Evolution? or something else?

[Palidan_of_Christ]

Evolution seems to have become a what they teach at school. Which I do not believe in Evolution. As we know it suggests that animals change to adapt to their ever changing environment over many years. I find it hard to believe that a horse came from a fish just so it could walk on land. What I believe is different, but yet it is similar and seems to explain lost species of millions of years ago. Rather than evolution, I believe in mutation. Every day living organisms are exposed to radiation that alters genes. Now over years the DNA will have been altered quite alot which I think could create an entirly new species. Mutation is obviously not the same as evolution since evolution is changing to adapt to the environment and Mutation is a genetic change. Now I haven't exactly been able to to apply God in a more direct way.... but I know he must be there some how. I haven't been able to say how Man whom is made in God's image got here. But I do say that there may be something with this... it does make more sense then just pure evolution that Science vomited up. I am curious if there are similar theories around, if anyone knows of any that would helpful.

 

[seebs]

Er.

Evolution is not intended or directed. You have just described evolution. If there are a thousand creatures with tiny changes, and some of the changes are useful, those changes will survive.

 

[Palidan_of_Christ]

When an animal is mutated, should we call it evolution then?

 

[gluadys]

Evolution seems to have become a what they teach at school. Which I do not believe in Evolution. As we know it suggests that animals change to adapt to their ever changing environment over many years. I find it hard to believe that a horse came from a fish just so it could walk on land. What I believe is different, but yet it is similar and seems to explain lost species of millions of years ago. Rather than evolution, I believe in mutation. Every day living organisms are exposed to radiation that alters genes. Now over years the DNA will have been altered quite alot which I think could create an entirly new species. Mutation is obviously not the same as evolution since evolution is changing to adapt to the environment and Mutation is a genetic change. Now I haven't exactly been able to to apply God in a more direct way.... but I know he must be there some how. I haven't been able to say how Man whom is made in God's image got here. But I do say that there may be something with this... it does make more sense then just pure evolution that Science vomited up. I am curious if there are similar theories around, if anyone knows of any that would helpful.

You are almost right about mutation. Add one more cause of mutation: copying error. Copying error is rare as cells have sophisticated mechanisms for avoiding an error when DNA is copied. Yet every so often, when a cell makes a copy of itself, an error slides through.

What you need to add to this scenario is natural selection (or more precisely "differential reproductive success").

As mutations make genetic changes, these become expressed as phenotypic changes, i.e. changes in form (morphology), biochemical processes (physiology), behaviour and other observable character traits.

Some of these changes will be adaptive i.e. organisms in which these changes occur are better adapted to their environment, better able to find food and/or mates, to avoid predators, resist disease, etc. They are more likely to reproduce in abundance and to have healthy children who will also successfully survive and reproduce.

Some of these changes will be detrimental i.e. organisms in which these changes occur are less well adapted, less able to find food and/or mates, to avoid predators, resist disease, etc. Or, even if they show no difference in these matters, they may be sterile and not able to reproduce, or they reproduce less frequently, or have fewer children that survive to maturity.

Some changes will be neutral just adding some variety to the species.

Logically, it follows that if some parents have more surviving children than others, these children will form a larger percentage of their generation. And since they have inherited the same advantages as their parents and will pass them on in turn to their children, the grandchildren will form an even larger percentage of the next generation. And so it goes until the whole species inherits the advantageous mutations. This is how natural selection acts on mutations to create adaptation.

If you would like to get a better handle on how this works see post 5 in this thread

 

[Palidan_of_Christ]

This has actually been really constructive, I thank you for your insite.

 

[seebs]

When an animal is mutated, should we call it evolution then?

Sort of. That's part of the process. When I get an appetizer, it's not a full meal.

Mutation is part of how we see change. Once there's been some change, then the successful changes reproduce better. That's it.

 

[artybloke]

When an animal is mutated, should we call it evolution then?

Not on its own, no. Evolution = random mutation + natural selection.

Natural selection has to do with the way that the environment filters out the mutations that are either not useful to the survival of the species or harmful to the survival of the species. Note that most mutations are neither harmful nor useful, merely neutral. The life that survives long enough to pass on its DNA to the next generation is the life that has mutated sufficiently to survive its environment. Or maybe, because the environment hasn't changed, it's just stayed the same.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

When an animal is mutated, should we call it evolution then?

No and yes.

No because evolution describes changes in population rather than individuals. Yes because the animal is part of a population, so it could be considered an very tiny bit of evolution.