EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Autodidact]

O.K. So we're trying to figure out how we get new species. (A species is a group of organisms that are enough alike to form a "breeding population," that is, to be able to interbreed.)

Let's say we have a species. We'll make it a fish, and we'll call it Fishius fatihah. Let's say that it's 10 centimetres long, brown with beige speckles, eats tiny water insects, lays around 100 eggs at a time, and lives in a single large lake in Southern Africa. Because of sexual reproduction, as well as mutations, the baby fish resemble their parents and each other, but not exactly. There's slight variation. One is 9 cm long, one is 11. One has a lot of speckles, one fewer. One is immune to a mold that bothers Fishius fatihah, one is not. And so forth.

That's the set up. It's an imaginary example.

Now look at those 100 offspring. Only around 3 are going to survive long enough to reproduce. So only the traits those ones have get passed on. For example, if the 3 that live are more speckled, then the next generation will be a little more speckled, because the trait for less speckles did not get passed on. It happened to die out.

Further, if a trait happens to help a fish survive a little better, that trait is more likely to get passed on. Let's say, due to a mutation, a fish is immune to Fishius mold. That fish is more likely to live long enough to reproduce. So Fishius mold-immunity will get passed on, spread in future generations, and become widespread in that species.

Gradually, over time, due to this process and random luck and circumstances (or, if you prefer, fate) the population as a whole will change a little bit. If the Fishius generation is around 1 month, then in just 100 years you'd have 1200 generations, and the Fishius would probably look a bit different from the Fishius of 100 years ago. That's called genetic drift.

With me so far?

 

[Fatihah]

O.K. So we're trying to figure out how we get new species. (A species is a group of organisms that are enough alike to form a "breeding population," that is, to be able to interbreed.)

Let's say we have a species. We'll make it a fish, and we'll call it Fishius fatihah. Let's say that it's 10 centimetres long, brown with beige speckles, eats tiny water insects, lays around 100 eggs at a time, and lives in a single large lake in Southern Africa. Because of sexual reproduction, as well as mutations, the baby fish resemble their parents and each other, but not exactly. There's slight variation. One is 9 cm long, one is 11. One has a lot of speckles, one fewer. One is immune to a mold that bothers Fishius fatihah, one is not. And so forth.

That's the set up. It's an imaginary example.

Now look at those 100 offspring. Only around 3 are going to survive long enough to reproduce. So only the traits those ones have get passed on. For example, if the 3 that live are more speckled, then the next generation will be a little more speckled, because the trait for less speckles did not get passed on. It happened to die out.

Further, if a trait happens to help a fish survive a little better, that trait is more likely to get passed on. Let's say, due to a mutation, a fish is immune to Fishius mold. That fish is more likely to live long enough to reproduce. So Fishius mold-immunity will get passed on, spread in future generations, and become widespread in that species.

Gradually, over time, due to this process and random luck and circumstances (or, if you prefer, fate) the population as a whole will change a little bit. If the Fishius generation is around 1 month, then in just 100 years you'd have 1200 generations, and the Fishius would probably look a bit different from the Fishius of 100 years ago. That's called genetic drift.

With me so far?

Response: So far.

 

[Autodidact]

That tells us how a species can change, but not how we get a whole new species.

Say there's a drought, and maybe an earthquake, so what was one lake now is divided into two. The two populations of Fishius can no longer continue to interbreed and mix their gene pool together. Furthermore, the two lakes aren't identical environments. One is a little shallower and warmer than the other, which results in a different population of aquatic insects. One has a fish-eating snake population, and the other doesn't. And most important, one is conducive to a certain fish disease, and the other isn't.

Now you're looking at two separate populations of fish. Again, due to genetic drift, they're going to start looking different after a long time. Further, remember that traits that help the individual survive and reproduce get passed on, and since the environments are a bit different, those traits are also different.

Fast forward another 100 years--1200 generations. In Lake Shallow, you see a species that's around 8 centimeters long, speckled brown and beige equally, that gives birth to around 120 offspring every 6 weeks, and eats insects exclusively. In Lake Deep you see a species that's around 12 cm. long, mostly beige with some brown speckles, gives birth to around 89 offspring every 4 weeks, and eats tiny snails as well as other bugs. When the two populations have grown different enough that they no longer could reproduce together, they've split into two species.

And, according to ToE, that's how we get a new species.

 

[Fatihah]

That tells us how a species can change, but not how we get a whole new species.

Say there's a drought, and maybe an earthquake, so what was one lake now is divided into two. The two populations of Fishius can no longer continue to interbreed and mix their gene pool together. Furthermore, the two lakes aren't identical environments. One is a little shallower and warmer than the other, which results in a different population of aquatic insects. One has a fish-eating snake population, and the other doesn't. And most important, one is conducive to a certain fish disease, and the other isn't.

Now you're looking at two separate populations of fish. Again, due to genetic drift, they're going to start looking different after a long time. Further, remember that traits that help the individual survive and reproduce get passed on, and since the environments are a bit different, those traits are also different.

Fast forward another 100 years--1200 generations. In Lake Shallow, you see a species that's around 8 centimeters long, speckled brown and beige equally, that gives birth to around 120 offspring every 6 weeks, and eats insects exclusively. In Lake Deep you see a species that's around 12 cm. long, mostly beige with some brown speckles, gives birth to around 89 offspring every 4 weeks, and eats tiny snails as well as other bugs. When the two populations have grown different enough that they no longer could reproduce together, they've split into two species.

And, according to ToE, that's how we get a new species.

Response: Right. Your understanding of ToE is no different from mine from what I have seen. Now this is the important question: Is it true?

That is the question. My answer? No. You see, this has never happened. Have you ever seen a species change into another species? No. In other words, a cat has never changed into a dog in front of any of our eyes. Neither has a eagle to a pigeon, a duck to a rooster, a monkey into a man, etc. That's the point. It is a theory, but it's not factual one. Thus the debate begins.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"In other words, a cat has never changed into a dog in front of any of our eyes. Neither has a eagle to a pigeon, a duck to a rooster, a monkey into a man, etc."

Nor does ToE say it does. Species have been evolving on this planet for billions of years. NOTHING changes overnight. To say that is either foolish or disingenuous.

Which are you?

 

[Alceste]

Response: Right. Your understanding of ToE is no different from mine from what I have seen. Now this is the important question: Is it true?

That is the question. My answer? No. You see, this has never happened. Have you ever seen a species change into another species? No. In other words, a cat has never changed into a dog in front of any of our eyes. Neither has a eagle to a pigeon, a duck to a rooster, a monkey into a man, etc. That's the point. It is a theory, but it's not factual one. Thus the debate begins.

Where in Auto's description did you see the Fatiha fish turn into a monkey? It turned into a slightly different fish. And you were doing so well!

FYI, yes, we observe speciation (two geographically separated populations of the same species becoming so different they can no longer breed) all the time. Every day. Thousands of examples.

Please try to set aside the stock responses you've learned from your religious leaders, as they have nothing to do with the ToE. Evolution doesn't say to a monkey "You'd be better off as a bird" and go POOF.

Allah (if you like) wrote a law into the flesh of every living thing that allows it to change over time as its habitat changes, because he loves his creations and wants them to survive.

 

[painted wolf]

Fatihah.... I suggest you check out this thread...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html


and this recent story.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0629165110.htm

We see evolution happening all the time.

wa:do

 

[Fatihah]

Nor does ToE say it does. Species have been evolving on this planet for billions of years. NOTHING changes overnight. To say that is either foolish or disingenuous.

Which are you?

Response: The fact that you can't prove that a species evolves over 1,000 of years shows who the foolish one is.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Right. Your understanding of ToE is no different from mine from what I have seen. Now this is the important question: Is it true?

Yes, we know it is true, because we observe exactly this happening. One example would be the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria.

Another good example would be the nylon bug. This is a new species that never existed before.

That is the question. My answer? No. You see, this has never happened.

In fact, it is happening all around us.

Have you ever seen a species change into another species? No.

Yes, we see it all the time. However, as I explained, it is a very slow, gradual process. Even in the example I made up, it would take 100 years to see a new species. No scientist has a career that spans 100 years, so no individual gets to see a new species emerge. We do see new species of bacteria and fruit flies, because they reproduce so quickly.

In other words, a cat has never changed into a dog in front of any of our eyes. Neither has a eagle to a pigeon, a duck to a rooster, a monkey into a man, etc. That's the point. It is a theory, but it's not factual one. Thus the debate begins.

Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough. This is not what ToE says happens. ToE says that after a long time, you see a group of fish that look a little different than another group of fish. ToE says that this is a slow, gradual process, and that you will never see a cat change into a dog before your eyes. This is the opposite of what ToE says. If this happened, it would disprove ToE instantly.

This is what I mean by debunking a theory you don't understand. Instead of making up a theory, read over what I actually wrote, and tell us what's wrong about it. Do individual babies not resemble their parents, but also vary from them? Do individuals not pass on their traits to their offspring? Would this not result in a gradual change?

 

[Autodidact]

Response: The fact that you can't prove that a species evolves over 1,000 of years shows who the foolish one is.

This is what I mean by not understanding basic science. Science never proves anything. Science isn't about proof; it's about evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming that this is exactly what we do see.

Again, return to my example and try to find the whole in it. Which part would not happen in nature? If it all does happen, then why would a population not change over time? If a population can change over time, why would that not result in a new species?

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:Alceste]Where in Auto's description did you see the Fatiha fish turn into a monkey? It turned into a slightly different fish. And you were doing so well!(End quote)

Response: Either or. No fish has every changed into a slightly different fish.

Quote: Alceste/
FYI, yes, we observe speciation (two geographically separated populations of the same species becoming so different they can no longer breed) all the time. Every day. Thousands of examples.

Please try to set aside the stock responses you've learned from your religious leaders, as they have nothing to do with the ToE. Evolution doesn't say to a monkey "You'd be better off as a bird" and go POOF.

Allah (if you like) wrote a law into the flesh of every living thing that allows it to change over time as its habitat changes, because he loves his creations and wants them to survive.

Response: The qur'an doesn't say this.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah.... I suggest you check out this thread...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html


and this recent story.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0629165110.htm

We see evolution happening all the time.

wa:do

Response: Yes, but not in the same sense as ToE.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, but not in the same sense as ToE.

Absolutely in the sense of the theory of Evolution.
This is evolution... pure and simple, and it's happening right now.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE:Alceste]Where in Auto's description did you see the Fatiha fish turn into a monkey? It turned into a slightly different fish. And you were doing so well!

Response: Either or. No fish has every changed into a slightly different fish.

Thank you. Exactly. It changed into a slightly different fish, just different enough to be classified by scientists as a new species. Do you agree?

 

[Fatihah]

Absolutely in the sense of the theory of Evolution.
This is evolution... pure and simple, and it's happening right now.

wa:do

Response: Can you prove it?

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Yes, but not in the same sense as ToE.

We already know that you have no idea what ToE says, and are in the habit of falsely saying that you do. (Or possibly deliberately misrepresenting the theory, I'm not sure.) Otherwise you wouldn't be using ridiculous example like a cat changing into a dog before your eyes.

The sense as ToE is what I described above. Does this happen or not?

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Can you prove it?

It's very hard explaining things to people who are working on not understanding or accepting it.

SCIENCE DOESN'T PROVE. Science is based on evidence. What you should be looking for is evidence. Your question is, do we see evidence of this? The answer is yes, we do, we actually observe actual new species coming into existence. I already gave you two example of this.

 

[Autodidact]

Can I please give you a lesson in the quote function? You're doing it wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

Can you prove it?

Evolution as I am learning it in University... and how it's used by biologists all over the world is: Change in allele frequencies over time.

This is what is exactly what is happening.

wa:do

 

[Fatihah]

Thank you. Exactly. It changed into a slightly different fish, just different enough to be classified by scientists as a new species. Do you agree?

Response: I agree to your explanation on ToE. But I disagree as to the fact that it's true. A fish does not change into a slightly different fish, nor has anyone ever witnessed such a thing.