Questions about Evolution?

[painted wolf]

I hadn't heard of this... thanks for the heads up!

I did find this article on it Pharyngula::Tales of the X-Mice: how to regenerate
PZ does a good job of summing up the science and addressing your question.

wa:do

 

[DarkSun]

Thanks so much, PW! I was wondering how that worked.

 

[Gharib]

i've got a question,

does darwinism state that only meat creatures evolved or plants too?

where can i find some more info about this?

 

[Tiberius]

First of all, it's not Darwinism. It's evolution. And Evolution states that any life form will evolve. All evolution needs is variations that can be inherited from parents. These variations will be acted upon by a natural selective pressure (individuals with thicker hair will survive better in cold climates, for example). Over time, these selected traits, inherited from one generation to the next, will add up to cause a large change.

Thus, evolution aplies to plants, animals, fungus... Any life form.

 

[Gharib]

First of all, it's not Darwinism. It's evolution. And Evolution states that any life form will evolve. All evolution needs is variations that can be inherited from parents. These variations will be acted upon by a natural selective pressure (individuals with thicker hair will survive better in cold climates, for example). Over time, these selected traits, inherited from one generation to the next, will add up to cause a large change.

Thus, evolution aplies to plants, animals, fungus... Any life form.

ok sorry for using darwinism rather than evolution.

and thanks for the answer, i didn't know that it was about plants as well.

 

[painted wolf]

I see Tiberius got that one for me.

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

so do scientists have family tree of all the creatures or is that still being created as new specieas are being found?

and what about god, does evolution really support a god creator or does it support the chance thing?

 

[camanintx]

so do scientists have family tree of all the creatures or is that still being created as new specieas are being found?

I think this is what you are looking for.

Tree of Life Web Project

 

[painted wolf]

so do scientists have family tree of all the creatures or is that still being created as new specieas are being found?

There is a tree... and it is still being worked on as new information comes in. Most of that information is from new genetic studies and new fossils.
I really like the Tree of Life Web Project that camanintx linked to, they are doing a really good job of trying to get the whole thing put together so that everyone can browse the tree.

and what about god, does evolution really support a god creator or does it support the chance thing?

It certainly doesn't say that God is impossible or doesn't exist.
But I think it may come down to how you look at God and the process of creation.

IF you think of God as an artist and creation as an expression of Gods creativity as well as might... then allowing a little chance into the act of creation is not a problem. Any artist will tell you that good art and good artists let chance be a part of creating... it helps every piece be unique.
(when you are talking about billions of billions of living things, all of them unique... that bit of chance is very handy.)

IF chance is a problem... then perhaps what we see as chance is not chance at all, but the subtle manipulations of God.

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

There is a tree... and it is still being worked on as new information comes in. Most of that information is from new genetic studies and new fossils.
I really like the Tree of Life Web Project that camanintx linked to, they are doing a really good job of trying to get the whole thing put together so that everyone can browse the tree.



It certainly doesn't say that God is impossible or doesn't exist.
But I think it may come down to how you look at God and the process of creation.

IF you think of God as an artist and creation as an expression of Gods creativity as well as might... then allowing a little chance into the act of creation is not a problem. Any artist will tell you that good art and good artists let chance be a part of creating... it helps every piece be unique.
(when you are talking about billions of billions of living things, all of them unique... that bit of chance is very handy.)

IF chance is a problem... then perhaps what we see as chance is not chance at all, but the subtle manipulations of God.

wa:do

thank you for this info.

i'm kind of out of proper questions, if i think of one i will post it here.

 

[Gharib]

I think this is what you are looking for.

Tree of Life Web Project

thank you. i had a look and it seemed interesting. i'll take a deeper look once i have some time.

 

[Autodidact]

i've got a question,

does darwinism state that only meat creatures evolved or plants too?

where can i find some more info about this?

There is not such thing as Darwinism. What there is is modern biology, built on the foundation of evolutionary theory. ToE says that every organism on earth descended from a common ancestor, and all living organisms evolve. Here's a great introduction.

 

[Carico]

Ok, so I can't promise I can answer every question... But I'm willing to give it a go.

Is there some aspect of Evolution that you don't fully understand or want to know more about... Let me know and I'll see if I can't either explain it a bit or get you a resource to check out.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm learning and I find these sorts of discussions help me hone my knowledge and keep it from getting dusty. Also it comes in handy when I'm in an exam and have to answer a tricky question.

Anyway, I am a senior student of Biology and I work as a Biologist when time and opportunity allows.

So feel free to ask... even if you think you have a handle on Evolution, there is always something new to learn.

wa:do

Why can't you promise any answers to every question if evolution is a fact? I mean if it explains the way the word works perfectly, then it should be no problem to answer every question because one can only build on the truth. God does answer every question perfectly.

So here are some questions:

1)Who is the common ancestor?
2) How many were there?
3) What did they look like?
4) When did they live?
5) Why have we never heard about them from their first descendants who could speak?

for starters. But if you don't know who the common ancestors were, then of course, you can't know what kind of descendants they were capable of breeding.

 

[camanintx]

Why can't you promise any answers to every question if evolution is a fact? I mean if it explains the way the word works perfectly, then it should be no problem to answer every question because one can only build on the truth. God does answer every question perfectly.

So here are some questions:

1)Who is the common ancestor?
2) How many were there?
3) What did they look like?
4) When did they live?
5) Why have we never heard about them from their first descendants who could speak?

for starters. But if you don't know who the common ancestors were, then of course, you can't know what kind of descendants they were capable of breeding.

Since it is a fact that you are here, then it should be no problem for you to name every ancestor of yours back to the first one.

 

[michel]

Ok, so I can't promise I can answer every question... But I'm willing to give it a go.

Is there some aspect of Evolution that you don't fully understand or want to know more about... Let me know and I'll see if I can't either explain it a bit or get you a resource to check out.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm learning and I find these sorts of discussions help me hone my knowledge and keep it from getting dusty. Also it comes in handy when I'm in an exam and have to answer a tricky question.

Anyway, I am a senior student of Biology and I work as a Biologist when time and opportunity allows.

So feel free to ask... even if you think you have a handle on Evolution, there is always something new to learn.

wa:do

When is it called adaptation, or when does it become evolution?

In the north of the U.K (parts of Scotland), there is a breed of sheep that, in the last twenty years, have been becoming smaller with almost each generation - because they need to store less fat for the warmer winters........

 

[Carico]

Since it is a fact that you are here, then it should be no problem for you to name every ancestor of yours back to the first one.

I don't have to name them because I know they're human. But since evolutionists claim that the ancestors of humans were imaginary animals, then they need to name them. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But even non-extraordinary evidence will do, such as who the common ancestor was since you claim it wasn't humans as we've known them since there have been witnesses on earth. .

 

[painted wolf]

Why can't you promise any answers to every question if evolution is a fact? I mean if it explains the way the word works perfectly, then it should be no problem to answer every question because one can only build on the truth. God does answer every question perfectly.

I'm not god... Thus I'm not perfect. I can only answer what I personally know and I only promise to answer to the best of my ability.

So here are some questions:

1)Who is the common ancestor?

LUCA

2) How many were there?

At least one... but with lateral gene transfer being so easy for early life there may have been many.

3) What did they look like?

Pretty unremarkable... but then, looks aren't everything.

4) When did they live?

about 4 billion years ago... give or take.

5) Why have we never heard about them from their first descendants who could speak?

We may have... but we hadn't figured out that written word thing yet...and neither had they.

wa:do
for starters. But if you don't know who the common ancestors were, then of course, you can't know what kind of descendants they were capable of breeding. [/quote]

 

[painted wolf]

When is it called adaptation, or when does it become evolution?

In the north of the U.K (parts of Scotland), there is a breed of sheep that, in the last twenty years, have been becoming smaller with almost each generation - because they need to store less fat for the warmer winters........

Adaptation is essentially short term evolution... adaptation is quick, with each generation... evolution is the result of many generations of adaptations.

wa:do

 

[Carico]

I'm not god... Thus I'm not perfect. I can only answer what I personally know and I only promise to answer to the best of my ability.


LUCA

At least one... but with lateral gene transfer being so easy for early life there may have been many.

Pretty unremarkable... but then, looks aren't everything.

about 4 billion years ago... give or take.

We may have... but we hadn't figured out that written word thing yet...and neither had they.

wa:do
for starters. But if you don't know who the common ancestors were, then of course, you can't know what kind of descendants they were capable of breeding.

[/quote]

Sorry but "pretty unremarkable doesn't describe the common ancestor at all. he could have been anything. Tolken did a much better job of describing his main characters than Darwin or any evolutionist does and his story was fiction. So if you claim your story is non-fiction, you need to do a much better job than that.

"There may have been many" means that you have no clue who they were and how many there were.

4 billion years ago? Give or take a million or a billion? The forerunners of man supposedly lived for 4 billion years yet none of their descendants passed along accounts of them when they could speak. I wonder why. Maybe they were ashamed that their ancestors couldn't speak. So which species is considered to be 4 billion years old? Last I heard, the oldest species was 2,000,000 years old. Again, I guess it depends one each individual imagination since your stories keep changing. In fact, like tall tales, they become more exaggerated each time they're told. But the truth never changes or it wouldn't be the truth.

 

[painted wolf]

Sorry but "pretty unremarkable doesn't describe the common ancestor at all. he could have been anything. Tolken did a much better job of describing his main characters than Darwin or any evolutionist does and his story was fiction. So if you claim your story is non-fiction, you need to do a much better job than that.

The genes indicate that LUCA would have been a simple, single celled organism... it would have had DNA transcription much simpler than modern prokayotes as well as less refined metabolic processes.

"There may have been many" means that you have no clue who they were and how many there were.

Yup... with lateral gene transfer so common among single celled organisms LUCA is simply the genetic template that all living things share today... that template may have belonged to a single organism or it may have been cobbled from more than one.
Ultimately we can know the genetic structure of LUCA but we have no good way of knowing exactly what the genetics of the pre-LUCA organisms were.

4 billion years ago? Give or take a million or a billion? The forerunners of man supposedly lived for 4 billion years yet none of their descendants passed along accounts of them when they could speak. I wonder why. Maybe they were ashamed that their ancestors couldn't speak. So which species is considered to be 4 billion years old? Last I heard, the oldest species was 2,000,000 years old. Again, I guess it depends one each individual imagination since your stories keep changing. In fact, like tall tales, they become more exaggerated each time they're told. But the truth never changes or it wouldn't be the truth.

well, I don't know if you've ever tried to carry on a conversation with a single celled organism... but they aren't all that verbal.
They do tell us a lot in their DNA though, and this is a record that all living things share.
Our genetics is our story... and we are the only ones who have been granted the ability to read it.
(and if that isn't Creator sharing a lot of himself with us, then nothing is.)

wa:do