Evolution Lesson

[PsychoSarah]

A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general. The questions should be directed as to not try to get evolution compared with creationism, but I doubt people will go along with that for very long.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, and all of my questions are pretty well answered, so I'm probably not much use to you. But good luck, Miss Sarah.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, and all of my questions are pretty well answered, so I'm probably not much use to you. But good luck, Miss Sarah.

XD thanks for the luck, but why make a post here, then?

 

[Wolfe]

Assuming creationist know nothing of Evolution, or Biology.

 

[tansy]

I didn't learn about evolution at school, so lots of things puzzle me. I do remember at primary school looking at a picture of humans developing from more ape like creatures and gradually becoming upright - and thinking...that is ridiculous! Made no sense to me, but then again I had no explanation as to why that would happen.

But anyhow, one of my questions is, how on earth did different 'sexes' arise? If we all started from single-celled creatures and many creatures like amoeba and spyrogyra just split in two, so to speak, to multiply...well, how did creatures after that start getting male and female organs, not to mention wombs and female breasts or various forms of udders etc, to reproduce and feed their young? I mean, I can't see that there would suddenly be an animal (however 'primitive') suddenly develop a penis and close by, there is one that develops a vagina etc etc etc. So presumably, this would have to develop gradually, but I just don't understand how.

I don't know if you can explain the process in any way?

 

[John Hyperspace]

A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general. The questions should be directed as to not try to get evolution compared with creationism, but I doubt people will go along with that for very long.

What is the definition of a "species"?

 

[Sola1517]

A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general. The questions should be directed as to not try to get evolution compared with creationism, but I doubt people will go along with that for very long.

Does theistic evolution count as creationism?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Please explain to me the development of DNA coding and how this was accomplished without a designer.

I'll ask my second question here instead of creating a new post...

If the second law of thermal dynamics is that everything tends to disorder, how does that square with evolutions theory that something greater was created out of something lesser, that evolution created order and progress from chaos and disorder?

The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. ”
--Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

I have other questions but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[AvgJoe]

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

&

Charles Darwin admitted that the available fossil evidence didn’t support his theory of evolution. But he expected that plenty of evidence would be found in the coming years. Now, more than a century and a half later, the evidence still fails to support his theory. Where are the, expected, countless millions of transitional fossils?

 

[HitchSlap]

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

&

Charles Darwin admitted that the available fossil evidence didn’t support his theory of evolution. But he expected that plenty of evidence would be found in the coming years. Now, more than a century and a half later, the evidence still fails to support his theory. Where are the, expected, countless millions of transitional fossils?

At least you spelled his name correctly.

 

[HitchSlap]

If the second law of thermal dynamics is that everything tends to disorder,

You know the 2LOT has zero to do with ToE, right? Right?!

Based on your ignorant comment/question, I'll assume you've never read or studied the laws of thermodynamics, let alone the second one. So here, save yourself some future embarrassment and take a moment to read this:

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

 

[Cearbhall]

What is the definition of a "species"?

The simple answer is that members of a species can produce fertile offspring. That's not a perfect definition, though.

 

[John Hyperspace]

The simple answer is that members of a species can produce fertile offspring. That's not a perfect definition, though.

Is there a perfect definition? If not, what is the problem with the ability to perfectly define the criteria?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is there a perfect definition? If not, what is the problem with the ability to perfectly define the criteria?

Because one definition to describe millions of millions of species can only be approximate, at best.

 

[AV1611VET]

A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general.

If we came from primates, why are primates still around?

 

[HitchSlap]

If we came from primates, why are primates still around?

Great question, AV.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Because one definition to describe millions of millions of species can only be approximate, at best.

But that's just begging the question. One programming definition can describe millions of millions of functions and be precise. One astronomical definition can describe millions of millions of planets and still be precise. What is the problem in biology that it can't describe a species with precision? What about extinct "species" which we have no idea whether or not they could produce fertile offspring? What do we call something that does not produce fertile offspring? A species, or, something else? I've just always wondered why biology has so much trouble defining things. Dare I ask the definition of a "genus"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Great question, AV.

Thank you.

Here's another one:

Would rabbits in the Precambrian falsify evolution?

 

[sfs]

One astronomical definition can describe millions of millions of planets and still be precise.

Except that turned out not to be quite true, didn't it? The boundaries of what exactly one might want to consider a "planet" turned out to be fuzzy, and had to be set arbitrarily.

The basic concept of species is pretty straightforward, at least for sexually reproducing organisms. A species is a population that evolves together as a group, exchanging DNA each generation, so that traits can be passed around the whole population. One species becomes two when a population like that splits into two and each starts on an independent evolutionary trajectory. Deciding exactly when they have split enough that you should call them different species is pretty arbitrary -- what if there is only occasional interbreeding between the groups, for example?

When there's just one population and that species changes a lot over time, it's even more arbitrary exactly when it's changed enough that you call it a new species, since there's no interbreeding test to make.

The fundamental reason why species is difficult to define, then, is that it is applying a yes/no categorization to an inherently gradual continuum.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Except that turned out not to be quite true, didn't it? The boundaries of what exactly one might want to consider a "planet" turned out to be fuzzy, and had to be set arbitrarily.

Well, no; I would disagree. What happened that it took astronomers hundreds of years to properly define their terms, and Pluto paid the ultimate price for their incompetence. But I'm being a little hard on them, I'm sure back in the day they had no idea of the number of actual objects out there, so in time this became a necessity to properly define the term.

The basic concept of species is pretty straightforward, at least for sexually reproducing organisms. A species is a population that evolves together as a group, exchanging DNA each generation, so that traits can be passed around the whole population. One species becomes two when a population like that splits into two and each starts on an independent evolutionary trajectory. Deciding exactly when they have split enough that you should call them different species is pretty arbitrary -- what if there is only occasional interbreeding between the groups, for example?

Okay now I'm wondering how we presume that species have changed over time. Since we can't seem to tell what a species is among living breeding organisms, how is it being proposed that there has been change in species in the past? Unless you must be going by some other definition of "species" when dealing with extinct groups of organisms? Am I understanding correctly in that the word "species" doesn't always mean "species" and especially not when talking about extinct "species": so the word is being used basically without a definition, but is being used in a variety of ways, each with their own set of criteria which do not actually describe anything with precision? Meaning the word "species" has no real functional definition except in the present, and even in the present the definition isn't precise.

And do we just throw "genus" away and say "no one knows what a genus is, let alone the rest of King Philips Coming Over From"?

What is the definition of "evolution" anyway?