If Evolution Were True

[sandy whitelinger]

How would I know what you don’t know? We could explore that question together if you were sincerely interested.

How am I supposed to know what I don't know.

Explain to me in a couple paragraphs what you understand of the theory of evolution. What is the mechanism? What does it explain? What are some of the basic evidences in favour of the theory? If you did this it would be a good start..

Oh all right, the idiot's guide to the ToE. It explains the variation of species based on the mechanics of the variation of offspring due to the recombination of genetic material or mutations of genetic material. This leads to a variation in traits. Isolation of replication of these changes leads to new speciation. Basic evidences would be fossil records and similar traits between different species that cannot reproduce through cross species breeding.

But you see that this would require a little bit of effort on your part, which is why I would be surprised if you did it. I don’t care if you do it or not. Frankly at this point I hope you don’t. I am admittedly quite lazy, and if you did it I would have to put in the effort to respond in detail. But as lazy as I am I am willing to make a personal commitment to you. If you put in the effort I will to. I think that is fair.

What still has me lmao is that you entirely miss the point and keep reponding despite your admitted lazieness.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry, my mistake--missed that.

O.K. So we have established that ToE is a theory within the field of Biology, which answers the questions why we have so many different species on earth, and why they're so nifty. It does not include the origin of life, and it does not have anything to say about whether God created life or all living things. In fact, we can explain it completely assuming that God created everything in the unvierse; it only tells us how, not whether, so let's take that as a shared assumption, for the purpose of this thread.

ToE says that new species come from existing ones by "descent with modification" plus "natural selection." "Descent with modification" means that organisms reproduce inexact copies of themselves; children resemble their parents, but not exactly. They differ slightly from their parents and each other. [For the purposes of ToE, it doesn't matter how or why, just that they do.] "Natural selection" means that differences that tend to cause individuals to be able to survive and reproduce will persist in their offspring, and those that don't die out naturally, so that species change, very gradually, over time.

Here's an analogy. Engineers used the same principles to design a new shape of aircraft wing. They programmed a computer to generate potential designs randomly. Then they programmed it to keep every design that increased aerodynamic properties--I mean lift, and generate new designs from that. Eventually the computers generated a new airplane wing shape with more lift. Descent with modification plus (artificial) selection.

 

[J Bryson]

Sorry I am confused. You would like what?

The guacamole recipe

 

[Autodidact]

So, to use an example, let's pick say some little mice. We'll call them Mousius sandius. They live in a large desert valley in New Mexico. They're around 2" long, not counting their long, hairless tail, light sandy brown, bearing litters of 4-8 offspring around 4 times a year, and they eat the seeds of certain plants that grow there, O.K? And, as we know, some of the offspring will be a little bigger, little smaller, slightly different antibodies and disease resistance, little faster, little slower, etc. So the entire species is changing over time, but as long as they all interbreed, they stay the same species, more or less.

Meanwhile, the land is changing over geologic time. Eventually, a river grows wide enough to divide their habitat into two parts that the mice cannot cross. The northern part has a different distribution of plants, more of one kind of snake than another, some different mouse transmitted bacteria, and is around a degree colder and slightly damper than the southern half. The mice on the northern part continue to change over time. In particular, those resistant to a certain strain of Micitis persist, while those that are not die out. And it happens that slightly smaller mice do a better job of evading the snakes they have there. In the south, there are different diseases, and it turns out that slightly bigger mice with a lightly spotted coat do better. They continue to change too, in a different direction.

After thousands of years, the two races of mice have grown significantly different. The southern race is around 2.5" long, with darker brown spots, lives primarily on seeds of the Whosits Whatsis plant, and bears an average of 5 offspring every 11 weeks, while those in the north are around 1.8" long, no spots, eats mostly seeds of the Thingummy plant, and bears an average of 7 offspring every 14 weeks.

At this point, even if you put the mice back together again, they would no longer interbreed naturally. At that point, Biologists say, somewhat arbitrarily, that they have grown different enough that we should consider them two different species. They call the Southern Race Micius whitlingeri. Behold, a new species, via descent with modification plus natural selection. According to ToE, that is how we get new species.

So, Sandy, do you disagree with anything I've said so far?

 

[fantome profane]

What still has me lmao is that you entirely miss the point and keep reponding despite your admitted lazieness.

As I said, I am willing to put in the effort. I will keep putting in the effort as long as you do. That is a personal commitment I am making to you.

It explains the variation of species based on the mechanics of the variation of offspring due to the recombination of genetic material or mutations of genetic material. This leads to a variation in traits. Isolation of replication of these changes leads to new speciation. Basic evidences would be fossil records and similar traits between different species that cannot reproduce through cross species breeding.

Good. Very well done, you have impressed me and I sincerely apologies for being skeptical concerning your knowledge and sincerity. Now we can continue.


What does the science of genetics tell us about evolution? Does it support or contradict the theory? In what way?

Different species are found in different parts of the world. Species found in isolated places such as Australia are more closely related genetically to each other than they are to animals found in other places, even if they often closely resemble animals found in distant places (e.g. marsupial mouse)- What does this tell us about the theory of evolution? Does it support or contradict the theory?

Is this creature more closely related genetically to a north American field mouse or to a Kangaroo? What does this indicate? Why?



Two main lines of evidence that you did not mention are genetics and geographical distribution species.

 

[fantome profane]

The guacamole recipe

In case it is not clear at this point, I was just playing around with Sandy. As for my actual culinary expertise I know how to operate a can opener and push buttons on a microwave. But not much beyond that.

Strangely enough there is actually a Food and Beverage forum on this site.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sorry, my mistake--missed that.

Apology accepted.

 

[J Bryson]

In case it is not clear at this point, I was just playing around with Sandy. As for my actual culinary expertise I know how to operate a can opener and push buttons on a microwave. But not much beyond that.

Strangely enough there is actually a Food and Beverage forum on this site.

You shouldn't tease like that. I love guacamole.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, to use an example, let's pick say some little mice. We'll call them Mousius sandius. They live in a large desert valley in New Mexico. They're around 2" long, not counting their long, hairless tail, light sandy brown, bearing litters of 4-8 offspring around 4 times a year, and they eat the seeds of certain plants that grow there, O.K? And, as we know, some of the offspring will be a little bigger, little smaller, slightly different antibodies and disease resistance, little faster, little slower, etc. So the entire species is changing over time, but as long as they all interbreed, they stay the same species, more or less.

Meanwhile, the land is changing over geologic time. Eventually, a river grows wide enough to divide their habitat into two parts that the mice cannot cross. The northern part has a different distribution of plants, more of one kind of snake than another, some different mouse transmitted bacteria, and is around a degree colder and slightly damper than the southern half. The mice on the northern part continue to change over time. In particular, those resistant to a certain strain of Micitis persist, while those that are not die out. And it happens that slightly smaller mice do a better job of evading the snakes they have there. In the south, there are different diseases, and it turns out that slightly bigger mice with a lightly spotted coat do better. They continue to change too, in a different direction.

After thousands of years, the two races of mice have grown significantly different. The southern race is around 2.5" long, with darker brown spots, lives primarily on seeds of the Whosits Whatsis plant, and bears an average of 5 offspring every 11 weeks, while those in the north are around 1.8" long, no spots, eats mostly seeds of the Thingummy plant, and bears an average of 7 offspring every 14 weeks.

At this point, even if you put the mice back together again, they would no longer interbreed naturally. At that point, Biologists say, somewhat arbitrarily, that they have grown different enough that we should consider them two different species. They call the Southern Race Micius whitlingeri. Behold, a new species, via descent with modification plus natural selection. According to ToE, that is how we get new species.

So, Sandy, do you disagree with anything I've said so far?

No problems so far.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

As I said, I am willing to put in the effort. I will keep putting in the effort as long as you do. That is a personal commitment I am making to you.

Well someone should be commited.

Good. Very well done, you have impressed me and I sincerely apologies for being skeptical concerning your knowledge and sincerity. Now we can continue.

Apologies accepted. No harm no foul. It is a common misperception that Christians are illiterate dolts.

What does the science of genetics tell us about evolution? Does it support or contradict the theory? In what way?

Different species are found in different parts of the world. Species found in isolated places such as Australia are more closely related genetically to each other than they are to animals found in other places, even if they often closely resemble animals found in distant places (e.g. marsupial mouse)- What does this tell us about the theory of evolution?

That species found in isolated places such as Australia are more closely related genetically to each other than they are to animals found in other places, even if they often closely resemble animals found in distant places

Does it support or contradict the theory?

It points to the theory.

Is this creature more closely related genetically to a north American field mouse or to a Kangaroo? What does this indicate? Why?

I haven't a clue although it does resemble my Aunt Margaret.

 

[Autodidact]

No problems so far.

O.K., so you agree that new species arise from existing species by descent with modification plus natural selection. sandy: That's the core of ToE. You agree with the main point of the theory. Where do you part company with it then?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

O.K., so you agree that new species arise from existing species by descent with modification plus natural selection.

Sure, we've been breeding dogs for a long time.

sandy: That's the core of ToE. You agree with the main point of the theory. Where do you part company with it then?

I have problems with macro-evolution. I also have problems with the concept that single-celled organisms (which is where life supposedly originated) evolved to created the panopoly of life that we see today. I also believe that it takes faith to believe that fossil evidence supports macro-evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure, we've been breeding dogs for a long time.
I have problems with macro-evolution. I also have problems with the concept that single-celled organisms (which is where life supposedly originated) evolved to created the panopoly of life that we see today. I also believe that it takes faith to believe that fossil evidence supports macro-evolution.

What do you mean by "macro-evolution?"

Do you think that some species came about by the process I described, and some by some other process? If so, what?

Do you think that organisms can evolve into new species, but that other new species can't arise from those new species? That something somehow prevents further evolution of new species? If so, what?

I find it hard to believe that you are familiar with the millions--literally millions--of fossils that have been found, each and every one of which fits exactly into a Grand Theory of Evolution, and still assert that scientists reliance on this evidence is based on "faith." Which fossil in particular do you think violates that scheme?

 

[painted wolf]

Where is the line between the most complex colonial single celled organism and the simplest multicellular organism?

Have you ever met a Placozoan? They are the most simple living multi's around today. Just two layers of outer cells, one on the top one on the bottom. And a double row of cellular 'goo' in the middle. Just four kinds of cells (humans have over 200).

Slime molds switch between being unicellular to colonial to multicelluar depending on the situation they find themselves in. They can even solve mazes.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure, we've been breeding dogs for a long time.
I have problems with macro-evolution. I also have problems with the concept that single-celled organisms (which is where life supposedly originated) evolved to created the panopoly of life that we see today. I also believe that it takes faith to believe that fossil evidence supports macro-evolution.

There is no such thing as "macro-evolution". Evolution is a continuum of very small changes over a very long period of time. There are no distinct boundaries or 'transitional species'.

If you had a better understanding of evolution you probably wouldn't have these problems. Of course, that depends on whether your problems arise from trying to understand evolution, or your problems are a rationalization for 'disbelieving' evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Honestly it is a simple misunderstanding... even bio-majors I know still struggle with the idea.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

I've always wondered how these creatures undergoing micro changes know when to stop, to avoid inadvertantly turning into a new species.

 

[fantome profane]

Apologies accepted. No harm no foul. It is a common misperception that Christians are illiterate dolts.

I assure you that there are many Christians who I deeply respect. Many that I know personally, many authors that I deeply respect, and many of the Christians right here on R.F. In fact if you were willing to read an book I recommended it would be one by Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic. But unfortunately you are not willing to read books on the subject.

I haven't a clue

Aha! We have discovered something you don’t know. Now we both know what you don’t know.

although it does resemble my Aunt Margaret.

She sounds like a real special lady.

I have problems with macro-evolution.

I also want to know what you mean by macro evolution. If this is the point of demarcation we have to know precisely what you mean by it. You understand that according to the theory of evolution macro evolution is nothing more than multiple occurrences of micro evolution (small + small + small …= big). It seems that you acknowledge that speciation does occur, so if we have micro evolution that leads to speciation what specifically is it we don’t have?

Perhaps I have misinterpreted you and you don’t accept speciation. If that is the case please let us know and we can give you several examples of observed speciation.

 

[McBell]

Macro-Evolution:
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

 

[RemnanteK]

I'm going to add a little spice here I hope, for the hope that is brings a little more to the table of conversation.

I'm a Christian, so I do believe that God did create the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested the 7th.
That being said, do we know how much time passed from Gods creating Adam and Eve, till the point where they encounter the serpent and sinned?
I some times wonder if in that time evolution of some kind could have happened?

This question I pose still has no answer to the point of this thread, but it does bring an option to ponder.
But I still believe in creation, and also the ability to overcome and adapt to the changes around us.