Species are made up of adjacent populations that form a ring are able to interbreed with the one next to them. however, the two species meeting at the ends of the "ring" cannot interbreed.

Examples include the Greenish Warbler and the Ensatina salamander
That's interesting, but are the species ancestors of each other or just similar species that can breed?
Yes. Dogs are a direct descendant of wolves.
That's interesting! That's been proven with genetics? But they can still breed with each other. Any examples of species that can't?

Ok, macro and micro. I understand that micro refers to say breeds of dogs, bacteria, what Darwin observed, changes within the same species. And macro refers to changes that have resulted in different species. I understand it's always a very gradual process. I guess I mean something that looks like it could lead to a new species.
I do have a hard time with these minor changes over time, though. Let's look at birds. Now it looks like the birds that can fly were made to fly. But from an evolutionary perspective, these simple life forms became increasingly more complex, eventually developed wings and feathers but couldn't fly, and somehow their wings and feathers developed so all these species of birds could fly! Well, isn't that wierd?!! They couldn't have survived up to that point with flight as a goal. Their bodies just happened to develop in such a way that flight became possible, by coincidence? I guess birds used to flap their wings and not fly, and then there was a mutation that let one bird take off into the sky when he flapped his wings! From there, getting better at flying and surviving more as they improved makes more sense, but getting to that point where they had big feathered, wings great for flying for other survival purposes (and when I say survival purposes, I mean there were genetic mutations!) I find hard to believe.

I understand that there is a whole lot of evidence, and that most scientists who know a lot more than I do believe in it. But when I step back from it and try to look at it without any bias, as if I'd never heard anything about it, the idea that enough beneficial genetic mutations has occurred to go from one celled organisms to all the life on this planet seems rediculous. Especially when the simple organisms we have are doing better in terms of numbers than the more complex organisms.

Okay, that was a bit of a tangent.

On the other hand, a scientific theory acts as a model, it makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models. Basically, a scientific theory is an organization of facts into an explanation that makes falsifiable predictions and is subject to falsification as new facts are discovered.

I can't stress enough that in scientific usage, the word theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, like it is colloquially used.

It's also important to say that a scientific theory, no matter how well supported, will never graduate to the status of a law. The idea that the Earth orbits the sun is a theory and will always be a theory, even for an astronaut who is literally watching the Earth orbit the Sun. Other examples of scientific theories include germ theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics, general relativity, etc.
If what you're saying is correct, okay. But the idea that the Earth orbits the sun is still a theory? Isn't it a fact that started off as a theory?
Okay, but there are theories and there are theories. String theory, for example, is rejected by a majority of scientists, but it is still a theory, right?

Aaron-Ra, how would finding a unicorn disprove evolution?

I acknowledge there is a lot of evidence for evolution, but when I think about it without God in the picture it makes no sense. With God, birds could evolve with flight in mind, and all the things I find so unlikely could happen. And this would explain all the genetic and archeological evidence for it. I find God likes to work gradually in people's lives, but he also likes to let them know it is Him. So I think it would make sense that he would create using evolution, but in such a way that if you look closely, you can tell it was Him.
 
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Okay, I'll try to explain what I mean a little better. Some of you have told me that all species are always evolving at about the same rate. But I thought that cockroaches, and crocodiles, for example, have existed in basically the same form for longer than other species.
We have somewhere between 4,000 and 7,500 species of cockroaches right now, not including the 2,500 species of mantises which are closely-related.

Sarcosuchus.jpg


There are 32 species of crocodilians in the fossil record that aren't the same as any of the 23 different species of crocodilians we have today. So what do you mean they haven't changed?
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Aaron-Ra, how would finding a unicorn disprove evolution?
All animals fit into a nested hierarchy of form. Consider, for a moment: all land animals that are not insects have four limbs (though sometimes these limbs have been reduced in size or only appear in the early stages of development, such as in snakes and whales). Every single one. They are part of a group of animals which we call tetrapods.

Now, look at the groupings of land animals. Compare, for example, birds and mammals. While birds and mammals have many similarities, similarities that they also share with reptiles, they also have many differences. And those differences are exclusive.

Mammals, for instance, have mammary glands, fur, and three bones in their ear, and more that separates them from reptiles.

Birds, on the other hand, have feathers, a rather interesting lung system, a specific sort of wing, and beaks.

If we ever found an animal that shared the characteristics that separate mammals from reptiles, or separate birds from reptiles that was not shared among all birds and all mammals, then that would falsify evolution. For example, a griffon would falsify evolution (it has six limbs, feathers, a beak, and fur). The reason is simply that evolution predicts that the diversity of life comes from ancestral species diverging into more species again and again over time, and any evolutionary adaptations in one descendant line should never be seen in another descendant line, for the probability for the exact same thing to evolve twice is astronomically low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: random_guy
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Aron-Ra, what is the oldest species around today and how old is it?
Its impossible to say really, because species are distinguished in the fossil record by distinct morphology. But what you're talking about would require some way to determine the point of speciation; when a population divides into two groups that no longer interbreed. Scorpions are among the oldest familiar genera, but most of the ancient species were aquatic, and none of them are all that similar to the ones we have today. They certainly shouldn't still have compatible genetics after all this time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Aaron-Ra, how would finding a unicorn disprove evolution?
Chalnoth already answered this for me. So all I will say here is this:
Say the word, 'are'. Now say the word, 'run'.
Now say them together. My name sounds like R.N.
I don't habitually misspell my own name.
I acknowledge there is a lot of evidence for evolution, but when I think about it without God in the picture it makes no sense.
What a coincidence. Its exactly the opposite way for me. In my experience, magic was never a useful explanation for anything. Natural explanations tend to replace mystic claims, and even have even turn out to have practical application where superstitions are, shall we say -unreliable. I think that's about the best way I can phrase that.
With God, birds could evolve with flight in mind, and all the things I find so unlikely could happen. And this would explain all the genetic and archeological evidence for it. I find God likes to work gradually in people's lives, but he also likes to let them know it is Him.
Do you really "find" this? Or do you assume it instead?
So I think it would make sense that he would create using evolution, but in such a way that if you look closely, you can tell it was Him.
How closely do you have to look, and what could you possibly see before you assume magic invisible spirits must be involved? Or must you assume that before you even look? And is that all you're looking for?
 
Upvote 0

TooCurious

Kitten with a ball of string
Aug 10, 2003
1,665
233
40
✟10,481.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Okay, I'll try to explain what I mean a little better. Some of you have told me that all species are always evolving at about the same rate. But I thought that cockroaches, and crocodiles, for example, have existed in basically the same form for longer than other species. And why would all species evolve at the same rate? If some have always thrived, why would they evolve?

Evolutionary change is spurred on by changes in an organism's habitat. Cockroaches and crocodiles have changed in minor degrees over the past several million years, but they don't exhibit changes as dramatic as some other organisms because they found an ecological niche a long time ago, and that niche has remained fairly consistent throughout the lifetime of the species, and so there has been little or no selection pressure favoring major changes.

Chilldogg77 said:
Here's an example of what I mean. A crocodile has a genetic mutation, breeds and the genetic mutation is passed on, the mutation is continually passed on through generations (is that how it works?), that population leaves and goes to a different environment, there are more genetic mutations that are succesfully passed on in the new population, so they become a different species in a different location than the crocodiles. But the crocodiles haven't evolved much because they continued to thrive in the same environment they were in. Thus crocodiles would be the direct ancestor of the new species. Has that scenario ever happened? If it did, wouldn't that prove evolution?

As Aron-Ra said, there are many species of crocodilians.

Chilldogg77 said:
That's interesting, but are the species ancestors of each other or just similar species that can breed?

They're not direct "ancestors" of one another, just as you and any brothers and sisters you have are not the "ancestors" of one another. The genome of one group within a ring species may be more similar than that of the others to the ancestral population, but for direct "ancestors," you need to look in the past.

Chilldogg77 said:
That's interesting! That's been proven with genetics? But they can still breed with each other. Any examples of species that can't?

Speciation has been observed in the laboratory with Drosophila (fruit flies), but you're probably looking for something more interesting than that, so I'll leave it to the experts.

Chilldogg77 said:
Ok, macro and micro. I understand that micro refers to say breeds of dogs, bacteria, what Darwin observed, changes within the same species. And macro refers to changes that have resulted in different species. I understand it's always a very gradual process. I guess I mean something that looks like it could lead to a new species.

"Macro" evolution is only "micro" evolution repeated a bunch of times. It's nothing more arcane than that.

Chilldogg77 said:
I do have a hard time with these minor changes over time, though. Let's look at birds. Now it looks like the birds that can fly were made to fly.

It may look like there's intention there, but there's no reason to suppose there really is.

Chilldogg77 said:
But from an evolutionary perspective, these simple life forms became increasingly more complex, eventually developed wings and feathers but couldn't fly, and somehow their wings and feathers developed so all these species of birds could fly! Well, isn't that wierd?!!

Not especially so.

Chilldogg77 said:
They couldn't have survived up to that point with flight as a goal.

Flight wasn't a "goal." It is merely an effect. You'll note, there are several species of flightless birds--the ostrich, for instance. Structurally, it seems much closer to its dinosaur ancestors than, say, the sparrow or the hummingbird. And it doesn't fly.

Chilldogg77 said:
Their bodies just happened to develop in such a way that flight became possible, by coincidence?

No, by evolution via natural selection.

Chilldogg77 said:
I guess birds used to flap their wings and not fly, and then there was a mutation that let one bird take off into the sky when he flapped his wings!

Rather, gradually over time, the shape of the bodies of birdlike creatures became more aerodynamic, their bones became lighter, and the muscles of their wings and shoulders became stronger. They probably started off by gliding. Eventually, a few were strong enough and light enough to generate enough lift to overcome gravity--which gave them a significant survival advantage over their fellows.

Chilldogg77 said:
From there, getting better at flying and surviving more as they improved makes more sense, but getting to that point where they had big feathered, wings great for flying for other survival purposes (and when I say survival purposes, I mean there were genetic mutations!) I find hard to believe.

Explain to me, then, the ostrich, the emu, the cassowary, the kiwi.

Chilldogg77 said:
I understand that there is a whole lot of evidence, and that most scientists who know a lot more than I do believe in it. But when I step back from it and try to look at it without any bias, as if I'd never heard anything about it, the idea that enough beneficial genetic mutations has occurred to go from one celled organisms to all the life on this planet seems rediculous.

*shrug* When I step back and look at the whole process, it strikes me as so obvious as to be almost necessary, given the right conditions.

Chilldogg77 said:
Especially when the simple organisms we have are doing better in terms of numbers than the more complex organisms.

Numbers aren't everything. We exploit resources they cannot.

Chilldogg77 said:
Okay, that was a bit of a tangent.

That's okay. :wave:

Chilldogg77 said:
If what you're saying is correct, okay. But the idea that the Earth orbits the sun is still a theory? Isn't it a fact that started off as a theory?

Nope, still a theory. In science, the word "theory" doesn't imply uncertainty or a guess, the way it does in common parlance. Instead, it means "an explanation." Heliocentrism (the idea that the earth revolves around the sun) is a theory--an explanation--that describes the planet's relation to the other objects in the solar system.

Chilldogg77 said:
Okay, but there are theories and there are theories. String theory, for example, is rejected by a majority of scientists, but it is still a theory, right?

As I'm neither a physicist nor a cosmologist, I'm not sure how liberal a use of the word it is to call string theory a "theory." However, there is a massive preponderance of evidence in support of evolution; it is a much more solid theory than string theory is at this point.


Chilldogg77 said:
Aaron-Ra, how would finding a unicorn disprove evolution?

Actually, it was a picture of a pegasus.

And it would disprove evolution because it flies in the face (no pun intended) of our understanding of taxonomy and common descent. It's a mammal with six limbs and feathers, with no means of explaining the origins of these anomalous features.


Chilldogg77 said:
I acknowledge there is a lot of evidence for evolution, but when I think about it without God in the picture it makes no sense. With God, birds could evolve with flight in mind, and all the things I find so unlikely could happen. And this would explain all the genetic and archeological evidence for it. I find God likes to work gradually in people's lives, but he also likes to let them know it is Him. So I think it would make sense that he would create using evolution, but in such a way that if you look closely, you can tell it was Him.

If you want to believe that God created through evolution, that's your prerogative. But I think that--in part--comes from the idea you seem to have that evolution has goals. It doesn't. Birds did not evolve with flight "in mind." They simply evolved, and did so in such a way that they flew. Selection pressures favored flight, and mutation and variation made it possible.

Imagine a puddle. The hole in the ground does not wrap itself around the water to create such a snug fit; rather, the water, being fluid, conforms itself to the shape of the hole. In this analogy, life is the water, changeable and fluid. The world, the environment, is the hole, and we mold ourselves to fit within it--not consciously or deliberately, but simply by the nature of what we are.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Just noticed this quoted in TooCurious' post above, and since I am a graduate student in physics, thought I'd give it a response.

Okay, but there are theories and there are theories. String theory, for example, is rejected by a majority of scientists, but it is still a theory, right?

As far as I know, there is no scientist who rejects string theory. The problem with string theory isn't that anybody thinks it's wrong, it's that there are yet to be any testable predictions that have been verified from any model of string theory.

Basically, string theory, so far, is nearly impossible to test. Because of this, it has received quite a lot of ridicule and hostility from a number of physicists. Basically, for a theory to be 'good', it must both provide concrete, testable predictions and be consistent all current evidence. The problem with string theory is that at its core, it appears that it could describe an obscene variety of possible universes. So it is consistent with all current evidence, but perhaps only because it could be consistent with just about anything.

There are other reasons to think that string theory is a good theory, but I won't get into those right now. The perspective of the scientific community at the current time is basically, "Yeah, string theory is kinda neat mathematically, but until there's evidence I'll reserve judgment."
 
  • Like
Reactions: TooCurious
Upvote 0

TooCurious

Kitten with a ball of string
Aug 10, 2003
1,665
233
40
✟10,481.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Just noticed this quoted in TooCurious' post above, and since I am a graduate student in physics, thought I'd give it a response.

[/font]
As far as I know, there is no scientist who rejects string theory. The problem with string theory isn't that anybody thinks it's wrong, it's that there are yet to be any testable predictions that have been verified from any model of string theory.

Basically, string theory, so far, is nearly impossible to test. Because of this, it has received quite a lot of ridicule and hostility from a number of physicists. Basically, for a theory to be 'good', it must both provide concrete, testable predictions and be consistent all current evidence. The problem with string theory is that at its core, it appears that it could describe an obscene variety of possible universes. So it is consistent with all current evidence, but perhaps only because it could be consistent with just about anything.

There are other reasons to think that string theory is a good theory, but I won't get into those right now. The perspective of the scientific community at the current time is basically, "Yeah, string theory is kinda neat mathematically, but until there's evidence I'll reserve judgment."

Thanks for the explanation. :thumbsup: I figured there would be someone better-versed in the subject than I am, who could explain it more usefully.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chilldogg77

Dei, Amoris, Veritatis
Jul 6, 2003
405
23
41
Kansas
Visit site
✟15,660.00
Faith
Catholic
Aron, sorry about the name. I got it right the second time.
What a coincidence. Its exactly the opposite way for me. In my experience, magic was never a useful explanation for anything. Natural explanations tend to replace mystic claims, and even have even turn out to have practical application where superstitions are, shall we say -unreliable. I think that's about the best way I can phrase that.
How closely do you have to look, and what could you possibly see before you assume magic invisible spirits must be involved? Or must you assume that before you even look? And is that all you're looking for?
You don't seem to have much respect for people who can believe things that they do not see.
Do you really "find" this? Or do you assume it instead?

I was speaking mainly from my own relationship with God. Also, from how people have told me that God has worked in their lives.
 
Upvote 0