When did evolution begin?

ob77 · Jul 24, 2015

Loudmouth said:
We have observed macroevolution on many occasions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

That's because they don't have to become useless in order to evolve.

We have the transitional fossils.

We have the evidence, so why would we need faith?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

How does something know when to "evolve"? and if they get instructions as to what they should evolve into, why not jump right into something far superior than what they are to begin with? Kind unto kind. Robins are still making their nests as they have for thousands of years. According to evolution, they should be building townhomes by now. The coelacanth is exactly the same as it was 140 million years ago, with no change whatsoever. Did evolution pass it by and if it did , why? Also, Splain to me Lucy, why no one can figure out the platypus?

justlookinla · Jul 24, 2015

ob77 said:
How does something know when to "evolve"?

It doesn't. Some random event occurs, creating a new life form and then natural selection takes over. That's the guess anyway.

Larniavc · Jul 24, 2015

ob77 said:
How does something know when to "evolve"?

Organisms don't evolve. Populations do. This is very basic information that you could have found on Google.

ob77 said:
According to evolution, they should be building town homes by now.

This is not a prediction of ToE.

ob77 said:
The coelacanth is exactly the same as it was 140 million years ago, with no change whatsoever. Did evolution pass it by and if it did , why?

The modern species are different enough from those found as fossils that they have been placed in a unique genus not shared with any fossil form.

ob77 said:
why no one can figure out the platypus?

What is not figured out?

Honestly, with all these questions you could use google to find the answers. I did.

Larniavc · Jul 24, 2015

justlookinla said:
It doesn't. Some random event occurs, creating a new life form and then natural selection takes over. That's the guess anyway.

Close.

The environment changes and there is population pressure that favours the fittest individuals in the new environment: they pass on their genes. There is no creating new life form.

Aman777 · Jul 24, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
The evidence of design is the apparent design in living things. THE EVIDENCE is DESIGN.

Amen. Here is God's Word on it:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Oncedeceived · Jul 24, 2015

Aman777 said:
Amen. Here is God's Word on it:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Amen.

justlookinla · Jul 24, 2015

Larnievc said:
Organisms don't evolve. Populations do. This is very basic information that you could have found on Google.

Organisms evolve in the world of Darwinist evolution. Something random happens to an individual organism in a population which changes that individual organism (random mutation) and from that, new life forms are populated....or not.[/QUOTE]

justlookinla · Jul 24, 2015

Larnievc said:
Close.

The environment changes and there is population pressure that favours the fittest individuals in the new environment: they pass on their genes. There is no creating new life form.

In Darwinist evolution, new life forms are created by random mutation. Survival of the fittest acts only on existing populations and does not create a new life form.

Shemjaza · Jul 24, 2015

justlookinla said:
In Darwinist evolution, new life forms are created by random mutation. Survival of the fittest acts only on existing populations and does not create a new life form.

New varieties of existing life forms.

justlookinla · Jul 24, 2015

Shemjaza said:
New varieties of existing life forms.

No, new varieties are only produced by random mutation.

Balstrome · Jul 24, 2015

ob77 said:
How does something know when to "evolve"?

You know that hydrogen atoms combine with oxygen atoms to form a water molecule? Well that type of chemical process is how things evolve. Chemicals bond to each, and collections of them show traits that are useful to keep these collection of bonded chemicals together. Ratchet that up orders of magnitude to the cell level and you have "real" evolution having. (By real, I mean predicable evolution). At that stage throw in natural selection together with random mutations and you get a process that can change species function.

The thing is, in this whole process, we understand how these things work, right down to the bonding of chemicals. And nowhere in that process is there any need for a god to be involved, or any sign of something supernatural happening. This is why evolution is a success, it explains everything without the need for gods.

Balstrome · Jul 24, 2015

Shemjaza said:
New varieties of existing life forms.

Define new varieties. If you use "kinds" then you do no understand the process.

justlookinla · Jul 24, 2015

Balstrome said:
(By real, I mean predicable evolution).

Predictable evolution?

Shemjaza · Jul 24, 2015

justlookinla said:
No, new varieties are only produced by random mutation.

Yes. But what you get is a new variety of an existing life form, not a radically new creature.

Shemjaza · Jul 24, 2015

Balstrome said:
Define new varieties. If you use "kinds" then you do no understand the process.

Check my religious affiliation. (Then again, I guess I could be a Raelian or whatever Whois thinks he is).

Evolution always works within "kinds", look at us: human-kind, ape-kind, primate-kind, mammal-kind, tetrapod-kind, animal-kind.

No new novel mutation causes a creature to be a different species to its parents. I was just trying to head off the silly: "evolution says a cat gave birth to a dog or a monkey gave birth to a man"

Balstrome · Jul 24, 2015

justlookinla said:
No, new varieties are only produced by random mutation.

No, random mutation is internal. Change can be the result of external forces, such as eviroment, which would mean the driver is natural selection and not random mutation. For example, a creature is introduced to a new environment, where a particular food source is available and that species selects within it's species those creatures that are better able to use that food source, those that can not are not bred and do not pass on that inability to use that new food source. No mutation is occurring, just selection.

With time and generations passing, the better suited species will become unable to breed with the parent species. And so a new species has developed. Ring Species are one such example.

justlookinla · Jul 24, 2015

Shemjaza said:
Yes. But what you get is a new variety of an existing life form, not a radically new creature.

That's how radically new creatures are created. For example, in Darwinian evolution, lots and lots and lots of random mutations occur and from an alleged life form, both pine trees and elephants are produced.

Shemjaza · Jul 24, 2015

Balstrome said:
No, random mutation is internal. Change can be the result of external forces, such as eviroment, which would mean the driver is natural selection and not random mutation. For example, a creature is introduced to a new environment, where a particular food source is available and that species selects within it's species those creatures that are better able to use that food source, those that can not are not bred and do not pass on that inability to use that new food source. No mutation is occurring, just selection.

With time and generations passing, the better suited species will become unable to breed with the parent species. And so a new species has developed. Ring Species are one such example.

The driver of evolution is natural selection, but mutation is the fuel. You need the varieties present in the population for selection to act on.

Balstrome · Jul 24, 2015

justlookinla said:
Predictable evolution?

Yes, if we know the process of how the chemicals react together, (which we do) then we can predict the result that should occur. Yes, it requires a vast amount of knowledge, but it is possible. My point is that with evolution there is no need to invoke a supernatural cause, because we can understand the individual steps and each of those steps relies on the previous step and predicts the future step. No gods needed.

Subduction Zone · Jul 24, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
The evidence of design is the apparent design in living things. THE EVIDENCE is DESIGN.

Sorry, but since this is a scientific debate you need scientific evidence and in that case you do not have any evidence.

When did evolution begin?

Newbie

Regular Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Christian

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency