-
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!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
What? Your example is MAN MADE and imo that pug is NOT better off than the wolf. I have heard that a pug is a bad design. Cute, but hardly carefree.Easy.
Shad
Veteran Member
Selective and directed breeding is considered an evolutionary mechanic. Dogs are not wolves so the point does stand.
Sorry. I thought we were talking about evolution with help and evolution with no help.
What is helping your brand of evolution?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Here is a list of ones happening in nature.
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
However if I were to show you a more extreme difference it requires a long period of time of change. Then you simply cry that there is no missing link despite evidence to the contrary. So it feels a lot like we're just playing a game of nothing is ever good enough. Either its too similar to be evolution or its too extreme to be true despite evidence.
The wolf to dog example however is still perfectly valid. The EXACT SAME principles of evolution were used in the selective breeding and we achieved GREAT change over a short amount of time since humans had significant direct control over the breeding processes They could do in just a few dozen generations what would normally have taken hundreds or even thousands of generations by normal natural selection. This is why wolves have changed relatively little over the last 10,000 years but dogs have hundreds of breeds from the corgi to the mastiff.
What are the problems with evolution listed so far?
1) Can't see it happen in real time as it takes too long therefore its just guessing.
- We have documented this massive change over time and seen it happen before our very eyes.
2) New genetic information can't be made.
- Pugs and all other breeds of dog have new genetic information not seen traditionally in wolves.
3) They can't go beyond their "kind"
-Nonsensical definition aside dogs have changed so drastically in such a short amount of time using the principles of evolution that I don't see how someone could honestly say that large scale evolution is impossible.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Savagewind is just playing the rock game.
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, but I don't think you understand evolution any better than Deeje here.
Like her, you making the wrong assumption of what evolution be like, without understanding what biologists are actually saying when they are explaining evolution.
In evolution, no biologists ever said that one species of that specific family, will produce a new species of totally different family. That's not biological possible.
I find that creationists often give horrible examples when they used them to refute evolution. It not only demonstrate their ignorance in knowledge of biology, it is terribly dishonest to use examples that no right-minded biologists would ever used.
To give you an example of what I mean horrible example that biologists would never used, I will demonstrate one with one of examples that Deeje used in her older reply:
There are so much wrongs in this section of her reply.
No biologists ever said that humans can give birth to a dog or cat. No biologists would use such a bad example.
Humans don't even belong in the same taxonomic orders as the cats and dogs, and cats and dogs don't even belonged into the same suborder with each others, let alone in the same taxonomic families or genera.
In the next example, but in the same reply, used another impossible scenario, this time - humans and ducks:
It is true that humans cannot give birth to ducks. She right about that. But no biologists would ever say that or use that as example of evolution.
If she wanted to refute evolution, she would have to use real example that biologists would actually use, and not some bizarre or twisted combination that she can impossibly or delusionally dream of.
Can Deeje give scientific sources in which biologists actually used these two twisted scenarios that she had used?
Clearly, her argument are nothing more than straw-man and red herring. She simply wanted to mislead us with false information about evolution, which say a lot about her lack of honesty and integrity.
And you are approaching dangerously close to her biased view. You want us to provide examples of species producing species of totally different class.
I hoped that you are not expecting us to give you impossible examples, like Deeje.
Ps. I am not a biologist.
My last formal subject on biology was Year 9 high school science class, which didn't teach me evolution. I think the subject of evolution wouldn't be taught until I was doing in Year 11 or 12 biology, which I didn't do. I didn't choose the biology path, instead I chose the physics-mathematics route when I finished high school, and started study civil engineering in 1985.
I only learned about evolution in 2004, when I wanted to understand what all the fuss about in the 1st forum (called Free2Code) I had joined in 2003. Free2Code had only small section in their forum on religion, which is where I first met YmirGF.
I borrowed my cousin's old biology textbook and read up on, evolution...more specifically on Natural Selection. Reading and learning from a textbook, don't make me a biologist or an expert on biology.
But I do try to understand what I read, whether it be biology textbooks, civil engineering or computer algorithms books, The Odyssey or the bible.
Last edited:
I understand that no totally different life form comes out of any life form. I am talking about your examples. Your examples are all about different colors and shapes. Colors and shapes mean little and do not mean that the life forms are forming a different life form eventually. Honest to God.
Tell me then. If new species do not come from existing species then where do they come from?
I made a mistake. I call it "species". I do not know the proper technical word for a new life form.
Good. Now please listen. 50,000 generations of E Coli, all beautifully different, I am sure, BUT ARE ALL STILL ****ING BACTERIA.
gnostic
The Lost One
What examples of mine are you referring, savagewind?
It wasn't your example. You will have to remind me of what examples you gave. Someone else gave this example. Different color BIG ****ING DEAL.
If you want to promote that different colors mean different species then why not join the Nazi Party?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Bacteria is more diverse than any genus or family of any animal. Bacteria are more diverse than animals themselves. Its the equivilant of saying a duck turned into an elephant. But hey its still an animal.
Can we assume that it would take 1000 years for a significant change in the DNA to produce a new kind of animal?
Can you prove it?
We should expect that bacteria should any day now spawn something new. I mean, 50,000 generations and nothing yet?
I needed that number! Thank you @Monk Of Reason.
Good even number.
From the beginning of the Earth, there have been approximately four billion years. All of life would have had to have happened in less than that. Much less than that actually.
Take bacteria for an example. 50,000 generations of it have been scientifically studies. Bravo!
In how many years since the studies did commence? Not too many.
If we do the math. how many generations of bacteria have ever existed? Anyone?
Anything new yet?
Good even number.
From the beginning of the Earth, there have been approximately four billion years. All of life would have had to have happened in less than that. Much less than that actually.
Take bacteria for an example. 50,000 generations of it have been scientifically studies. Bravo!
In how many years since the studies did commence? Not too many.
If we do the math. how many generations of bacteria have ever existed? Anyone?
Anything new yet?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
No. The experiment has been done with fruit flies. They are animals.
Prove what exactly? That bacteria are diverse? That Staphylococcus (which has 20 known species in that family alone) is as uniquly different from Pasteurella bacteria as we are from lets say monkeys? Here is a link and under point 2 section A it talks about how much commonality should be required to determine if they are within the same species. Typically its been 95% to 70% but within larger strains of similar bacteria there can be up to a 35% variation in DNA within just that strand.
Humans by compairison are 98% identical to chimpanzees, 85% indentical to zebra fish and 37% identical to fruit flies. The less we have in common the farther up the tree of life we need to go to find a common ancestor. Its not terribly long ago for chimpanzee's and other apes but a very very long time before we find our common ancestors with flies.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Its new every year. It evolves so fast medicine can't even keep up. We recently came across a huge and VERY IMPORTANT MILESTONE last year when we found our first infectious bacteria that is resistant to all known antibiotics. Modern medicine can't touch the thing. Its a UTI infection found in two differnet cases with women
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
As stated earlier they are new all the time. What you want to see for some reason is specifically visible multicellurism which isn't a requirment for evolution. We have only one difinitive case of it ever happening in all of the 3.6 billion years of life that has ever happened. There perhaps was more but at least one and definitly not many more. Bacteria evolves and it evolves quickly. It doesn't need to sprout legs and start worshiping god to have been evolved.
- Status