The basics of evolution in plain language

[h2whoa]

To me, any explanations of origins needs to be able to explain where matter comes from

Woah woah woah there Tex.

Now Evolution in the sense of the word that is used in sceince and specifically the Biosciences, stems from Darwin. Darwin's seminal work was called "The Origin of the Species". Not "The Origins of Everything from Matter Onward"

The bio part of biosciences means life. We study life. If people want to debate where matter comes from that's for physicists, astrophysicists and quantum physicists to debate.

It's dishonest of people like Hovind to say that the Evolution is concerned with everything from the Big Bang onwards. It's not. That is firmly outside the remit of the biosciences.

You need to be able to make that distinction in your mind. The Theory of Evolution which is roundly attacked by Creationists is based in the "Origin of the Species", not in the works of those such as Stephen Hawking.

They are two very different things.

h2

 

[Kasey]

That's because atheists don't have a Holy Scripture telling them answers which (when read in a literal interpretation) contradict science. Obviously, a non-literal reading of Gensesis is perfectly compatible with evolution.

Ok, just for interest's sake, could you explain to me on how Genesis, in a litera sense, contradicts science?

So, if you add God to evolution, is your world view still complete, without gaps?

Dragar

Tell me exactly what you mean by evolution. Do you mean hundreds to thousands to millions upon millions of years?

 

[Kasey]

Woah woah woah there Tex.

Now Evolution in the sense of the word that is used in sceince and specifically the Biosciences, stems from Darwin. Darwin's seminal work was called "The Origin of the Species". Not "The Origins of Everything from Matter Onward"

The bio part of biosciences means life. We study life. If people want to debate where matter comes from that's for physicists, astrophysicists and quantum physicists to debate.

It's dishonest of people like Hovind to say that the Evolution is concerned with everything from the Big Bang onwards. It's not. That is firmly outside the remit of the biosciences.

You need to be able to make that distinction in your mind. The Theory of Evolution which is roundly attacked by Creationists is based in the "Origin of the Species", not in the works of those such as Stephen Hawking.

They are two very different things.

h2

Ok, I can understand that. So you belive in Evolution to explain the origins of the species, but that doesnt explain the origin of the matter that supposed was used by "Evolution" to evolve the species in the first place. Thats my contention.

 

[Kasey]

I'm sorry but that just ticks me off on multiple levels. Just because the theory of gravity doesn't explain why my sandwich doesn't taste like water I should dismiss it>? F*** that reasoning Kasey. You are now simply dismissing evolution (an explanaintion of how diffrent species came to be), because it can't awnser the origin of matter (an entire diffrent field of study).

Hence, your reasoning is flawed.

How have the human species evolved in the past 3000 years that would support Evolution on an even larger scale?

 

[Dragar]

Ok, just for interest's sake, could you explain to me on how Genesis, in a litera sense, contradicts science?

Oh, boy.

Pretty much all of it. The order, the time, the way the processes happen, etc.

It may still have been God at the helm, but he didn't run things the way it's written.

Tell me exactly what you mean by evolution. Do you mean hundreds to thousands to millions upon millions of years?

The OP gave the gist of it. Here's a very simple explanation:

In any population (of any speices - bacteria to humans), there will be varying traits. These are normally simple things - different coloured eyes, hair, height, etc.

These traits are passed from parents to children. Tall parents will have a tendancy to produce tall children, short parents to produce short children. Again, this applies to all species - plants, giraffes, bacteria, etc.

Some traits will make it more likely for an organism to survive to breed. A bit of extra height lets the animal reach taller leaves. Bigger muscles in the legs gives that extra burst of speed to escape the predator, and so on.

So, traits which allow the organism to survive to breed are more likely be passed on to offspring than other traits.

These differences are normally small, but additive. Over many, many, many generations (which can take millions of years, yes) the population will have changed noticably to be better adapted to its environment. Some changes in a population can take only a few generations, and have been observed in human lifetimes.

This is called 'Evolution of a species'.

Dragar

 

[Nathan David]

Ok, I can understand that. So you belive in Evolution to explain the origins of the species, but that doesnt explain the origin of the matter that supposed was used by "Evolution" to evolve the species in the first place. Thats my contention.

And no one is disputing it.

 

[Kasey]

Okay. Which parts about your beliefs conflict with evolutionary theory?

Dragar

Well, you see, thats just it. Coming to the understand that Evolution might be a little bit different than what I thought, I think I need to research it more before I could effectively answer that

 

[Dragar]

Well, you see, thats just it. Coming to the understand that Evolution might be a little bit different than what I thought, I think I need to research it more before I could effectively answer that

Well, that's okay.

Out of interest, where had you previously got information on evolution from?

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

Oh, boy.

Pretty much all of it. The order, the time, the way the processes happen, etc.

It may still have been God at the helm, but he didn't run things the way it's written.



The OP gave the gist of it. Here's a very simple explanation:

In any population (of any speices - bacteria to humans), there will be varying traits. These are normally simple things - different coloured eyes, hair, height, etc.

These traits are passed from parents to children. Tall parents will have a tendancy to produce tall children, short parents to produce short children. Again, this applies to all species - plants, giraffes, bacteria, etc.

Some traits will make it more likely for an organism to survive to breed. A bit of extra height lets the animal reach taller leaves. Bigger muscles in the legs gives that extra burst of speed to escape the predator, and so on.

So, traits which allow the organism to survive to breed are more likely be passed on than other traits.

These differences are normally small, but additive. Over many, many, many generations (which can take millions of years, yes) the population will have changed noticably to be better adapted to its environment. Some changes in a population can take only a few generations, and have been observed in human lifetimes.

This is called 'Evolution of a species'.

Dragar

Ok, I understand that, but why does it take a species so long to adapt to an environment? That right there leads me to believe that survival could not be possible becuase your going on the off-chance that the environment didnt change to be a threat to the species. How can you prove that the environment was contually stable for millions of millions of years for the species to survive?

 

[Kasey]

Well, that's okay.

Out of interest, where had you previously got information on evolution from?

Dragar

Well, Ive always believed that Evolution was the evolving of life over millions upon millions of years, so apparently, I have that right. What I didnt have right, according to what your saying is that Evolution is not intended to explain the origins of matter, the building blocks of life, but the origins of the life that came from that matter.

Where I got that was just from second-hand sources

 

[Dragar]

Ok, I understand that, but why does it take a species so long to adapt to an environment?

Hold on!

I may have unintentionally mislead you. Let me try and explain this with a specific example. This is merely an example of how evolution may apply; I'm no biologist, so I have no idea of the exact ancestory.

A population of say, horse-like creatures is in a certain environment - plains, say, but with large trees around. They can survive in that environment. They are roughly adapted to it.

Some of these horse-like creatures have longer necks than other horses. These animals are better adapted, because they can reach higher plants than the other horses-like creatures. They are more likely to pass on their trait for longer necks than other horses with shorter necks.

It's about becoming better adapted.

That right there leads me to believe that survival could not be possible becuase your going on the off-chance that the environment didnt change to be a threat to the species. How can you prove that the environment was contually stable for millions of millions of years for the species to survive?

There are a great many species that do not survive, for precisely that reason - environments change. For instance, 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were wiped out when their environment changed far too drastically for them to surivive.

But some animals - crocodiles, for instance - did survive. Why? Because their environment was not the same as the one that the dinosaurs lived in, and did not change as much (if at all). They are still around today; they are so well adapted to their environment that there are little to no evolutionary pressures upon them to promote further evolution.

For the evidence that environments were stable, I am out of my area of expertise. Geology, environmental biology (and possibly environmental physics - which I have not studied) are the areas I suggest you look into.

Note also that only large, noticable changes require millions of years. Populations are changing constantly - but making very, very small changes. So small changes that without a statistical study of a population's varying genetic code, we might not notice it.

Dragar

 

[Dragar]

Well, Ive always believed that Evolution was the evolving of life over millions upon millions of years, so apparently, I have that right. What I didnt have right, according to what your saying is that Evolution is not intended to explain the origins of matter, the building blocks of life, but the origins of the life that came from that matter.

Well, I'm glad I cleared that up.

There is another section of science - unrelated to evolution - called abiogenesis, which examines how life could have arisen naturally occuring chemicals.

I apologise for stressing this, but again that is not atheism, nor is it evolution. They are completely seperate. Abiogenesis does not require atheism or theism or evolutionary theory to be true or false. A god could still have arranged things so that life originated by natural processes on Earth.

Where I got that was just from second-hand sources

I am, technically, a second-hand source - I haven't studied this beyond A-levels. However, I do think it is valid theory, and established beyond reasonable doubt.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

Hold on!

I may have unintentionally mislead you. Let me try and explain this with a specific example. This is merely an example of how evolution may apply; I'm no biologist, so I have no idea of the exact ancestory.

A population of say, horse-like creatures is in a certain environment - plains, say, but with large trees around. They can survive in that environment. They are roughly adapted to it.

Some of these horse-like creatures have longer necks than other horses. These animals are better adapted, because they can reach higher plants than the other horses-like creatures. They are more likely to pass on their trait for longer necks than other horses with shorter necks.

It's about becoming better adapted.



There are a great many species that do not survive, for precisely that reason - environments change. For instance, 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were wiped out when their environment changed far too drastically for them to surivive.

But some animals - crocodiles, for instance - did survive. Why? Because their environment was not the same as the one that the dinosaurs lived in, and did not change as much (if at all). They are still around today; they are so well adapted to their environment that there are little to no evolutionary pressures upon them to promote further evolution.

For the evidence that environments were stable, I am out of my area of expertise. Geology, environmental biology (and possibly environmental physics - which I have not studied) are the areas I suggest you look into.

Note also that only large, noticable changes require millions of years. Populations are changing constantly - but making very, very small changes. So small changes that without a statistical study of a population's varying genetic code, we might not notice it.

Dragar

Interesting. So, the creatures with the longer neck would be better suited to that particular evironment because they can get to food easier, therefore, probablitiy wise, their chances of coming out on top and surviving among the short creaters are increased.

Large, noticeable changes require large ammounts of years. If this is the case, why havent humans, ever since we became humans, grown an extra pair of arms to help with all of our domestic lives?

 

[Kasey]

Well, I'm glad I cleared that up.

There is another section of science - unrelated to evolution - called abiogenesis, which examines how life could have arisen naturally occuring chemicals.

I apologise for stressing this, but again that is not atheism, nor is it evolution. They are completely seperate. Abiogenesis does not require atheism or theism or evolutionary theory to be true or false. A god could still have arranged things so that life originated by natural processes on Earth.



I am, technically, a second-hand source - I haven't studied this beyond A-levels. However, I do think it is valid theory, and established beyond reasonable doubt.

Dragar

I have already rejected Abiogenesis as ludicrous because it tries to explain the origins of life from life-less matter but wont explain how the life-less matter go there. I have never seen a computer or anything mechanic sprout plants. I have always believed in life begets life and all life comes from a living source.

Nothing mechanic, unless designed by humans or something else can reproduce itself. All biology procreates. Humans beget humans and so on. I cant see how Abiogenesis is a valid theory even in the slightest.

Thanks for the clarification about the distinction between Athiesm and Evolution. You just saved me a long run of head-aches in the futuer

 

[Dragar]

Interesting. So, the creatures with the longer neck would be better suited to that particular evironment because they can get to food easier, therefore, probablitiy wise, their chances of coming out on top and surviving among the short creaters are increased.

That's right. But imagine if they were in an environment where there was no advantage to having longer necks - all the food was at ground level for instance. Do you see why we wouldn't see an evolution toward longer necked creatures in this scenario?

If you'd like to think about this further, imagine a population of creatures - the same species, initially - seperated by a large mountain range. On one side, all the food is easily reached at ground level. On the other side of the mountain range, there is food higher up in trees.

What is going to happen to the two groups of creatures, if they cannot interbreed due to the mountain range?

Large, noticeable changes require large ammounts of years. If this is the case, why havent humans, ever since we became humans, grown an extra pair of arms to help with all of our domestic lives?

Do remember earlier when I said all the changes were small?

Well, let's imagine a small chain of changes which could lead to an extra arm. A small lump on our ribs, for instance. Are humans with small lumps on their ribs any more likely to survive then those without?

(Note: This is not how genetics really happens. I'm being very, very silly with this example. But I'm trying to illustrate how even the small changes must be useful. We know that an extra arm would be great - but the forces of nature are blind, and only work in small steps.)

Humans have evolved from our ancient ancestors. Having a slightly bigger brain let us communicate with each other better, which allowed us to be better hunters. Even tiny changes like this are useful, and over time add up. But there is no path of 'small' changes which would allow a human to develop extra limbs.

Dragar

 

[Dragar]

I have already rejected Abiogenesis as ludicrous because it tries to explain the origins of life from life-less matter but wont explain how the life-less matter go there. I have never seen a computer or anything mechanic sprout plants. I have always believed in life begets life and all life comes from a living source.

Nothing mechanic, unless designed by humans or something else can reproduce itself. All biology procreates. Humans beget humans and so on. I cant see how Abiogenesis is a valid theory even in the slightest.

Thanks for the clarification about the distinction between Athiesm and Evolution. You just saved me a long run of head-aches in the futuer

I'm not going to comment on this, other than to say another thread may get some of your questions answered. I'd rather keep this about evolution.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

That's right. But imagine if they were in an environment where there was no advantage to having longer necks - all the food was at ground level for instance. Do you see why we wouldn't see an evolution toward longer necked creatures in this scenario?

If you'd like to think about this further, imagine a population of creatures - the same species, initially - seperated by a large mountain range. On one side, all the food is easily reached at ground level. On the other side of the mountain range, there is food higher up in trees.

What is going to happen to the two groups of creatures, if they cannot interbreed due to the mountain range?

Well, if they both had food thats to their liking and they couldnt interbreed with each other, then they woudl stay the same species.

Yet, I have a question. If we are all genealogically related, then how come there is no modern evidence of any of the major species on this planet procreating together? Say....humans and horses? Apes and Lizards?

Well, let's imagine a small chain of changes which could lead to an extra arm. A small lump on our ribs, for instance. Are humans with small lumps on their ribs any more likely to survive then those without?

(Note: This is not how genetics really happens. I'm being very, very silly with this example. But I'm trying to illustrate how even the small changes must be useful. We know that an extra arm would be great - but the forces of nature are blind, and only work in small steps.)

Humans have evolved from our ancient ancestors. Having a slightly bigger brain let us communicate with each other better, which allowed us to be better hunters. Even tiny changes like this are useful, and over time add up. But there is no path of 'small' changes which would allow a human to develop extra limbs.

Dragar

I can understand that, but I have another question then. In human history, namely from Babylonia all the way up to Ancient Rome - what could you state that would be actual evidence for the theory of evolution? How have humans from the beginning of Babylonia to Ancient Rome shown signs of small changes that could be contributed to evolution?

 

[Kasey]

I'm not going to comment on this, other than to say another thread may get some of your questions answered. I'd rather keep this about evolution.

Dragar

No problem

 

[Dragar]

Well, if they both had food thats to their liking and they couldnt interbreed with each other, then they woudl stay the same species.

Well, hold on a moment. One group of creatures has an advantage for having slightly longer necks - more food. Over time, that group of creatures is going to develop longer and longer necks (in very, very small changes, of course).

But the other group is not going to have any advantage to having slightly longer necks, so they are not going to evolve in the same way. Perhaps they might end up even lower to the ground.

The plants will also have different constitutions. Different digestive chemicals will be more useful on the tall-plants to the short-plants. So perhaps we will see a difference in the digestive systems on the two groups of creatures.

Perhaps there are different predators on one side of the mountains to the others. One one side of the mountains, maybe small amounts of camoflage would help the creatures blend in, while on the other side a small increase in speed would be helpful, while camoflage wouldn't be.

All these changes. Tiny, tiny changes, but happening all the time. Give it a few generations. Give it more. Lots, and lots more, adding up the changes all the time?

What has happened to these two groups of creatures?

I can understand that, but I have another question then. In human history, namely from Babylonia all the way up to Ancient Rome - what could you state that would be actual evidence for the theory of evolution? How have humans from the beginning of Babylonia to Ancient Rome shown signs of small changes that could be contributed to evolution?

I don't think there have been many evolutionary changes to humans. None that are noticable.

There is one I can think of, and that is called Sickle Cell Anemia. This may take a little bit of explanation, and I'm simplifying this quite heavily. However...

The mutation called sickle cell anemia creates malformed blood-cells. Normally, this is a disadvantage, and humans with this trait are less likely to survive to breed.

But, there is something interesting about people with sickle cell aneamia. They do not contract malaria as easily as people without it. This means that in areas of the world where malaria is a large threat - Africa, for instance - sickle cell anemia is actually an advantage. This trait should get passed on more often, because humans with this trait are more likely to survive to breed.

And this has happened/is happening! Humans in Africa are far more likely to have this trait than in other parts of the world!

(Note: Again, I have simplified. There is a catch to this: if two adults with sickle cell anemia have children, their children are likely to have the disease twice as bad - so badly it kills them. So even in areas of the world where malaria is common, this trait is a double-edged sword. It's not a very good mutation. But, despite this 'catch', humans have evolved in certain parts of the world to be better adapted to their environment. In fact, it's probably because of this 'catch' that not everyone in the world has this adaptation.)

Dragar

 

[ForeRunner]

Well, if they both had food thats to their liking and they couldnt interbreed with each other, then they woudl stay the same species.

Yet, I have a question. If we are all genealogically related, then how come there is no modern evidence of any of the major species on this planet procreating together? Say....humans and horses? Apes and Lizards?



I can understand that, but I have another question then. In human history, namely from Babylonia all the way up to Ancient Rome - what could you state that would be actual evidence for the theory of evolution? How have humans from the beginning of Babylonia to Ancient Rome shown signs of small changes that could be contributed to evolution?

The most easily noticable change is our size. People today are much larger than we used to be. The change has been even more dramatic in the last couple of hundred years.