Who says they didn't? We are the only surviving species in the lineage that diverged from chimpanzees, but there were many others, as we see in the fossil record.
Or calluses on your rear end from riding?
Why did they extinguish? Why didn't they adapt?
In general, explain a normal extinguish process to me. Because I don't see the possibility under the theory of evolution.
How about this, seems I am right again. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp
And the point of that is not being "right" (that and 1.25 gets me a cup of coffee). The point is that the Darwinist interpretation is so predictable and easily attacked on the same basis over and over. Like the speciation thing. Its another example of some valid evidence for the Darwinist proposition, but it is demonstrably overblown evidence because that is what the philosophy behind it demands and that is all it can see. Since there is no alternate theory to Drawinism that gets the faintest recognition, where else could you possibly go as a Darwinist with this evidence of HDL metabolism?
So, the creationists are paying attention and are armed with science, and not the kind you get from correspondence school.
There are three ways to become extinct, but two of them are not real extinctions.
The only way that a lineage really becomes extinct is for the last individual in the group to die without leaving any descendants. Example, trilobites. AFAIK they have no living descendants today.
Another way is for the group to split into two or more separate groups. So, for example, there was once a primate species that separated into two distinct lineages. The living descendants of one group are today's gorillas. The living descendants of the other are today's chimpanzees and humans. As you see a separation also occurred in the second group which divided into the groups we call chimpanzees and humans.
So the original group did not die out with no descendants. But its descendants are not a unified group any more. Gorillas are not the original group--they only represent part of it. Chimpanzees are not the original group--they only represent part of if. Same with humans. So technically the original group is extinct, even though it is represented today by three living groups. Since we treat these groups separately, the original unity today is nothing but a classification category.
The third way is simply to change so much over time that the living representatives of the group are recognized as being a different species from the original group. Again, in this case, the original species is extinct, but in much the same way that a child is "extinct" when it becomes an adult. Just as for individuals we use different names for the different stages of its history (infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, senior citizen), so for a lineage, we could see the various species names as convenient labels for different stages of its evolutionary history. But each of the earlier stages is considered extinct.
Why do species become really extinct (as in the first case)? Why don't they adapt? Because evolution is not willed. You cannot consciously direct your DNA to change. It does or it doesn't on its own. And if the time comes when an environmental challenge is threatening the population, and no new genetic change appears--or at least not one that is helpful in this situation, then the species cannot adapt.
In a species of 100,000 individuals, would all of them (statistical majority) mutate toward one direction which would relieve the imposing environmental pressure?
Or are you suggesting that mutation is blind to environmental factors and is totally random?
He didn't. He had both John Polkinghorne (Cambridge) and Alister McGrath (Oxford) on. Both of whom accept evolution. However, the film DID make them out to be anti-evolution and just use there brilliant minds to dismantle Dawkins' scientific atheism.Being a Christian, I'm a little more concerned that he banned Christians who accept evolution from his film.
In a species of 100,000 individuals, would all of them (statistical majority) mutate toward one direction which would relieve the imposing environmental pressure?
Or are you suggesting that mutation is blind to environmental factors and is totally random?
Are you suggesting that I can change my genetic make up by just wishing real hard?
No. Each mutation occurs in a single individual independently of mutations occurring in other individuals.
For some mutations, there are known rates of occurrence, so you could predict, for example, that a particular mutation will occur in say 7 out of 100,000 individuals or that another will occur in 3 of them.
Yes, as far as we can determine scientifically mutations are blind to environmental factors.
Does that make them "totally random"? Depends on the meaning you are giving to the term. If you mean "unpredictable by any known scientific measure" yes, totally random.
But "random" is not a cause, only a measure of unpredictability. And it doesn't exclude the possibility of a metaphysical intelligence with foreknowledge of future environmental factors deciding to engineer a genetic change in preparation for that challenge. All sorts of little undetected genetic "miracles" could occur with scientists none-the-wiser.
I don't say this is necessarily the case, but it is not inconsistent with the scientific judgment of mutations occurring randomly.
Not only wishing, but desperately wishing for many years. You might be able to it. That is what evolution is all about.
No, it is not. Who told you that wishing, hard or not had any effect on genes?
This is not something I have ever seen in scientific research, but maybe you have seen something I have not... Or maybe you are just making things up.
I was 50% kidding since you were.
The other 50%? Well, I do think the will power is true, for whatever reason. So, I do believe some type of mental force could bend a fork. May be you think that is a type of mutation too?
So, could I say that evolution is about the survival of lives based on the favorable mutations that fit best to the living environment?
Why should I believe a third rate magic trick that even I can do is somehow caused by a mutation?
And no I was not kidding, I was hoping you were, but after our discussion on music I cannot be sure.
I also hope you are kidding about the fork bending thing, but again, given some of the things you have said earlier, I cannot say for sure that you are.
Not just wishing hard; "this kind goes out only by prayer and fasting ... "
Wow! I think you may finally be getting the picture. We'll see.
Yes, that is pretty much it with two qualifications.
1. It is based not only on survival, but on successful reproduction. It does not matter how long you live; if you never reproduce, you never contribute to the next generations' gene pool, no matter how favorable a mutation might be in your gametes. From an evolutionary point of view, someone who lives only half as long as you but has twice as many surviving (and reproducing) children as you is more fit than you are.
2. You need to specify "current living environment". As noted earlier, environments change. What may be a very beneficial mutation in the current situation may be neutral or even harmful in a different situation.
Thanks. I accept your modification.
The Art of War said: If you know your enemy (and know yourself), then you will win 100 times in 100 battles. That is what I always tried to do.
Now, here is the offense:
If there comes a gradual environmental crisis, then the survival of a species of 100,000 population will depend on the chance of favorable mutations. As you pointed out, the environment has multiple factors, so various mutations of individuals could also be looked favorable to various factors in one event of environmental change. Let's assume 1000 individuals survived due to favorable mutations.
How could these mutations be all the same so that only ONE or TWO new species emerged through the crisis? Why not 10 or more new species emerged and have different successes of adaption? (if it indeed happened, then the life form explosion, like the Cambrian explosion, would be a common feature in fossil record)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?