• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

NoorNoor

Member
Not necessarily. Creationism can be reached from /logical inference, no teaching or religious ideas involved.

Absolutely, I personally believe that logical /scientific approach independent from any religion can prove creationism "intelligent design". Once a belief in the creator was established, then the idea that the creator approached humans through his messengers would be definitely acceptable. second logical step is to follow a religion consistent with that understanding.

Of course creationism and evolution are different but my point is that in many cases, people tend to follow one or another in an act of blind faith.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Of course creationism and evolution are different but my point is that in many cases, people tend to follow one or another in an act of blind faith.
That's true of tons of areas of scientific study, not just evolution. The average Joe isn't a scientist and has little knowledge of scientific evidence on many subjects (quantum physics, relativity, genetics, astronomy, etc.). In that sense, the public does have faith that scientists know what they are talking about because scientists are significantly more well-informed on their respective subject matters than they are. It's necessary to a degree because we can't all be experts on everything. However, the evidence is there for those who want to investigate it.
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
So being eternal means "God has already technically achieved His objective" and "God doesn't tinker with anything." Honestly, I don't see how these follow at all, much less logically. Perhaps you could lay out the logic you used for us.


.

I don't see the two being contradictory at all. God has created this universe from scratch, and set up laws in the universe that can never be broken. These laws determine how everything happens in the universe from beginning to end, and God knows exactly how everything will turn out. He doesn't tinker with anything once the universe is already created. It will run its term til the end.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I don't see the two being contradictory at all. God has created this universe from scratch, and set up laws in the universe that can never be broken. These laws determine how everything happens in the universe from beginning to end, and God knows exactly how everything will turn out. He doesn't tinker with anything once the universe is already created. It will run its term til the end.
You said: "God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective."

I asked: "Where did you learn of it?"

You said: "Through logic, given the attribute of God being eternal."

So I asked: "So being eternal means "God has already technically achieved His objective" and "God doesn't tinker with anything." Honestly, I don't see how these follow at all, much less logically. Perhaps you could lay out the logic you used for us."

Which you explained by saying: "I don't see the two being contradictory at all."

Of course this doesn't come close to explaining how they follow, NOR does it lay out the logic you say you used. All of which leads me to believe you can't explain how being eternal means "God has already technically achieved His objective" and "God doesn't tinker with anything." NOR, can you explain your logic. Care to give it another shot, or is your non-sequitur as good as it will get?

.
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
You said: "God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective."

I asked: "Where did you learn of it?"

You said: "Through logic, given the attribute of God being eternal."

So I asked: "So being eternal means "God has already technically achieved His objective" and "God doesn't tinker with anything." Honestly, I don't see how these follow at all, much less logically. Perhaps you could lay out the logic you used for us."

Which you explained by saying: "I don't see the two being contradictory at all."

Of course this doesn't come close to explaining how they follow, NOR does it lay out the logic you say you used. All of which leads me to believe you can't explain how being eternal means "God has already technically achieved His objective" and "God doesn't tinker with anything." NOR, can you explain your logic. Care to give it another shot, or is your non-sequitur as good as it will get?

First issue I see here is that you equated the beginning of my statement towards the last part of my statement. Being eternal doesn't mean God has achieved His objectives. God achieving His objectives is derived through the fact that He is eternal. But the two facts are not the same! I clearly differentiated between the two when I said, "God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective." Hence, me saying, "And regarding objectives..."

I made my answers clear. We are given the attribute of God from our beliefs that He is eternal. So if God is eternal (also being outside of time), then the universe, as best as we can describe it, has popped in and out for Him in His perspective, like a snap of fingers. Why? Since He is eternal and outside of time, time doesn't exist for Him. He doesn't sit and wait for the events in the universe to unfold one by one like we do, creatures who are living within time.

So regarding objectives, it wouldn't be contradictory to what I just stated at all. The person by the name of Viole stated, "If we believe that God tinkers with proteins, weather changes, continental drifts and huge asteroids in order to achieve His objectives, that is true." And I explained that God doesn't do that. He has set the laws in motion from the very beginning which He had decreed.

The only way to understand this fact is to first understand that God is eternal, and beyond time itself. When you pick and choose from people's statements, you will get confused.
 

NoorNoor

Member
That's true of tons of areas of scientific study, not just evolution. The average Joe isn't a scientist and has little knowledge of scientific evidence on many subjects (quantum physics, relativity, genetics, astronomy, etc.). In that sense, the public does have faith that scientists know what they are talking about because scientists are significantly more well-informed on their respective subject matters than they are. It's necessary to a degree because we can't all be experts on everything. However, the evidence is there for those who want to investigate it.

Yes, It's not possible for any one to be expert on everything (and may not need to). I don't think it's about how much data you memorize but essentially, the overall holistic vision that allows you to process data to extract conclusions.

The claim that being an evolutionist is necessarily following the footsteps of the scientific community is not true.

according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2009, the majority of scientists (51%) said they believe in God, while 41% said they do not.

The interesting part is that 100 years ago (1914), 1000 scientist were questioned by psychologist James Leuba about their beliefs and they were evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.

It appears that the percentage of scientists who believe in God would be higher now than what it was 100 years ago.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, It's not possible for any one to be expert on everything (and may not need to). I don't think it's about how much data you memorize but essentially, the overall holistic vision that allows you to process data to extract conclusions.

The claim that being an evolutionist is necessarily following the footsteps of the scientific community is not true.

according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2009, the majority of scientists (51%) said they believe in God, while 41% said they do not.

The interesting part is that 100 years ago (1914), 1000 scientist were questioned by psychologist James Leuba about their beliefs and they were evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.

It appears that the percentage of scientists who believe in God would be higher now than what it was 100 years ago.
Yet the vast majority of those scientists are 'evolutionists' in that they accept evolutionary biology via common descent as the best way to understand biodiversity. Miller is an evolutionist, as are the vast majority of biologists. Miller also fought hard against intelligent design.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
If Ken Miller believes that God is responsible for the existence of our world, then he is essentially a creationist.
That logically should be true. But it is not.

"Creationism" as it is usually used involves specifically the denial of the Theory of Evolution.

The details of his specific perspective, don't change the fact that he believes in God.
True. And that, by its turn, by no means imply that he denies the ToE. Which is to say, it is hardly enough to assume that he is a Creationist.
 

NoorNoor

Member
Yet the vast majority of those scientists are 'evolutionists' in that they accept evolutionary biology via common descent as the best way to understand biodiversity. Miller is an evolutionist, as are the vast majority of biologists. Miller also fought hard against intelligent design.


The 51% scientist who believe in God is a solid survey result, vast majority are evolutionists is a claim. Assuming both are true, then the numbers would add up to more than 100% which is not possible unless you consider an overlap. Meaning, you would have many other examples like Miller who believe in both God and the evolution.

If its true that vast majority of scientist are evolutionists, then the 51% who believe in God would also accept the evolution. The possibilities are either this claim is not true or evolution and religion do not rule each other out.

beyond speculations, the solid fact per the survey stays that the majority of scientists (51%) believe in God vs. (41%) who don't.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The 51% scientist who believe in God is a solid survey result, vast majority are evolutionists is a claim. Assuming both are true, then the numbers would add up to more than 100% which is not possible unless you consider an overlap. Meaning, you would have many other examples like Miller who believe in both God and the evolution.

If its true that vast majority of scientist are evolutionists, then the 51% who believe in God would also accept the evolution. The possibilities are either this claim is not true or evolution and religion do not rule each other out.

beyond speculations, the solid fact per the survey stays that the majority of scientists (51%) believe in God vs. (41%) who don't.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there are not people who both believe in god(s) and accept evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Here is a poll showing the vast majority of scientists support evolution. 97%!
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Indeed. Creationism (as it is currently understood) is by no means a natural or necessary consequence of belief in a Creator God.

Rather, it is akin to refusal to believe in the findings of research in, say, Geology.
 

NoorNoor

Member
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there are not people who both believe in god(s) and accept evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Here is a poll showing the vast majority of scientists support evolution. 97%!
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

Can't be further from the truth. The common revolutionists claim is that science and religion rule each other out which is totally false. Creationism do not rule out science.

If (97%) of scientists support evolution, then the majority of scientist (51.%) would believe in God and also support evolution (whatever their specific understanding of the evolution is). I definitely accept for a ""fact"" that many people believe in both. I believe in both my self but in a specific "limited" sense.

I accept that natural selection may take effect within one species through interaction with the environment but I don't believe that this specific species would transform /mutate totally to be different species.

I understand that if mutations in genes happen, sudden changes would be expected, not necessarily gradual changes over long period of time. In addition, studies showed that mutations in genes are likely to be harmful. mutations in genes would result from damage to DNA that is not corrected through DNA repair to revert to its original state. the result of mutation is likely harmful and may prevent the gene from functioning partially or completely.

To conclude, people would believe specifically in God or evolution but also Many would believe in both. Religion don't rule out science. The Majority of the scientific community (51%) believe in God. Neither revolutionists nor creationists should dictate their own perspective "in disrespect" on an entire community. freedom of belief should be respected.

(Mestemia, it's done, you can wake up now :))
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The 51% scientist who believe in God is a solid survey result, vast majority are evolutionists is a claim. Assuming both are true, then the numbers would add up to more than 100% which is not possible unless you consider an overlap. Meaning, you would have many other examples like Miller who believe in both God and the evolution.

There is usually a margin of error included in statistics to cover overlap and just plain errors. The question is a simple "either or" thus even Miller would pick evolution as he rejects creationism as scientific. Miller accepts creationism as a metaphysical view which acts as the source and ordering of the mechanics found in nature. Simply put God made the mechanics of nature including evolution. He is not lumping methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Also the label "scientist" can be very misleading. A person can be an expert in one field, science isn't a field its a methodology(s), but not in another.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Can't be further from the truth. The common revolutionists claim is that science and religion rule each other out which is totally false. Creationism do not rule out science.

If (97%) of scientists support evolution, then the majority of scientist (51.%) would believe in God and also support evolution (whatever their specific understanding of the evolution is). I definitely accept for a ""fact"" that many people believe in both. I believe in both my self but in a specific "limited" sense.

I accept that natural selection may take effect within one species through interaction with the environment but I don't believe that this specific species would transform /mutate totally to be different species.

I understand that if mutations in genes happen, sudden changes would be expected, not necessarily gradual changes over long period of time. In addition, studies showed that mutations in genes are likely to be harmful. mutations in genes would result from damage to DNA that is not corrected through DNA repair to revert to its original state. the result of mutation is likely harmful and may prevent the gene from functioning partially or completely.

To conclude, people would believe specifically in God or evolution but also Many would believe in both. Religion don't rule out science. The Majority of the scientific community (51%) believe in God. Neither revolutionists nor creationists should dictate their own perspective "in disrespect" on an entire community. freedom of belief should be respected.

(Mestemia, it's done, you can wake up now :))
NoorNoor, you are sadly mistaken about most of this.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Can't be further from the truth. The common revolutionists claim is that science and religion rule each other out which is totally false. Creationism do not rule out science.
Common according to whom? Never minding that not every religion is theistic or dualistic, accepting evolution as best fitting the evidence of life's diversification does not rule out god(s) nor do those who accept it claim it does. What evolution does rule out is young-Earth creationism which is not even the majority view in Christianity anymore. Even less in the other Abrahamic faiths and virtually non-existent in non-Abrahamic faiths. The vast majority of religious people have no problem with evolution. As does the vast majority of scientists.

If (97%) of scientists support evolution, then the majority of scientist (51.%) would believe in God and also support evolution (whatever their specific understanding of the evolution is). I definitely accept for a ""fact"" that many people believe in both. I believe in both my self but in a specific "limited" sense.
The poll specified that the majority of scientists believe humans and other species arose through natural evolution. Which means it's not the limited version YECs believe.

I accept that natural selection may take effect within one species through interaction with the environment but I don't believe that this specific species would transform /mutate totally to be different species.
There's no reason to not believe this and every reason to believe it does. No creationist has ever been able to demonstrate a barrier between so-called macro evolution and so-called micro evolution.

Small changes within inheritable genetic traits build on each other until a threshold of genetic incompatibility is reached. Viola, speciation.

I understand that if mutations in genes happen, sudden changes would be expected, not necessarily gradual changes over long period of time. In addition, studies showed that mutations in genes are likely to be harmful. mutations in genes would result from damage to DNA that is not corrected through DNA repair to revert to its original state. the result of mutation is likely harmful and may prevent the gene from functioning partially or completely.
That is a woefully oversimplified view of what mutations are. Every single offspring carries millions of mutations which makes people imperfect blends of their parents. These aren't mutations which threaten DNA function, even if something which used to code for a certain gene no longer does. Studies have actually shown that the vast majority of changes are neutral, neither beneficial or harmful. Just variability.
But what is beneficial or harmful is largely dependent on environment. If an ancestor to a giraffe evolved a long neck somewhere there weren't trees, or foliage didn't provide enough nutrition or were poisonous, then the giraffe would have died as an unfortunate negative mutation. Fortunately long necks did provide utility, and the utility is what made the mutation beneficial.

To conclude, people would believe specifically in God or evolution but also Many would believe in both. Religion don't rule out science. The Majority of the scientific community (51%) believe in God. Neither revolutionists nor creationists should dictate their own perspective "in disrespect" on an entire community. freedom of belief should be respected.

Okay? Like I said, evolution doesn't contradict religion or theism or even Abrahamic faiths. Just YEC, which is most definitely unscientific and not treated as science (for good reason) by the vast majority of scientists.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Sapiens, I understand you don’t like “Discovery Institute”,
I have the normal dislike that people have for liars.
the science teacher is unpublished and James Tour is just a chemist with no background in biology. this typical ad hominem would’t give merit to your case.
It is not an ad hominem, it is recognition of your failed attempt at an argument from authority. Tour builds micro electronics and has no background in evolutionary biology, he is not an authority any more than a sy a typsetter is an author.
James Tour was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World”.
By whom? The Nobel Committee? The MacArthur Foundation? The National Acdemy of Sciences? No ... the webite, "Best Schools" that collects parental opinions on the quality of primary and secondary schools. Please do not insult our intelegence.
I would definitely give some credit to his opinion as a scientist.
I would to, the next time I have a micro circuity problem I'll call him.
Hoping for future explanation (that may not happen) doesn’t change the fact that scientific challenges stay with no answer today.
So?
You consider 100 or 500 scientist doubting the evolution as small percentage but I definitely consider it as a serious challenge.
I consider it meaningless, especially when you look at the actual qualifications and the claimed affiliations of the "scientists." To see the magnatude of the Discovery Institute's faceplant, check-out "Project Steve."
Yes, at least most are. If not, explain how?
Scientifc Theories are assembled from numerous facts, that's how it works.
Well it depends on what you mean on evolution. If you say we evolved from Apes then that would not really be accurate. However, any type of evolution should not be regarded as fact. It is a theory. If it were real, there would be substantial evidence. Theories are changed a lot, so to regard it as fact or something close to it is absurd. Wait until we have an ''established fact'' then we will go from there.
Evolution means a change in gene frequency over time. Yes, we evolved from a common ancestor with the Chimpanzees, who was also an ape. This is fact, this can be shown. There is substantial evidence. Look up, Human chromasome 2.
I agree there is more to it, but the gaps in the record have long been a fundamental point of contention between the two. Credit where it is due, it was creationists who favored taking the scientific evidence at face value, and evolutionists who favored liberally sprinkling it with imaginary transitionals to fit a predetermined conclusion. science v atheism?
Only because they thought that PE would "defy" evolution. Once they discovered that it did not they jumped ship, Talk about a clear example of presuppositionalism denied.
The extent to which a person might say Darwinism has already been refuted is subjective, but the pattern, the direction is clear, the gaps and leaps are continually being clarified, not filled in and smoothed out- as Darwin considered fundamental to the theory. Ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time
No, that's false. It is no subject, it is "God of the Gaps." Each time a transitional fossil is found the creationists just claim that now there are two missing links rather than just one. They will no be satisfied until there is a complete unbroken record of every single individual in the chain, which is absurd. This is one of the reasons that so much more weight is now given to genetic, genomic and immunological data.
Brother, fact in science is a verifiable observation. Evolution is both fact and theory. It depends on what you mean though. If you believe we evolved from Apes, then this is false. However, i believe the Qur'an does not go against Evolution.
Yes, a fact is a verifiable observation. But, when a statement that appears to be true based on previous experiences and is backed by a significant body of experience, the inference is also considered to be a fact. Theories are assembled from mutually supporting facts. Humans and chimps are descended from a common ancestor who also was an ape ... that is a fact.
Sure, I also don't really want to get mired in semantics of what characterizes 'transitional' or 'gradual' .. but the fossil record certainly did not satisfy Darwinian predictions as hoped, creationists and PE advocates agree on this, and even a staunch classical Darwinist like Dawkins notes 'it's as though they were just planted there with no evolutionary history'

I agree with Darwin, that yes, kinda the predictions of smooth transitions were fundamental to the entire theory of evolution, the shorter the window- the more improbable the millions of significant lucky accidents that have to take place during that time. It doesn't exactly kill off Darwinism- and off course people will come up with work-arounds, but it certainly doesn't help the case does it? , Point being, that it's the goalposts of evolution that are shifting by necessity here, not creationism.
You're worrying about how fast the bus it traveling and whether its speed is constant or not. Frankly I have never understood the fuss. Like Dawkins (who spent an entire chapter in The Blind Watchmaker discussing confusion about rates of change. Dawkins argues that phyletic gradualism (evolution proceeds at a single uniform rate of speed and refered to by Dawkins as "constant speedism") is a "caricature of Darwinism" and "does not really exist." Dawkins correlary argument is that if "constant speedism" is impeached, there is but one logical out, "variable speedism," which is divisiable into two: "discrete variable speedism" and "continuously variable speedism." Eldredge and Gould, in their seminal 1972 paper suggeted that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity. Thus, they are described by Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker) as "discrete variable speedists," and are described as "in this respect ... genuinely radical."

It seems obvious to me that the speed of evolution would be variable and would be a multi-variate function summarized by the magnitude of the niche vector. In plain English, and simplifying by focusing attention on the extremes, that is to say that a species introduced into a new habitat with plentiful resources but slightly different conditions will, given genetic isolation, change faster than a species in closely packed niche space with good gene flow. That's a no-brainer, decried by a passing small cadre of "bloody tooth and fang" advocates whose belief system demands that evolutionary "progress" is dependent on the intensity of competition or the saltificationists with their advacosy of Richard Goldschmidt's hypothesis of "Hopeful Monsters". So I am a "continuously variable speedist." I can see that evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to stasis, with all possible intermediates. I find no reason to argue for certain speeds more than others. Stasis is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution.

Punctuationism is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution. In any case, this argument creates no embarrassment for the TOE itself, which is unaffected by the rate of evolution question. At worst it only goes too show that Darwin was a child of his times and expressed what he saw to be the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell.

Darwin privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of an unpolished and unpublished essay from 1844, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false" But ... by the publication of the first edition of On the Origin of Species (1859) Darwin had come arround to: "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus". and in the fourth edition (1866) he wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
David Raup- curator and Dean at the Chicago Field Museum, defined evolution as simply change over time, which incorporates Genesis as much as Darwinism
How does that incorporate Genesis with it's special creation event for humans and it's flood, just for starters?
Genetics are another matter- whenever the fundamental flaws in the fossil record are pointed out- 'it doesn't matter, because we have genetics'.... and vice versa...
There are no flaws in the fossil record, per se, there have been errors in how people interpreted it. Genetics, genomics and imunology have confirmed, over and over and over again most of what had been learned from fossils and corrected some fine points and a very few glaring errors.
two inadequate sets of evidence do not make a whole one, if anything I'd say the problems in each compound one another
Some examples please.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
We are not against everything about Evolution. We are changed, however i do not believe our origin is from apes. Allah made Adam, and that was the first human. Right now it is a theory that we originated from Apes, not even.
Get over it, we came from apes, we are apes, theory ranks above individual fact.
It is impossible that we can be made from Apes by DNA coding. It remains a theory and science takes U turns, so do not jump to conclusions.
Resarch human chromasome number 2.
What do you mean we evolved from the same common ancestor as apes?
Just as it says, we share a common ancestor with chimps, we and chimps together share a common ancestor with gorillas, etc.

Human Evolution


How did modern humans evolve from earlier forms of life?
This subject is often misunderstood.
Many people imagine that humans evolved from monkeys (wrong)
and that evolution occurs in some kind of linear progress,
like the famous “March of progress” image:

march-of-progress-misleading-figure.jpg

None of that is true. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Or apes.
In fact, humans, monkeys, and apes all exist today!
Rather, humans, monkeys and apes all have evolved from
earlier forms of life – which were primates.
This is better visualized as a branching tree,
with many branches being cut off (becoming extinct.)

how-human-evolution-really-works.jpg

ape-family-tree-a-family-portrait-pasttime-org-episode-5-throwing-in-human-evolution.jpg

Image from http://www.pasttime.org/2013/08/episode-5-throwing-in-human-evolution/

{ Past Time is hosted by Adam Pritchard and Matt Borths, two graduate students in the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University on Long Island, New York.}
primateevolution-coloring-page.jpg


--(OurCreed, Depends on the definitions. Evolution has been proven through science, so that can't be rejected unless a person wants to ignore evidence and follow their own personal beliefs.)--

A theory is human trial to explain observation and data. The observations could be the same but the interpretation can be different by different people at different times. Similar to the case of Einstein and Newton. Same data, same observations but different interpretations. Genome analysis observations may be interpreted by an evolutionist as evidence of the evolved common ancestor or interpreted by a creationist as unity of design of products designed by same creator. The point is, To the contrary of observations and data, interpretations are product of human intellect that can be disputed.
No! Genetic data provides unequivocal evidence that can not honestly be "interpreted" to support creationism. The best the theist can do is a diest style god that kickstarted abiogensis and walked away.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
NoorNoor said:
I accept that natural selection may take effect within one species through interaction with the environment but I don't believe that this specific species would transform /mutate totally to be different species.
But wouldn't the small changes eventually accumulate to produce a big change; a genetically incompatible change, as our Digital Artist put it?
A grain of sand washed downstream does not a Grand Canyon make, but a grain today, another tomorrow....

Do you know what a ring species is, NoorNoor? Ring species are observable examples of one species slowly going through a series of small changes in adjacent populations till a form is reached that can't breed with the original anymore, though any subspecies along the continuum can interbreed with its neighbors -- Google.

There are many other observed examples of speciation, as well, though not with the nice continuum of extant intermediates we see in ring species.
NoorNoor said:
I understand that if mutations in genes happen, sudden changes would be expected, not necessarily gradual changes over long period of time. In addition, studies showed that mutations in genes are likely to be harmful. mutations in genes would result from damage to DNA that is not corrected through DNA repair to revert to its original state. the result of mutation is likely harmful and may prevent the gene from functioning partially or completely.
As DA pointed out, mutations are common and most have no discernible effect, but beneficial and harmful mutations do occur, and the harm and benefit aren't often clear cut. The same mutation might be beneficial in one situation and harmful in another.
Example (simplified): Most people have two "A" genes coding for haemoglobin, one from each parent, but in regions where malaria is endemic some individuals carry a mutant, "S" form, which confers a resistance to the disease. This is a beneficial mutation. But it can also cause negative symptoms like exercise and altitude intolerance. In malaria free regions there are no benefits; it's a purely harmful mutation. Moreover, if two A-S parents have a child, there's a 25% chance of the child inheriting two S genes, which causes a severe, often lethal disability.
In malarial regions this risk is outweighed, on the population level, by the percentage of malaria-resistant, A-S individuals in the population. Some are sacrificed to enable human habitation of malarial regions.
So haemoglobin S can be either a harmful or beneficial mutation, depending on the situation.
 
Last edited:
Top