Why do you reject evolution

[Bring Lighter]

Once they can no longer reproduce to make FERTILE offsping regularly they become a different species.

Lions and tigers can mate but why are they still different species? All Ligers are sterile.

 

[Paradoxum]

Why did it increase?

Because the great Goddess Haruhi desired such a future that by necessity requires an evolutionary past in all its glorious mystery. All praise be to Haruhi Suzumiya!!

But.... yeah I don't know. Wiki it

One partial reason I heard was that oxygen levels increased.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Because the great Goddess Haruhi desired such a future that by necessity requires an evolutionary past in all its glorious mystery. All praise be to Haruhi Suzumiya!!

But.... yeah I don't know. Wiki it

One partial reason I heard was that oxygen levels increased.

Hmmmm... Not sure why oxygen levels would increase mitosis or cytokinises, but I have researched it, and no one has a for sure answer. Its because there is none. Except for outside stimulants, nothing would increase cellular division that much for the DNA to become scrambled enough that new organisms were formed that quickly.

 

[Aeneas]

Hmmmm... Not sure why oxygen levels would increase mitosis or cytokinises, but I have researched it, and no one has a for sure answer. Its because there is none. Except for outside stimulants, nothing would increase cellular division that much for the DNA to become scrambled enough that new organisms were formed that quickly.

*sigh*

Evolution increased rapidly during the Cambrian explosion because off a massive disaster like an asteroid impact that wiped out a vast majority of established species, therefore opening a great number of ecological niches for expansion by the survivors. Therefore, many mutations that would have otherwise proven detrimental weren't "pruned" by natural selection, due to a lack of competition.

Evolution does not happen at the level of the organism.

 

[Paradoxum]

Hmmmm... Not sure why oxygen levels would increase mitosis or cytokinises, but I have researched it, and no one has a for sure answer. Its because there is none. Except for outside stimulants, nothing would increase cellular division that much for the DNA to become scrambled enough that new organisms were formed that quickly.

No one having a for sure answer (assuming that is true) doesn't mean there is no answer. I would think history has taught us not to be so quick to doubt what science can tell us. Also, hoping not to be offensive, I sort of doubt you fully understand the science behind all the theories. I'm not saying I do either, but I do accept that there can be many variables which the average person doesn't understand and things that science hasn't YET understood.

 

[BeOfGoodCheer]

When looking up the definition of evolution, I certainly can't reject it, even though I believe God did create the universe. I also can't put God in a box and say His creation of earth was 6,000 years or 60,000 years or 6 million years. He'll explain it all to me one day. I also wouldn't limit Him to creating living entities and compare it to man's creation. When we build, it is finite. Even our children are born with a finite set of DNA. Our creations will change only in the decomposition process or when we add to our creations. I believe God built His creations with the ability to evolve and lots of other facets that man has yet to label and understand.

 

[Girder of Loins]

*sigh*

Evolution increased rapidly during the Cambrian explosion because off a massive disaster like an asteroid impact that wiped out a vast majority of established species, therefore opening a great number of ecological niches for expansion by the survivors. Therefore, many mutations that would have otherwise proven detrimental weren't "pruned" by natural selection, due to a lack of competition.

And what does either the change of scenery or the lack of competition have to do with the random mutations of DNA? This is the part that always got me. DNA is not a sentient being in organisms, its not like it chooses what to do to itself. Sure, there are certain proteins that change the DNA strand, if there is a mistake on it, they don't make the mistakes. Weather I need an extra arm or a striped back pattern is irrelevant to the DNA strand. I can't consciously or subconsciously control my DNA strands. It is genetic. Any mutations of the DNA strand are usually harmful or have no effect to the organism.

Evolution does not happen at the level of the organism.

Then at what level does it occur?

 

[chris4243]

And what does either the change of scenery or the lack of competition have to do with the random mutations of DNA? This is the part that always got me. DNA is not a sentient being in organisms, its not like it chooses what to do to itself. Sure, there are certain proteins that change the DNA strand, if there is a mistake on it, they don't make the mistakes. Weather I need an extra arm or a striped back pattern is irrelevant to the DNA strand. I can't consciously or subconsciously control my DNA strands. It is genetic. Any mutations of the DNA strand are usually harmful or have no effect to the organism.

Who said anything about changing the rate of mutation -- though that too can be changed easily enough. Whenever there is a major catastrophe resulting in multiple extinctions, there is both a large environmental change and also several empty niches.

Normally, the theory of evolution predicts that beneficial mutations are quite rare -- after all, the organism has been evolving for millions of years and all the easy good mutations would have already happened and been selected for. But after a major catastrophe, the organism is no longer adapted to the environment, and therefore the rate of beneficial mutations must increase. Suddenly the organism may be better off with a change in body size, diet, etc and since there are many new options available many of the mutations which would previously have been bad are now good mutations.

Over and over, whenever there is a catastrophe new species quickly evolve to take the place of those extinct. (Note that quickly still means millions of years.)

Then at what level does it occur?

Oh, evolution occurs at all levels -- groups, individuals, gamets, the cells in your body, etc. Always populations of such, of course. The traditional, simplified version is that evolution "only" occurs in populations at the level of individuals, and that is also where most of it does happen.

However you can have evolutionary competition in your own gamets, for example, where it is called "meiotic drive". These cases are very extreme, and can have mutations that cause a 50% drop in fertility and yet have a 90% chance to be passed on.

 

[Girder of Loins]

You still have not shown me the link between "need" and the "mutation" of genetic material. How does the DNA "know" that the organism needs change? I get microevolution, and some cells responding to stimuli, but changing its entire structure is impossible.

 

[chris4243]

You still have not shown me the link between "need" and the "mutation" of genetic material. How does the DNA "know" that the organism needs change?

Because I was explaining to you that it is not random mutation, but natural selection, that "knows" that the organism "needs to change". But you would have known that if you had read my post.

As for increasing mutation when an organism needs to change, that too happens. Different genes and even different parts of genes have different mutation rates, organisms as part of their stress response (stress because they're maladapted to their environment for example) increase their mutation rate, etc. Organisms are designed to evolve, and the evolution is not entirely random.

 

[BeOfGoodCheer]

"Natural Selection" is still part of God's design IMO. He knew His creations would need to evolve to survive in this world.

 

[Aeneas]

And what does either the change of scenery or the lack of competition have to do with the random mutations of DNA? This is the part that always got me.

Nothing. Because that isn't what we are talking about. Populations evolve, not individuals. The rate of mutations per se does not change, merely the rate at which those mutations survive in successive generations.

You have got to understand that when we talk about mutation rates, we are not talking about the rate at which actual mutations occur in meiosis in individuals, we are talking about populations.

DNA is not a sentient being in organisms, its not like it chooses what to do to itself. Sure, there are certain proteins that change the DNA strand, if there is a mistake on it, they don't make the mistakes. Weather I need an extra arm or a striped back pattern is irrelevant to the DNA strand. I can't consciously or subconsciously control my DNA strands. It is genetic. Any mutations of the DNA strand are usually harmful or have no effect to the organism.

I'm glad we all know this.

Then at what level does it occur?

A population, for heaven's sake.

 

[Girder of Loins]

To whom it may concern:

Alright, I understand you guys now. Natural selection is the driving force for evolution. But what is natural selection? If you say it is a physical thing, show me the molecule. Show me the protein. Show me physical "stuff" that makes up the force "natural selection." So tell me, what is this force, "natural selection"?

 

[chris4243]

To whom it may concern:

Alright, I understand you guys now. Natural selection is the driving force for evolution. But what is natural selection? If you say it is a physical thing, show me the molecule. Show me the protein. Show me physical "stuff" that makes up the force "natural selection." So tell me, what is this force, "natural selection"?

The fact that many creatures have different success at leaving surviving offspring, for non-random reasons. You know quite well what natural selection is, else you would not talk about bad mutations.

 

[Aeneas]

To whom it may concern:

Alright, I understand you guys now. Natural selection is the driving force for evolution. But what is natural selection? If you say it is a physical thing, show me the molecule. Show me the protein. Show me physical "stuff" that makes up the force "natural selection." So tell me, what is this force, "natural selection"?

If we do end up saying selection is a "physical thing", we'll be sure to do so.

 

[Paradoxum]

To whom it may concern:

Alright, I understand you guys now. Natural selection is the driving force for evolution. But what is natural selection? If you say it is a physical thing, show me the molecule. Show me the protein. Show me physical "stuff" that makes up the force "natural selection." So tell me, what is this force, "natural selection"?

Well natural selection isn't really a force. Its a bit like asking where chance is. If there is a 50% chance that a coin will land heads or tails then where is the chance that causes this? Well it doesn't work like that, it is just part of how the world works.

So if you have a slow and fast gazelle, the slower one is more likely to be killed and therefore the faster one is more likely to live and pass on its genes to the next generation. Slowly the gazelle population gets faster because they are the main ones that survive. Of course you don't end up with bullet speed gazelle because other factors come into play, such as bone strength.

 

[Girder of Loins]

To whom it may concern:

So natural selection is another term for chance?

 

[ChristianT]

To those of you who believe in Evolution, answer me this question which has failed to receive a solid answer yet:

If evolution is correct, then by its reasoning, animals who have evolved or become extinct can never be reintroduced into the earth unless it implies survival. (so a green color in animals may go and come back based on survival needs, but an australian toad (just a random hypothetical animal if it doesn't exist) can never be "reintroduced" as the same species again. once gone, always gone, but the genes may be reintroduced.) Well, then if apes and humans have a common ancestor, why are there apes AND humans, didn't we evolve from the same ancestor? wouldn't look a little more the same considering only the slightest changes happen over the longest of billennia (billion's form of "millennia") needed for evolution? and please cite from a credible source.

 

[chris4243]

To whom it may concern:

So natural selection is another term for chance?

Natural selection is roughly the opposite of chance.

Natural selection is what decides whether a mutation is good or bad, then keeps the good and eliminates the bad. (That's the kid's version.) Natural selection is why we don't have blind eagles and deaf bats, because they die.

 

[Aeneas]

To those of you who believe in Evolution, answer me this question which has failed to receive a solid answer yet:

If evolution is correct, then by its reasoning, animals who have evolved or become extinct can never be reintroduced into the earth unless it implies survival. (so a green color in animals may go and come back based on survival needs, but an australian toad (just a random hypothetical animal if it doesn't exist) can never be "reintroduced" as the same species again. once gone, always gone, but the genes may be reintroduced.) Well, then if apes and humans have a common ancestor, why are there apes AND humans, didn't we evolve from the same ancestor? wouldn't look a little more the same considering only the slightest changes happen over the longest of billennia (billion's form of "millennia") needed for evolution? and please cite from a credible source.

Humans are apes... Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are you even asking?