Quick question on evolution

[dysert]

This is an honest inquiry as I try to find out as much as I can about what evolutionists believe. I've come to learn that the ToE says that birds produce birds, fish produce fish, humans produce humans, etc. I've also come to learn that the ToE says we all came from a common ancestor. Assuming my understanding is correct, how do you reconcile those two statements? Thanks.

 

[lesliedellow]

This is an honest inquiry as I try to find out as much as I can about what evolutionists believe. I've come to learn that the ToE says that birds produce birds, fish produce fish, humans produce humans, etc. I've also come to learn that the ToE says we all came from a common ancestor. Assuming my understanding is correct, how do you reconcile those two statements? Thanks.

Somebody who is a child one day is also a child the following day, and a child the day after that. And yet he eventually "evolves" into a man (or woman), even though there is no day identifiable as the day when he stopped being a child, and became an adult.

Now apply that to the gradual evolution of a species, rather than an individual, as small, and scarcely perceptible, changes, eventually pile up into a big change.

 

[[serious]]

This is an honest inquiry as I try to find out as much as I can about what evolutionists believe. I've come to learn that the ToE says that birds produce birds, fish produce fish, humans produce humans, etc. I've also come to learn that the ToE says we all came from a common ancestor. Assuming my understanding is correct, how do you reconcile those two statements? Thanks.

Nested hierarchy.

So, for example, let's say we've got a group of vertebrate fish. They will keep being vertebrates because vertebrates produce vertebrates. However, if part of that group developed a calcified skeleton, we might make a subdivision into bony fish and cartilaginous fish. Neither group stopped being vertebrates.

 

[juvenissun]

This is an honest inquiry as I try to find out as much as I can about what evolutionists believe. I've come to learn that the ToE says that birds produce birds, fish produce fish, humans produce humans, etc. I've also come to learn that the ToE says we all came from a common ancestor. Assuming my understanding is correct, how do you reconcile those two statements? Thanks.

A very short, but precise answer:

God's intervention. In other words, it takes many miracles to get it done.

 

[juvenissun]

Somebody who is a child one day is also a child the following day, and a child the day after that. And yet he eventually "evolves" into a man (or woman), even though there is no day identifiable as the day when he stopped being a child, and became an adult.

Now apply that to the gradual evolution of a species, rather than an individual, as small, and scarcely perceptible, changes, eventually pile up into a big change.

Very good and very interesting. But it is only applied to human. It does not apply to animals.

That is the key.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Very good and very interesting. But it is only applied to human. It does not apply to animals.

That is the key.

Animals don't age?

 

[Hetta]

A quick question on evolution? I'm laughing over here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Somebody who is a child one day is also a child the following day, and a child the day after that. And yet he eventually "evolves" into a man (or woman), even though there is no day identifiable as the day when he stopped being a child, and became an adult.

Now apply that to the gradual evolution of a species, rather than an individual, as small, and scarcely perceptible, changes, eventually pile up into a big change.

I don't know if I would use aging as a comparison to evolution, because aging happens on an individual scale and evolution happens on the population scale across generations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is an honest inquiry as I try to find out as much as I can about what evolutionists believe. I've come to learn that the ToE says that birds produce birds, fish produce fish, humans produce humans, etc. I've also come to learn that the ToE says we all came from a common ancestor. Assuming my understanding is correct, how do you reconcile those two statements? Thanks.

Allow me a detailed answer on this one, as it is indeed a good question.
Before we start, let met address your statement in bold. Instead of trying to find out what "evolutionists" "believe", why don't you simply learn some evolutionary biology? Perhaps it is what you meant, but evolution theory is a theory of biology. You don't have to rely on what people believe to learn about it.

Having said that, let's start.

The central key of evolution is inheritable genetics/traits and mutation.
Let's leave sexual reproduction out of this for a second as it makes the tree of life more complex and it would only distract you from the mechanism I'm about to explain (although it applies just as well for breeding pairs, off course). So let's assume for simplicity that newborns have only 1 parent.

(warning: hypothetical numbers ahead, for the sake of example)
In that case, a newborn is an exact copy of his parents + some changes.
You are, indeed, 99.999% the same as your parent. That 0.001 % difference is unique to you. That represents your mutations. All newborns have mutations. This is called the mutation rate. In human species, I think that number is about 175 mutations per newborn. The vast majority of which is actually pretty much neutral in effect.

When you get a child, then the same thing happens. The child is 99.999% the same as you, with 0.001% difference due to its own mutations. It also inherited YOUR mutations. So it is 99.999% the same as you and 99.998% the same as your parent. And so it continues down.
Your kid will have a kid, he will have a kid, he will have a kid, etc.

All of them will be 99.999% the same as their direct parent.
After a long time, still being 99.999% the same as its direct parent, it will be perhaps only 97% the same as YOU.

What is the result? Well... that every single newborn is always of the same species as its direct parents. And it gradually, very gradually, changes through the generations. At some point, you would look back thousands of generations ago and find out that BIG changes have taken place. At the core, that descendent far into the future will still have YOUR DNA, which was inherited through the ages. But it will have become a new species.

So all off spring of Homo Sapiens will forever belong to the group of Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens will not turn into canines. Canines are on another branch of this family tree. Homo Sapiens will no doubt speciate further into subspecies. But they are forever "stuck" in the Homo genus. That's their ancestry. That's the DNA they've inherited through the ages. And it ain't going anywhere.

You've surely heared that Humans evolved from primates. This is correct. What is also correct is that humans are STILL primates. That will never change. We are also still mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates.
We share an ancestor with all primates. We share an older ancestor with all mammals. We share an older ancestor with all tetrapods. Etc.



Too difficult to comprehend? Let's try an easy analogy. I love this: languages.

As you probably (or hopefully) know: Italian, French and Spanish are called "Roman languages". They are called that because they all derived from Latin.

At one point, the ancestors of Italian, French and Spanish speaking people all spoke Latin. Let's called Latin the ancestral species.

Now, how did we get from Latin to those 3 other languages?
Consider this: at no point in history did a latin speaking mother give birth to a spanish speaking child. Instead, each child was always brought up in the SAME language as its parents. But generation after generation, the latin changed. Some words were altered, accents were altered, dialects formed, fonetics changed. All in gradual manner. Again, at no point did a generation speak a different language then the previous generation.

Yet, here we are: French, Italian and Spanish. All different languages with the same roots. All three are still Roman languages. Just like humans are still primates.


Feel free to ask additional questions if you feel like you need to.
I'll be more then happy to do my best to answer them (or point you to what might be able to answer them) if you are sincere in your request.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I don't know if I would use aging as a comparison to evolution, because aging happens on an individual scale and evolution happens on the population scale across generations.

True, but lesliedellow's example is still quite apt: they're both examples of slow gradual change over time, until one form becomes another.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is an honest inquiry as I try to find out as much as I can about what evolutionists believe. I've come to learn that the ToE says that birds produce birds, fish produce fish, humans produce humans, etc. I've also come to learn that the ToE says we all came from a common ancestor. Assuming my understanding is correct, how do you reconcile those two statements? Thanks.

The common ancestor thing is a theory about what may have happened in the far distant past. This aspect of evolution is a theory composed of a thousand fictional events that may have occurred.

The less fictional theory is about reproduction data that can be tested. All species reproduce pretty much according to their kind. Though there is a lot of inherent variation that occurs for each species or kind with each generation. It's possible that the variations could produce a new species, and occasionally they do, according to the definition of species that we have created.

 

[dysert]

Somebody who is a child one day is also a child the following day, and a child the day after that. And yet he eventually "evolves" into a man (or woman), even though there is no day identifiable as the day when he stopped being a child, and became an adult.

Now apply that to the gradual evolution of a species, rather than an individual, as small, and scarcely perceptible, changes, eventually pile up into a big change.

I asked my question, not wanting to debate, but rather to try to understand. So please take this in the spirit intended. It seems to me that someone growing up is not a reasonable analogy to evolution. The person neither gains nor loses DNA in the growing process; there is no reproduction involved; and not only does the person remain a "person" they actually remain *the same* person. Hopefully there's a better explanation (that I can still understand). Thanks.

 

[dysert]

Nested hierarchy.

So, for example, let's say we've got a group of vertebrate fish. They will keep being vertebrates because vertebrates produce vertebrates. However, if part of that group developed a calcified skeleton, we might make a subdivision into bony fish and cartilaginous fish. Neither group stopped being vertebrates.

Ok, so a vertebrate fish will give birth to another vertebrate fish, and they'll always produce vertebrate fish. I suppose that non-vertebrate fish will always produce non-vertebrate fish. Yet, a non-vertebrate fish is supposed to have a common ancestor with a vertebrate fish? That's the part I don't understand.

 

[dysert]

A very short, but precise answer:

God's intervention. In other words, it takes many miracles to get it done.

I didn't think evolutionists believed in miracles?

 

[dysert]

A quick question on evolution? I'm laughing over here.

Well, you have to admit, my question was quick. The point is, I'm looking for a concise answer to how a human and a bird can have a common ancestor if humans always produce other humans and birds always produce other birds.

 

[juvenissun]

I didn't think evolutionists believed in miracles?

Theistic evolutionists (many might be your church brothers and sisters) do.

 

[juvenissun]

Animals don't age?

They aged. But they are about the same from birth to death.
(you should read the OP again)

 

[juvenissun]

True, but lesliedellow's example is still quite apt: they're both examples of slow gradual change over time, until one form becomes another.

Human intelligence does NOT change gradually with age.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They aged. But they are about the same from birth to death.
(you should read the OP again)

1 word: caterpillars

 

[hedrick]

Ok, so a vertebrate fish will give birth to another vertebrate fish, and they'll always produce vertebrate fish. I suppose that non-vertebrate fish will always produce non-vertebrate fish. Yet, a non-vertebrate fish is supposed to have a common ancestor with a vertebrate fish? That's the part I don't understand.

I'm not sure I'd say that vertebrate fish will always produce vertebrate fish, though I can see where that would come from.

The problem is that with very slow change, each generation is always the same species as the last. Species is defined by the fact that they can interbreed, and in general two generations are close enough that they can. But over time as changes accumulate, the first one in the series (if it were still alive, which of course it won't be) would no longer be able to breed with the most recent.

Thus eventually you can get a new species. You can even go from invertebrate to vertebrate. But you only see that when you look over time. If you just look at one generation, the change are small enough that you'd call them the same species and the same kind (by which I mean vertebrate, etc.)

Of course things are complicated by interbreeding and by space. E.g. if all members of the species interbreed with each other enough, changes will spread throughout the group, and it's possible that everyone will continue to be the same species (even though it may change enough that a biologist would give it a new name). But if they don't (e.g. if some end up in Australia), they won't interbreed, and the populations will develop independently.

I'm by no means sure that human descendants will always be homo sapiens. We developed from different species, and over time we might change enough that we could no longer interbreed with those today. If we settle other planets, and there isn't much space travel, we could even split into multiple species. That's if we live long enough, which I'm not sure is very likely.