Natural selection doesn't happen in humans anymore, medicines and other technological advances prevent even very sick humans from dying most of the time. It is clearly evident in other species though, where the weaker are eaten by predators more, and the stronger are left to breed.
Creation AND Evolution
- Thread starter Macroman
- Start date
imnotcrazy357
Guru
Were do you get God from in this? I was asking a simple question, and you try and make it as "oh this proves there is no God" in everything you post here don't you? your questions are often easily answered, and after I answer, leave me with no response.
How does God kill the animals? God commanded people in the Old Testiment to kill animals.
So you are saying that one of the most obvious things in the world proves evolution? that the weak die, and the strong survive?
TJ
Hero
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 42
- Messages
- 5,922
thats what evolution states.
lets say you have the following scenario :
you have a gazelle
it has 3 legs
its in the wilderness
there is a lion
the lion starts to chase the gazelle.
the gazelle has 3 legs so it cannot run as fast.
the gazelle is dinner.
this proves that the weak survive.
if we allow for the weak to survive, then they can take over the population, making a weaker race.
lets say you have the following scenario :
you have a gazelle
it has 3 legs
its in the wilderness
there is a lion
the lion starts to chase the gazelle.
the gazelle has 3 legs so it cannot run as fast.
the gazelle is dinner.
this proves that the weak survive.
if we allow for the weak to survive, then they can take over the population, making a weaker race.
imnotcrazy357
Guru
Thanks for proving a point
I was talking of natural selection, not evolution.
So if the gazelle was to survive, and there was no lion, how would this stop evolution? The gazelle is in no way weaker then any other of its race, but it only has one less leg. If the gazelle is able to reproduce children, with out any defects how does this slow, or stop evolution?
Even if the gazelle did die, and there is one less weak gazelle in the population, how does this make gazelles evolve?
TJ
Hero
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 42
- Messages
- 5,922
you are thinking wrong if i am reading your post correctly.
evolution happens slowly.
my example was only half of the story, since i did not give a better example.
here is this :
a gazelle is able to run faster than the rest of the "pack"
since it can run faster, it has a higher chance of surviving.
if it breeds with another gazelle, it has a possibility of passing along that gene.
if the next generation of gazelle(S) passes on that gene, it will spread to more and more gazelle, thus causing evolution.
hopefully this clears things up.
evolution happens slowly.
my example was only half of the story, since i did not give a better example.
here is this :
a gazelle is able to run faster than the rest of the "pack"
since it can run faster, it has a higher chance of surviving.
if it breeds with another gazelle, it has a possibility of passing along that gene.
if the next generation of gazelle(S) passes on that gene, it will spread to more and more gazelle, thus causing evolution.
hopefully this clears things up.
imnotcrazy357
Guru
What gene is this gazelle passing along? all gazelles run, so is passing along the gene that all gazelles have?
imnotcrazy357
Guru
where did this gene come from, that caused the gazelle to run faster?
imnotcrazy357
Guru
do you know what the posibility for a mutation that does something helpfull for an animal to be? and even on top of that, the posibility of this mutation to be passed on?
Still this simply made a gazelle run faster, this does not explain animals changing species.
TJ
Hero
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 42
- Messages
- 5,922
i never said it had a high chance for it to be good.
like i posted in previous..well..post there are good and bad mutations
if you have bad mutations then you are more likely to die.
if you have a good mutation then you are more likely to survive.
if you survive, you can pass on that gene.
and yes, there is a chance of not passing on that gene, however if it is a male passing on the gene, and the baby that is made from the 2 parents is a male, it will have a higher chance of having that gene.
like i posted in previous..well..post there are good and bad mutations
if you have bad mutations then you are more likely to die.
if you have a good mutation then you are more likely to survive.
if you survive, you can pass on that gene.
and yes, there is a chance of not passing on that gene, however if it is a male passing on the gene, and the baby that is made from the 2 parents is a male, it will have a higher chance of having that gene.
imnotcrazy357 said:
When things that point as strongly as those three point to common ancestry, and when pretty much every aspect of science supports the general "universe is 13.7 billions years old" concept, then yes, it would be idiocy to think that we didn't.
imnotcrazy357 said:
Then you must accept the entire Old Testament, including the parts about selling your children into slavery, etc. Are you willing to do that?
imnotcrazy357 said:
That's not the basis of evolution. The basis is that the strongest will pass on the most genes, or have the best chance of passing on their genes.
imnotcrazy357 said:
What makes gazelles evolve (in the very few instances that a species exists without natural predators) is the occasional mutation that will allow a gazelle to breed faster, or reach alternative food sources, etc. They will basically then out-breed the competition over millenia.
imnotcrazy357 said:
It's unlikely in one animal's lifespan, but consider this happening over some 20 million years.
imnotcrazy357 said:
It's the net result of millions of years of changes that produces different species.
Also, a mutation is not necessary for natural selection to occur. Individuals in a population are naturally born with a high degree of variance in multiple traits. Those with a certain level of one trait will naturally be much more likely to survive that those of another.
Personally, no, but that issue is being discussed here: http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=369498
theincrediblehaxx0r
Forum Addict
I personally think that all creation accounts from organized religions are complete bullshit. Although I do think that the universe and humans could have been created by something, but not in the sense that the whole universe was created for us like all creation stories say. Who knows, some giant might have farted and created the big bang, or the big bang could have been the result of a war that used weapons powerful enough to create black holes and all matter got sucked in and popped back out and the cycle started again.
I think that we shouldn't believe in any creation story because there is no evidence, right now all we know is that the universe is expanding and galaxies are accelerating away from us. From there we can make assumptions about what could have happened, and we can't assume anything involving a creator because there is no evidence for a creator. So basically we should just work with what we got.
I think that we shouldn't believe in any creation story because there is no evidence, right now all we know is that the universe is expanding and galaxies are accelerating away from us. From there we can make assumptions about what could have happened, and we can't assume anything involving a creator because there is no evidence for a creator. So basically we should just work with what we got.
I've heard mutation in genes are only great enough to change colour of hair etc.. like retardism not entire species.
It's the combined effect of millions of years worth of mutations that produces this change.
theincrediblehaxx0r
Forum Addict
"New species have arisen in historical times. For example:
A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:
Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001). "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
imnotcrazy357
Guru
Can you show me where God promotes the sale of children?
Parts of the Old Testament become irrelavent after Jesus.
So a random mutation has a possibility of happening for the benefit of the creature, then the creature has a possibility of passing it on, and then considering that it does get passed on, it then all gazelles will breed it should pass on. Other gazelles without the gene, then die off, because of predators ect.?
If it wont happen in one life spand whats the difference of 1 million?
I find this interesting though
Recent advances in molecular biology have allowed scientists to recover ancient DNA encased in amber. This DNA can be amplified many millions of times using a technique called polymerase chain reaction. Although we are not at the level of sophistication seen in the popular movie Jurassic Park, scientists have been able to recover ancient DNA and determine genetic sequences from biological specimens preserved in amber (1). Recently (May, 1995), scientists were able to recover intact, live bacteria from the stomach of a 25 million year old species of extinct bee (2). This was possible because the bacteria recovered are part the genus Bacillus, which form spores under adverse conditions (i.e., being trapped in a dead bee encased in amber). The ancient bacteria have been grown and compared to the same species alive today (which also lives in the stomachs of modern bees). The results of genetic analysis show that the ancient Bacillus sphaericus differ from the current species by only 6.7%. This is a remarkable discovery, since these bacteria have had 25 million years to "evolve." Since bacteria have a generation time of minutes to hours, this period of time corresponds to over 200 billion generations. How then could we humans have changed by 1-2% in DNA content compared to chimpanzees in at most 300,000 generations? Evolutionists have already began to make excuses to avoid the implications of this new area of research
References
R.J. Cano et. al, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60, 2164, 1994
R.J. Cano, K. Borucki, Science 268, 1060, 1995.
J. Fischman, Science 268, 977, 1995.
Yes, I could understand this, the thing is since evolution if random mutations, shouldn't we see a difference in species who have not bread with others of species that live somewhere else in the world?
or
why have there been many creatures that have not evolved, because they have not been "pressured" to evolve by predators, shouldn't they evolve anyway, because it's simply nothing but random mutations.
yes but its never been seen that one animal insect transformed into another totaly diffirent species.
Changes do happen, but not so much that species or what they are change.
Similar threads
