-
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, what a lie.
- Thread starter Gharib
- Start date
Diederick
Active Member
I think this is a common misunderstanding that you're in. Apes will never turn into humans. We share a common ancestor, which means a long, long time ago from a herd of primitive primate-like animals split up - of which one part evolved further to become chimpansees, and the other part evolved further to become humans.
We've evolved just as far as other primates that we can see now, only differently. All animals that live on this planet are evolving, they have individual courses of evolution and will never turn into another creature which already exists. Evolution is not one line, on which a species travels to become another, better species. It remains the same species and evolves into better versions of itself, not a different species.
So monkeys will remain monkeys. They won't become gorillas, or humans. They will evolve, certainly, but not into a different species which already exists.
In your words, A, B, C, D, E, and K will never turn into eachother by evolution. They might turn into an A which looks more like B, but is really just an A+. C++ is not D, but an evolved form of C. And although Z might be the best around, K++ is the best K could have done in the time it had to evolve. K will always be K, though it'll try its best to form the best K possible.
Last edited:
DarkSun
:eltiT
Not after one generation, no. But after several hundred million generations, given the right circumstances, then yes, it is slightly possible. If you understood Darwin's Theory at all, then you would see how this is so.
Here, I'll try and summarise the theory here as best I can:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution: A SUMMARY
1 - Every time an organism passes on its genes through reproduction, the female reproductive cell's DNA (The DNA in the ovum / egg) combines with the DNA of the male reproductive cell (the DNA in the sperm) to give a completely different genome - meaning, each generation will have new DNA, and each individual will have different DNA. (With me so far?)
2 - In a rudimentary sense, clustres of DNA called genes code for specific traits in an organism. Because each organism within a species (ie, humans) have slightly different DNA, each human will have slightly different traits.
3 - Throughout human history we have had to compete for limited resources in various harsh environments to keep our race alive, just as we have had to reproduce efficiently in order to keep going. This is the same for all organisms, really.
4 - At the end of the day, the organism with the DNA best suited for survival and reproduction will be the organism most likely to survive and pass on their superior genes. This is termed natural selection. In a simple sense, half of the DNA from the father and half from the mother go into creating an offspring, correct? Well what monitors what genes are passed on where? Nothing. That much is utterly random. What isn't random is natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest. The individual with the inferior genes will die out, just as the individual with the best genes for the environment will live on and cause the continuation of that species.
5 - As generations progress, the genes passed on begin to change because of slightly different genomes (all the DNA in the somatic cell of a species) and karyotypes (the type of DNA in the somatic cell of a species) which arise through repetetive reproduction. This change in the karyotype of a species and generations progress, and as natural selection plays its role -- this is termed evolution.
Now. Here are some lines of evidence for evolution:
1 - Humans have grown about a foot or so in the past century or two. There are thousands of different races on Earth which arose as humans were introduced to differing environments. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different dog breeds - and these all stemmed from just a handful of original breeds and careful breeding. All of this can be explained by evolution.
2 - The sedimentation layers of places like the Grand Canyon have been thoroughly looked at. Older species were found on the bottom of the canyon, while the younger ones were found up near the surface (think about why this may be the case). In the long term, fossil records found in places like the Grand Canyon affirm that a plethora of species slowly changed as time progressed.
3 - By analysing all of the different compartments of our DNA and RNA (RNA is sort of the medium through which DNA does its work), we're able to see just how much our DNA has changed over time. Correct me if I'm wrong, Painted Wolf, but RNA is analysed to discern long-term evolutionary changes because it remains largely conserved over time, while DNA is analysed to discern short-term changes.
4 - In Arica... Or was it Ethiopia...? Anyway, a group of people in that region have developed a trait known as sickle-celled anemia. This occurs when the gene which codes for the protein known as haemoglobin undergoes a substitution mutation, meaning that one of the nucleotide / DNA monomer base in the gene is changed. The result is a haemoglobin protein with a slightly different structure. Now, this new haemoglobin cannot carry oxygen around the body as efficiently -- so why have it? Well, guess what? It helps to protect against malaria. The protein somehow depresses the virulence of the malaria parasite! And considering that catastrophic numbers of people in Africa are dying of malaria, this is a pretty neat change.
Now ask yourself, why would forty percent of all people in the region I'm talking about have Sickle-Celled Anemia? The answer is Natural Selection. The people without the Sickle-Cell trait die off at a faster rate than those with the trait, leaving more Sickle-Celled individuals to pass on their genes.
EVOLUTION IS HAPPENING. It's happening everywhere, every second, of every day. It's just really slow, so if you want to see some significant changes, you will have to stay alive for another few thousand years.
Now then, let me get to a few misconceptions which you might have.
A human cannot breed with a dog or a fish or even a mosquito. This is absolutely correct. But that does not mean that, if for some reason, a human is forced to change into a mosquito over a period of several billion years (through evolution), then this would be possible.
The reason that a dog cannot reproduce with a human (yuck!) is because the genes in their somatic cells are far too different. The egg (oocyte / ovum) gets aborted during embryonic devolopment. Mitosis of the fertalised egg cell just dun' happen, because the body sends the signal that says something ain't right, and the embryo gets aborted.
Anyway, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
so Eddy what you are saying is that this...
is not related to this...
They are totally distinct from one another, because they are different species. They share no common ancestry... nothing in common at all. They can't reproduce with one another so they are totally unique from one another... yes?
wa:do
is not related to this...
They are totally distinct from one another, because they are different species. They share no common ancestry... nothing in common at all. They can't reproduce with one another so they are totally unique from one another... yes?
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, if it did. Stop thinking in terms of separate boxes and start thinking in terms of a spectrum from black to white, with shades of gray in between. That's more like what reality looks like. You can move along that spectrum and never be able to notice the difference between two adjacent shades. Nevertheless, if you start at white and end up at black, eventually you have to acknowledge that you're talking about two different colors. That's how evolution works--a slow, gradual transition, that eventually results in a new bleepmorp. (I know how you hate that word "species," so I'm using "bleepmorp" instead.)
In your words, A, B, C, D, E, and K will never turn into eachother by evolution. They might turn into an A which looks more like B, but is really just an A+. C++ is not D, but an evolved form of C. And although Z might be the best around, K++ is the best K could have done in the time it had to evolve. K will always be K, though it'll try its best to form the best K possible.
__________________
Thats OK, thats the type of logic I was reffering to.
Auto...... the colour example is also OK, as we have seperate colours...we would label the overlap a shade of a certain colour but the actual colours are set.
Paintedwolf.... I dont understand where you are going with those pics, are they both classed as some form of foxes but in fact not? I would go of the genestic evidence as two different people can look very similar but not be related .
__________________
Thats OK, thats the type of logic I was reffering to.
Auto...... the colour example is also OK, as we have seperate colours...we would label the overlap a shade of a certain colour but the actual colours are set.
Paintedwolf.... I dont understand where you are going with those pics, are they both classed as some form of foxes but in fact not? I would go of the genestic evidence as two different people can look very similar but not be related .
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Eddy: You are not understanding what I am saying. You are uncommonly dense. Try really hard to imagine this:
Now imagine that you are moving along this scale. At no point will you see a distinct color change. But if you walk from one end to another, you will get from black to white, which I hope you will agree are different colors--black is not white.
In the same way, a population of organisms, over time, gradually changes from one to another. At no point is there a clear break. But after 100,000 generations, you get from one species to another one that is different.
Just as, at the end, you see different colors with different names, you also will see different species. But at no point did one suddenly spring into existence. It was gradual, like the change from black to white in this illustration.
Now imagine that you are moving along this scale. At no point will you see a distinct color change. But if you walk from one end to another, you will get from black to white, which I hope you will agree are different colors--black is not white.
In the same way, a population of organisms, over time, gradually changes from one to another. At no point is there a clear break. But after 100,000 generations, you get from one species to another one that is different.
Just as, at the end, you see different colors with different names, you also will see different species. But at no point did one suddenly spring into existence. It was gradual, like the change from black to white in this illustration.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
They are two distinct genus/species of "fox".
The Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the top image and the Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
They are as closely related genetically as you and a chimpanzee are.
They are not the same species... so therefore they must not be related at all right? That is what you are saying.
wa:do
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So when can we expect to see your assertions and arguments published in a peer-reviewed journal?
After all, you're talking about overturning the unifying theory of all the life sciences...something that will earn you the Nobel Prize and secure your place in history. Surely you're not going to restrict it to anonymous postings on the internet, are you? Heck, if you're too shy, post your material here and I'll publish it!
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
That doesn't even make sense. Humans are still apes (As, if you will), but they are a different species than gorillas (who are also As, or apes). Of course A doesn't become Z, A becomes AA or A1, A2 and A3.
slave2six
Substitious
Eddy Daze - I find your inability to grasp the simple concept of ancestry to be very troublesome. It has been explained to you more than a dozen times in this thread and yet you keep insisting on ignoring it.
What is it about ancestry that is so difficult for you to grasp? Perhaps if you address that issue some headway can be made here.
What is it about ancestry that is so difficult for you to grasp? Perhaps if you address that issue some headway can be made here.
Without going back over all the posts that have led up to this one, as I do not have the time, let me guess in I grasp the simple concept of ancestry of which you speak.
Knowing, that if it were at all possible to trace our ancestral line back to the very beginning, and of couse, the genetic thread of life from which we have evolved must reach back to the very beginning, as it is a fact that what ever was in the beginning has evolved to become all that exists and if that which has become, "who you are," was not in the beginning, then you could not exist.
So in tracing your ancestry back to the origin of who you are, you must find out which species was the ancestor of the body of mankind to which body you belong, then the ancestor to the species which was the ancestor of the body of mankind, etc, etc, etc, etc. Am I correct?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
And to put it in terms of my color example, it's like this:
If black gives birth to dark gray, which gives birth to medium gray, which gives birth to light gray, which gives birth to grayish white, which gives birth to white, then black can become white over time.
If black gives birth to dark gray, which gives birth to medium gray, which gives birth to light gray, which gives birth to grayish white, which gives birth to white, then black can become white over time.
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
no it can't.
Yyyeaaah, anyway, back to reality...
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
are you suggesting that i was not being realistic?
let me ask you mball, do you believe in the reality of the "transformers" movie?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes. When you claim that white can't turn into black, I'm suggesting you're not being realistic.
Eddy: You are not understanding what I am saying. You are uncommonly dense. Try really hard to imagine this:
Now imagine that you are moving along this scale. At no point will you see a distinct color change. But if you walk from one end to another, you will get from black to white, which I hope you will agree are different colors--black is not white.
In the same way, a population of organisms, over time, gradually changes from one to another. At no point is there a clear break. But after 100,000 generations, you get from one species to another one that is different.
Just as, at the end, you see different colors with different names, you also will see different species. But at no point did one suddenly spring into existence. It was gradual, like the change from black to white in this illustration.
What you are failing to grasp is that in the shaded area there will be both black and white colour flecks as with populations in this area , if species change is happening then there should be both types in various ratios at all times
Yes if the scientific judgement is correct then they are not related