Evolution: ask your questions here

[Alceste]

Thousands of further stages are needed in order to progress from a protein to a cell. Above all, any protein that happens to form by claim that the cell came into being by chance is as illogical as claiming that all the buildings, roads, transport systems, water and electricity in New York City emerged thanks to the effects of random natural phenomena such as storms and earthquakes.

The evolutionists also claim that the transition from one species to another takes place from the simple to the more complex and in stages.

That means that transitional forms must have existed during the progress from one species to another. Jet, there is still not the slightest trace of such intermediate forms. Like half-fish or half-bird forms.

So how come that evolutionists believe in such a theory while there isn't any credible proof?

I recommend you read The Greatest Show on Earth. All of your points here are either based on misunderstandings of what the ToE is (for example, it has nothing to do with abiogenesis) or fallacies about the evidence for it (for example, we have absolute mountains of "transitional" fossils - I even have some in my own home, that I found myself). That book should set you straight. It thoroughly covers what evolution is and the evidence for it in a very methodical, straight-forward, clear and engaging style. If you have a hate-on for Dawkins (which I suppose is understandable if you are religious), please find something else - anything apart from religious tracts - and learn a few basic facts about evolution.

You can not possibly hope to win a ball game if you insist on coming to the diamond without cleats, mitt, bat and ball. I don't care if you want to argue against evolution - debate is healthy and good - but when you launch off on a fanciful critique like this without even the faintest idea of what is meant by "evolution" you can expect a bit of irritability from a few of us.

 

[Autodidact]

Thousands of further stages are needed in order to progress from a protein to a cell. Above all, any protein that happens to form by claim that the cell came into being by chance is as illogical as claiming that all the buildings, roads, transport systems, water and electricity in New York City emerged thanks to the effects of random natural phenomena such as storms and earthquakes.

Is this a question of some kind, or an argument?

First, ToE does not claim that anything forms by chance. If you would like to understand what it does say, this thread is a good place to learn. If you don't want to learn, this thread is not a good place for you.

Second, did someone plan out New York City, or did it gradually evolve over time without a single overarching plan?

The evolutionists also claim that the transition from one species to another takes place from the simple to the more complex and in stages.

There is no such thing as an evolutionist. The word you're looking for is "Biologist" and this is not what Biologists say. Do you want to learn what they actually say? If not, please stop spreading misinformation. Thanks.

That means that transitional forms must have existed during the progress from one species to another. Jet, there is still not the slightest trace of such intermediate forms

Other than every species that has ever lived.

. Like half-fish or half-bird forms.

You clearly do not understand ToE. Do you want to learn, or do you prefer to remain confused and ignorant? Most creationists choose the ignorant and confused option, in order to maintain their anti-evolution beliefs.

So how come that evolutionists believe in such a theory while there isn't any credible proof?

1. Science isn't about proof; it's about evidence.
2. To phrase your lie in the form of a question, it would be "What is the evidence that supports ToE?" Would you like me to answer that question or do you prefer to remain ignorant so you can spread disinformation like this?

 

[Autodidact]

For example, there must have existed half-fish and half-amphibian creatures that, despite still having fish characteristics, had also acquired some amphibious
ones. If any such transitional species had really existed, then their remains should be encountered in the fossil record.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

I am hoping someone who is current in evolution research can help me find out more about the author of some excellent FAQs and articles at Talk Origins about transitional fossils.

Kathleen Hunt is listed as a biologist in the Dept. of Biology at the U of Washington, Seattle. However, the U of W does not list her anywhere as faculty, staff, post-doc, etc. I'm assuming that National Geographic does proper fact checking: Horse Evolution Followed Twisty Trail, Study Says.


Is anyone here familiar with her work and credentials?

Thanks!

 

[Autodidact]

Her myspace page says:

I'm a PhD biologist who got tired of lab work a few years ago, and decided to move to Brazil to study percussion. I left my full-time bio job in early 2004, and since then I've been spending half of each year in Brazil playing music, and the other half in the US working like hell to earn enough money for my next trip. My home base is roughly Portland/Seattle with a lot of trips. A couple times a year I pitch in on biology fieldwork for friends, in the Sierra Nevadas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska (those are all bird studies), off the coast of Maine (right whales), or the Brazilian savanna (jaguars). Every other year I teach biology - currently at the University of Portland, Oregon.

 

[Alceste]

Her myspace page says:

I'm a PhD biologist who got tired of lab work a few years ago, and decided to move to Brazil to study percussion. I left my full-time bio job in early 2004, and since then I've been spending half of each year in Brazil playing music, and the other half in the US working like hell to earn enough money for my next trip. My home base is roughly Portland/Seattle with a lot of trips. A couple times a year I pitch in on biology fieldwork for friends, in the Sierra Nevadas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska (those are all bird studies), off the coast of Maine (right whales), or the Brazilian savanna (jaguars). Every other year I teach biology - currently at the University of Portland, Oregon.

She sounds cool.

 

[lunamoth]

Her myspace page says:

I'm a PhD biologist who got tired of lab work a few years ago, and decided to move to Brazil to study percussion. I left my full-time bio job in early 2004, and since then I've been spending half of each year in Brazil playing music, and the other half in the US working like hell to earn enough money for my next trip. My home base is roughly Portland/Seattle with a lot of trips. A couple times a year I pitch in on biology fieldwork for friends, in the Sierra Nevadas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska (those are all bird studies), off the coast of Maine (right whales), or the Brazilian savanna (jaguars). Every other year I teach biology - currently at the University of Portland, Oregon.

Thanks, AD! My Google search did not turn up her Myspace page. Good detective work!

 

[painted wolf]

Here is some info I found via Google.

Kathleen E Hunt
Kathleen Hunt: Zoom Information Business Directory at ZoomInfo.com
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

She has according to her Myspace page, she took some time off to follow a musical career and is now working on endangered species and teaching.

wa:do

ps... Darn, scooped! LoL

 

[JennySue]

I have some questions...sorry if these have been asked but I'm too lazy to to look through the posts LOL!!

Evolution takes a scientific approach right?

And with the whole Evolution thing, could be described as mutating? I mean with the whole mutating from animals thing...

But doesn't Science also tell us that all mutations all bad? Wouldn't that contradict Evolution?

One other question, well I kinda know the answer..but what the heck I'll ask it.
If we (humans) evolved from monkies, shouldn't we find like naked humans randomly in the zoo?

Oh and if we evolved from said monkies, then why do we still have monkies today? Shouldn't the race have evolved into humans, hence killing off all the monkies?

If any of those questions sounded offending, I'm sorry. I don't mean for it to offend anyone, I'm just curious..Thank you

 

[painted wolf]

I have some questions...sorry if these have been asked but I'm too lazy to to look through the posts LOL!!

Evolution takes a scientific approach right?

And with the whole Evolution thing, could be described as mutating? I mean with the whole mutating from animals thing...

But doesn't Science also tell us that all mutations all bad? Wouldn't that contradict Evolution?

Not all mutations are bad... most are neutral. You have at least a hundred mutations yourself. (one example of a neutral mutation is blue eyes)
Every once in a while one of those mutations will be a little more beneficial than it is harmful and it will be selected for. (For example the ability to digest milk as an adult)

One other question, well I kinda know the answer..but what the heck I'll ask it.
If we (humans) evolved from monkies, shouldn't we find like naked humans randomly in the zoo?

No... monkeys don't spontaneously become human. Evolution takes place over time with populations.

Oh and if we evolved from said monkies, then why do we still have monkies today? Shouldn't the race have evolved into humans, hence killing off all the monkies?

No.... your grandparents don't die just because you are born... and England didn't stop existing when America became a nation.
Monkeys are very well adapted for the lives they lead... we can't swing through the trees and eat leaves. So there is no reason that they should go extinct because we show up. Like England and America, we and monkeys simply split up and went in different directions.

If any of those questions sounded offending, I'm sorry. I don't mean for it to offend anyone, I'm just curious..Thank you

They aren't offensive at all.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

But doesn't Science also tell us that all mutations all bad? Wouldn't that contradict Evolution?

No. Not all mutations are detrimental to the organism that goes through them. Many are, many are fairly neutral, and once in a while a mutation proves advantageous in the fight for survival and reproduction.

One other question, well I kinda know the answer..but what the heck I'll ask it.
If we (humans) evolved from monkies, shouldn't we find like naked humans randomly in the zoo?

You seem to have a lack of information on the relationship between humans and other apes. Evolution happens along whole generations, and quite gradually.

Also, the current monkeys are not "pre-humans". We diverged from them a while ago, and they are now, so to speak, our cousins instead of our great-greatparents.

Oh and if we evolved from said monkies, then why do we still have monkies today? Shouldn't the race have evolved into humans, hence killing off all the monkies?

No. Besides the reason I stated above, there is also the fact that evolution is not a force with a purpose. It doesn't "want" to change an organism into another, and it is quite possible for organisms that evolved from each other to coexist for indefinite numbers of generations.

Extinction may quite possibly come for those less adapted to the current environment, but it is not a given and it doesn't usually happen overnight.

If any of those questions sounded offending, I'm sorry. I don't mean for it to offend anyone, I'm just curious..Thank you

You're welcome

Update: Ninjae'd by PW. Oh well

 

[Autodidact]

I have some questions...sorry if these have been asked but I'm too lazy to to look through the posts LOL!!

Evolution takes a scientific approach right?

Yes, evolution is a scientific theory.

And with the whole Evolution thing, could be described as mutating? I mean with the whole mutating from animals thing...

IN Biology, mutation has a technical meaning. It means the way genes change from one generation to the next. I can explain this in more detail if you like, or you can wait for painted wolf to explain it right.

But maybe you mean just change? That evolution describes the ways populations change over time?

But doesn't Science also tell us that all mutations all bad?

No, this is a creationist lie. Most mutations are neutral, and have no discernible effect one way or the other. Many are bad, but for obvious reasons these ones don't tend to survive and reproduce. A few are beneficial, and these do stick around and get reproduced, and I'm sure you can see why.

Wouldn't that contradict Evolution?

Yes, if it were true. It isn't.

One other question, well I kinda know the answer..but what the heck I'll ask it.
If we (humans) evolved from monkies, shouldn't we find like naked humans randomly in the zoo?

Evolution is a very slow process. Humans evolved from monkey-like ancestors over a course of around a million years. No zoo has been open that long.

Oh and if we evolved from said monkies, then why do we still have monkies today? Shouldn't the race have evolved into humans, hence killing off all the monkies?

All of today's modern monkeys and apes, as well as humans, descended from a common monkey-like ancestor, which evolved into several different species that occupy different ecological niches. It's like, you and your cousin are both descendants of your grandparents.

In any case, when a new species comes into existence, it doesn't mean its ancestor species has to die off to make room for it or anything. They can co-exist.

If any of those questions sounded offending, I'm sorry. I don't mean for it to offend anyone, I'm just curious..Thank you

Curiosity is good, and a sign of intelligence IMO.

We're all ignorant of many things, and the smart thing to do about it is to ask. At least, that's my view.

 

[JennySue]

Wow I didn't expect that, you guys really answered my questions. And you actually answered them, normally I'm used to scartastic answers to my questions like that. I've went to Lutheran schools my whole life so I never really had anyone to ask questions like that.
I get it now, well I'm still a little confused on the mutations- so not ALL mutations are bad then?
thank you for answering My questions and for being understanding. I think I finally found a place where I can discuss stuff like this maturely(spelling)

 

[tumbleweed41]

The vast majority of mutations are likely to be neutral or may even have no effect at all. You yourself carry millions of mutations in your genes right now.
The natural color of human eyes is brown. Blue, and other shades, are the result of genetic mutation. We would consider the mutation in the OCA2 gene that causes blue eyes to be a neutral mutation.
Random mutations occur in the genes of every organism, in each generation.
Some are beneficial, some are detrimental, the vast majority have little to no effect.

 

[RedOne77]

Wow I didn't expect that, you guys really answered my questions. And you actually answered them, normally I'm used to scartastic answers to my questions like that. I've went to Lutheran schools my whole life so I never really had anyone to ask questions like that.
I get it now, well I'm still a little confused on the mutations- so not ALL mutations are bad then?
thank you for answering My questions and for being understanding. I think I finally found a place where I can discuss stuff like this maturely(spelling)

This is a really good series that explains a lot of misconceptions and lies the creationist movement likes to use. Unfortunately most people don't know much about science so creationist propaganda, being blunt, can get away with it and thrive in our society.

This video deals with the "foundational falsehood" that all mutations are bad, hope you enjoy it and get a better understanding of mutations. Welcome to the forum.

[youtube]TU-7d06HJSs[/youtube]
YouTube - 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

 

[painted wolf]

Wow I didn't expect that, you guys really answered my questions. And you actually answered them, normally I'm used to scartastic answers to my questions like that. I've went to Lutheran schools my whole life so I never really had anyone to ask questions like that.
I get it now, well I'm still a little confused on the mutations- so not ALL mutations are bad then?
thank you for answering My questions and for being understanding. I think I finally found a place where I can discuss stuff like this maturely(spelling)

You're welcome. I enjoy answering honest questions.

Really not all mutations are bad... most are totally neutral. The most common form of mutation is a single nucleotide change in your DNA, that is a change from an AGTC(U) to a different one of those same letters. There is a lot of redundancy in our biology so that those single letter changes are usually harmless.

For example the three "letters" GGA attracts Glycine when your DNA is used to make a protein. But this can mutate to GGG GGC or GGU and it will still do the same thing.

So those mutations are neutral. Every one of us has dozens of these minor mutations.

Even when a single letter change actually changes something it's usually harmless... blue eyes is an example of a single letter mutation that actually changes something... and is still totally harmless.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

To go off on a bit of a tangent that may help, using the blue eyes example. It's nuetral. But say there's a society where everyone goes mad for blue eyes, so blue eyed people do better at attracting mates, so are more likely to reproduce. In that context, the nuetral mutation that results in blue eyes becomes beneficial. So even to say that a mutation is good or bad often may depend on the environment. Evolution is about fitness for the environment.

Or if for some reason it turns out that blue eyes, um, can't see long distances as well, and it's hunter/gatherer time (as we were for 99% of our existence.) Then you can't hunt as well, I suppose, and blue eyes would be negative and therefore tend to die out.

 

[astarath]

It's not so much the final result of the mutations but the subtlety of 1000's of minute unrecognizable genetic difference that would need to passed along in the majority in order to create a new species entirely that is a little far fetched for me.

 

[Autodidact]

I think you'll find, Jenny, that the only people who say that "all mutations are bad" are those lying creationists. You will not find any scientific source that says this.

Also think about what this would mean for Biology. Obviously, if all mutations are bad, then ToE would have to be wrong, as you figured out. So for 150 years a whole bunch of smart people have failed to notice this obvious flaw in the theory? It shows that they either don't understand or are deliberately distorting how science works. For over 50 years, every smart person who could attacked ToE from every side. It survived every challenge, made correct predictions again and again, and that was why it was accepted. They are asking you to believe that all Biologists are idiots or liars. Does that seem very likely to you?

 

[Autodidact]

It's not so much the final result of the mutations but the subtlety of 1000's of minute unrecognizable genetic difference that would need to passed along in the majority in order to create a new species entirely that is a little far fetched for me.

Why would it have to be thousands or unrecognizable? It could be ten recognizable differences.

Further, are you familiar with the idea that speciation usually happens when two populations get separated and unable to continue to breed together?