Christian Evolutionist:

[Heneni]

Marshes are full of yummy insects. The fish that moved in there would be free from predators and have a bonanza of food.
Why not move in?

wa:do

Why not move in? I dont know...why dont sharks eat lobsters.

Indigestion maybe?

 

[Magic Man]

Why not move in? I dont know...why dont sharks eat lobsters.

Indigestion maybe?

The thing is, though, that the fish in question already ate the small plants, and organisms like what was in the marsh area even when they were out in open water.

 

[Autodidact]

What makes you think that they did? If the predator developed legs to go after the fish....did they realise that ooppss my food is growing legs and is going to be gone in the next few thousand/million years so it had better get itself some legs as well.

Not through thinking but yes, they did. We have amphibious predators right now.

All the while the predator has a predator....were they all conspiring to get on land together? Why would there be any fishy things left in the ocean after millions of years then?

As long as the environment is such that some creatures can survive long enough to reproduce, there will be life in that environment. See why?

Also...why have antelope not developed wings so that the lion doesnt get to them?

Enough antelope are able to outrun the lion that antelopes remain as a species. Many creatures did develop wings, and were successful that way. We call them "birds." In short, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

There is always a 'looser' in the food chain. Imagine if all plankton evolved into whales...

Not really a loser, no. As long as there is some plankton that doesn't get eaten, we will have plankton. Everything is interacting with everything else in a dynamic balance. Whales need plankton, and actually, plankton need whales as part of the ecological balance of the sea.

 

[Autodidact]

Every species evolve......any proof of that? How do you know that we are STILL evolving?

Evolution applies to all species at all times. Just as an obvious example, sometime during the middle ages, a random mutation allowed some people to survive bubonic plague. As a result, many present day humans are immune to this disease. Evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

This fish and its predator is in the same enviroment. Accept, the fish growing legs would be less effective in the water while its fins are changing into legs, and therefore would become considerably weeker and far worse at 'swimming' and hence fish food far more often, which makes their chances of getting on to land terribly small. They would be the weaker specie to the ones who dont develop legs in the water. And hence they would be evolving legs to their own detriment.

Nothing changes into anything. Some fish are born with stronger fins, they survive and reproduce, so we now have a gene pool with stronger fin fish. If this is detrimental, so that they don't survive long enough to reproduce, the mutation dies out. If it's beneficial, it survives and is seen in future generations.

 

[Autodidact]

The same argument could be given for the fish...Why would the fish that grew legs, grow them, if there was plenty of food for it in the water?

If plenty of food, probably plenty of fish that eat that food. If a fish happens to gain access to a new source of food (shallow pools where other fish can't go) then it will survive and reproduce.

And not only would it have to develop a set of legs to feed on land, it would have to change its intestines to cope with the new diet.

Yes, and more importantly, evolve lungs to breath air.

How would the intestines of the fish evolve over thousands of years and still be able to digest the food the fish is getting from the water, while at the same time evolving to cope with the plants or other proteins it would eat on land?

Every species is adapted to its current environment at any given moment. Whenever a member is born that is able to better survive that environment and reproduce it does so, and its genes become part of the gene pool for that species.

 

[Autodidact]

First of all...i have to give you a cigar, :cigar: because for ONCE i am talking to someone about this without them flinging more insults. Cool. I think this is the first time ive been able to debate with you. Lets hope this peace pipe lasts.

Ok...i get what you are saying about the predator having 'other' food.

Now this fish which goes into the marshes...at first did not have 'legs'. So going into the marshes without legs would have meant trouble. It (the marshes)would have impeded their swimming. Therefore making them weaker i.t.o mobility already. They might have got stuck on the marshes. So why would they go into the marshes if going into the marshes impedes their swimming? Why would an animal voluntarily go to an environment where it is not suitable for them?

It would be suitable for them to go into the marshes if they had the 'leg' type of fins already. While they developed these legs it would have been useless in the marshes and in the water. A half grown leg does not make it stronger it makes it weaker. Half an eye does not make you see. So while developing the eye it has no use whatsoever. Therefore...why would the eye evolve?

This is where you're going wrong. Whatever they had benefited and worked for them in that environment at that time. I showed you a picture of "half a leg," that actual fish use right now, and are able to survive with. Right now, there are species on earth that have everything from a light sensitive spot to a primitive eye to a highly developed eye to eyes that work better than ours. From an eagle's point of view, we only have half an eye, but it's good enough for us to be able to survive and reproduce, so our descendants will keep it. From our point of view, a mole only has half an eye, but it works well enough for the mole, so it stays around.

 

[Father Heathen]

I've said this at least 500 times already, but apparently people can't get it through their thick zombie skulls: The notion of a god and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There is a such thing as theistic evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Hmmm...good answers...but there something not quite right about it. For example...wouldnt fishes migrate rather than try to remain in an area that has become unsuitable?

Wouldnt it be easier to migrate to a more suitable environment then evolving legs?

always remember it's not individual fish, it's generations. Some migrate, some explore new environments, some stay where they are.

Also, if the marshes have become part of their enviroment which they were unable to change by simply swimming somewhere more suitable how would they survive?

They survive because they have evolved features that allow them to survive in that environment.

What would they eat while they evolved near the marshes? Whatever they were eating, were not in the marshes before because the marshes wasnt there before. The same marshes formed where the fish, its predator and the fishes food were. Are we assuming here that the fishes did not have, like their predators, other options of food available, and other places to swim to?

It's not about winning or anything like that. Anything that is able to survive in a given environment gets to survive and reproduce, and its characteristics are then carried on in the gene pool. If a fish happens to get born that can swim into the marshes for a few minutes to get a meal, and that enables it to survive, then it reproduces, and its traits are carried on. And so forth.

 

[Autodidact]

Heneni.

We've answered a lot of questions for you. Now would you be so kind as to answer mine:

What is your hypothesis as to how God created all the different species? Thank you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Something else..Dont we know that the at some point the land mass on Earth was one solid piece?

This was brought up on another thread..I will try and find it since it was months ago.But if in just a few short thousand years..All the land broke apart into all these little pieces and floated all over the Earth and settled..Wouldnt that have been pretty noisy?Wouldnt that been something worth noting in history?

No mention of that..

Love

Dallas

Noisy? Yes and No. gradual shifting over time....noisy...No.....

Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions...noisy...Yes

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The reproduction of DNA and RNA is not the issue here. DNA and RNA is essential for life to exist in the first place. So if the evolution theory starts from the basis of DNA and RNA existing already, we cannot say that evolution is how life started, because DNA and RNA has to be present at the same time and work together to sustain life.

Well for what it's worth here a standard definition of evolution. You're gonna be surprised though......It has nothing to do with "How Life Started" Evolution is about the gradual change in a specie.

evolution definition | Dictionary.com

 

[Autodidact]

Heneni:

Did you read my explanation of how new species evolve, according to ToE, many pages ago? Do you have any problem with that explanation? Do you agree/disagree with it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Enough antelope are able to outrun the lion that antelopes remain as a species. Many creatures did develop wings, and were successful that way. We call them "birds." In short, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

And there's more than one thing you can do with a cat-skinning knife as well.

All this talk about wings reminded me of an episode of a science radio show on CBC that was on last year, where they were talking about the evolution of wings in insects: half a wing may not be much good for flying, but having a retractable solar collector is a terrific advantage for non-endothermic creatures.

If you rely on the sun for your body heat, you and all your friends "wake up" in the morning by sunning yourself until your body temperature gets to a decent level (I do something similar myself, only with "liquid sunshine", i.e. coffee. ). The more surface area you have exposed to the sun, the quicker you can be done accumulating body heat, which lets you do things like go find somewhere to hide from predators sooner, instead of hanging out on a rock in the sun in plain view of them.

On top of all this, there's a huge advantage in having these solar collectors articulated as well: if you can tuck these big "radiator fins" next to your body when you're not basking in the sun, then you can hold your heat longer, too, which means not only are you exposed to predators for shorter stretches at a time, you're doing it less often.

For all the evolution doubters out there, this is one example of what's called "pre-evolution". It's an awful term, I know, and if you don't know its definition, it kinda sounds like it implies that evolution is being directed in some way, but that's not what's happening. All it means is that sometimes, some trait, feature or behaviour will develop because it's useful in one way, but then at a certain stage, it becomes useful for something completely different: half a wing may not be good for flying, but half a solar collector's still good for collecting solar heat. Sometimes, it's our own preconceptions that prevent us from seeing that what something is now might have played a different role in the past.

 

[DallasApple]

All I know..is I wish evolution would have hurried up faster and got rid of wisdom teeth.Those things are nothing but trouble in this day and age!

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Oh..and tail bones are a pain is the *** too.(no pun intended)

Love

Dallas

 

[Jose Fly]

IMO, before folks spend a lot of time trying to go over vague evolutionary scenarios, it might be more productive to first cover the basics.

Heneni, it's become fairly obvious that you're a little confused over what "evolution" means in a scientific sense. From a population biology standpoint, evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies over time. "Allele" refers to a form of a gene. IOW, when a population goes from having say 10% frequency of one allele for a gene to a 60% frequency, that population has "evolved".

Another thing you need to understand is how variability arises in populations. Variations are produced via changes in the genomes of the individuals who make up the population. These variations arise via mutations. Mutations are common and occur with each replication event. For example, it's been estimated that every human is born with ~175 mutations. The locations and types of these mutations are largely random, which means that each individual is unique.

So if each time an organism reproduces it generates a new individual with a suite of mutations, and we have a population that is made up of individuals that are reproducing, we end up with a population that is continuously generating variability and unique individuals.

Before we move on, does that make sense?

 

[Autodidact]

IMO, before folks spend a lot of time trying to go over vague evolutionary scenarios, it might be more productive to first cover the basics.

Heneni, it's become fairly obvious that you're a little confused over what "evolution" means in a scientific sense. From a population biology standpoint, evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies over time. "Allele" refers to a form of a gene. IOW, when a population goes from having say 10% frequency of one allele for a gene to a 60% frequency, that population has "evolved".

Another thing you need to understand is how variability arises in populations. Variations are produced via changes in the genomes of the individuals who make up the population. These variations arise via mutations. Mutations are common and occur with each replication event. For example, it's been estimated that every human is born with ~175 mutations. The locations and types of these mutations are largely random, which means that each individual is unique.

So if each time an organism reproduces it generates a new individual with a suite of mutations, and we have a population that is made up of individuals that are reproducing, we end up with a population that is continuously generating variability and unique individuals.

Before we move on, does that make sense?

This is good, Jose, but I think might go better if you re-do it with no unfamiliar scientific terminology at all. Thanks.

 

[DallasApple]

IMO, before folks spend a lot of time trying to go over vague evolutionary scenarios, it might be more productive to first cover the basics.

Heneni, it's become fairly obvious that you're a little confused over what "evolution" means in a scientific sense. From a population biology standpoint, evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies over time. "Allele" refers to a form of a gene. IOW, when a population goes from having say 10% frequency of one allele for a gene to a 60% frequency, that population has "evolved".

Another thing you need to understand is how variability arises in populations. Variations are produced via changes in the genomes of the individuals who make up the population. These variations arise via mutations. Mutations are common and occur with each replication event. For example, it's been estimated that every human is born with ~175 mutations. The locations and types of these mutations are largely random, which means that each individual is unique.

So if each time an organism reproduces it generates a new individual with a suite of mutations, and we have a population that is made up of individuals that are reproducing, we end up with a population that is continuously generating variability and unique individuals.

Before we move on, does that make sense?

So IOW without these "evolving" genes..We would be clones?..Would that even include our sex? Like would we be all one gender?

Love

Dallas

 

[challupa]

I think that one huge reason why we don't know what humans will evolve into is because we have no idea what aspects of the many things in our environment are causing us to adapt to them and therefore increase our odds of surviving. Auto gave an example of how some humans survived the bubonic plague and now we have some people immune to it. That increases their chances of survival if another plague happens and their offspring will survive while many others will not. We see that even today with contagious diseases. Some are more vulnerable and others have more defenses. Obviously the ones that survive pass on that ability to their offspring and they have a greater ability to survive and do the same.

In any case, we know that those who do survive the pollution of today will pass on the ability to their offspring and slowly we will adjust to higher levels without it devastating us. We see that with insects now. They become immune to the poisons we give them because the ones that survive were strong enough to reproduce and give their survival ability to their offspring. It may have been a miniscule ability in the beginning, just enough to survive with, but as it got passed down the line it grew in strength until you see offspring that are not effected in the least by the same thing that killed their ancestors quite effectively in the not so distant past. Thats my view of it as a layman anyway.