The blind faith of the evolutionists

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes i went through the site.

I can't find a rational answer of how one species lived for hundreds of thousands of years and some lived even more than a million of years and supposed adapted very well to the environment and its fluctuations and then extincted and the branches kept alive.

You realize that the new species or "branches" are decedents of the ones that survived? Does that help?

 

[Breathe]

Maybe this would be useful. Pictures are worth a thousand words.

 

[FearGod]

You realize that the new species or "branches" are decedents of the ones that survived? Does that help?

But the ancestor lived for a long period of time and all along with the new evolved species,why after long period of time the origin have to be extincted such as the Homo Erectus who survived for about 2 millions of years.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But the ancestor lived for a long period of time and all along with the new evolved species,why after long period of time the origin have to be extincted such as the Homo Erectus who survived for about 2 millions of years.

In cases such as these its due to population isolation with evolution. The parent species continued to live in a specific environment in which they were fit and had no specific need for new genes to evolve. They would still suffer from genetic drift throughout the time but the changes would be minimal.

However during the same timeline a population of the parent species was isolated from the rest and for some reason or another had their environment changed in a way in which they were no longer fit enough to survive. The change in environment changes what genes would be more conductive for survival and the ones without those genes would be picked off and the gene pool would slowly become more and more saturated with those new genes until a point is reached when all of that species has retained the new trait. The process is repeated over and over (sometimes with several new genes at once). In this way minor changes accumulate over time to change the animal to suit the needs of the new environment while the parent species was not driven by the same forces.

 

[Falvlun]

But the ancestor lived for a long period of time and all along with the new evolved species,why after long period of time the origin have to be extincted such as the Homo Erectus who survived for about 2 millions of years.

Imagine a bird that lives on the coast of a mainland.

So, some of these birds are flying around. The flock gets stuck in a storm and blown away. They are near death, but they make it to an island.

Now there are two groups of these birds. Some of the birds are still in their original home on the coast of the mainland. But a small flock of these birds are now on an island.

The two groups can't interbreed because the island is too far to get to normally. It was only through the storm and good luck that the small flock made it there.

Both groups are now going to go through evolution completely separately. The mainland birds might not need to change a lot because their environment hasn't changed. It's still the same coast. But the new islander birds might need to adapt to their new island. There are different foods, different living arrangements, different pressures. There is also the fact that there are less individuals than the big group back on the mainland, which means that recessive traits are more likely to get expressed, and some diversity will get lost.

After thousands of years the two groups, the mainland and the island group, may end up looking very differently from each other. But the original group, the mainland group, still exists.

And that's how you get a species evolving from a parent species, and why the parent species would still exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

But the ancestor lived for a long period of time and all along with the new evolved species,why after long period of time the origin have to be extincted such as the Homo Erectus who survived for about 2 millions of years.

The only answer you can find would be to look at the differences between the species. Why is one species becoming extinct and not another? There can be many reasons.

We just know that they did. Maybe the simple answer is that the other homonid species hunted them down. Just like we've been hunting and making some species extinct ourselves.

The fact is that we know they existed and we know they're now extinct. It would be interesting to know why they went extinct, but it doesn't change the facts that we do know they did.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The first purple word in that paragraph is 'purple'

On a serious note, with color, it probably is easier to define. We can say the moment the frequency of light stops peaking at red is when it stops being red. The word that emits an equal amount of blue light as red light is the first word that is not red. Any word after it peaks higher at blue than red, so it won't make any sense to say it's red.

The word before it may look almost exact, but with sophisticated measuring tools, if we can calculate that the red frequency is slightly more intense than any other frequency, we can still say it's red.

Just by looking at it, we may not be able too, but it has more to do with the lack of sophistication with our eyes and brain than the inability to draw a line. But regardless, I think the metaphor of the color spectrum and evolution does get the point across.

 

[Ouroboros]

The first purple word in that paragraph is 'purple'

On a serious note, with color, it probably is easier to define. We can say the moment the frequency of light stops peaking at red is when it stops being red. The word that emits an equal amount of blue light as red light is the first word that is not red. Any word after it peaks higher at blue than red, so it won't make any sense to say it's red.

Which frequency is the first red frequency? It's an arbitrary number that we've picked based on our experience and senses of the world, not a number that has a tag on it saying "God says this is the first red frequency".

And, on top of that, each person experience colors differently. What you say is blue-bluish-green, I could experience as green, or the other way around. We went through this in design class. People did give different colors where they overlap.

Then you also have the factor of mixing colors and frequencies.

There is no definitive line like you're thinking. It's an analogue world we live in. Not digital.

The word before it may look almost exact, but with sophisticated measuring tools, if we can calculate that the red frequency is slightly more intense than any other frequency, we can still say it's red.

If you go backwards then, when does the blue start? When the intensity of "blue" is high enough? Which frequency of blue?

Intensity (proportion) and hue (frequency) are not the same things by the way. You can have thousands of "red" frequencies mixed in different proportions together with "purplish-blue" frequencies mixed in in different proportions.

Color theory isn't as easy as you might think.

Just by looking at it, we may not be able too, but it has more to do with the lack of sophistication with our eyes and brain than the inability to draw a line. But regardless, I think the metaphor of the color spectrum and evolution does get the point across.

The mantis shrimp would disagree. He would divide in 16 primary colors where we have 3.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Which frequency is the first red frequency? It's an arbitrary number that we've picked based on our experience and senses of the world, not a number that has a tag on it saying "God says this is the first red frequency".

And, on top of that, each person experience colors differently. What you say is blue-bluish-green, I could experience as green, or the other way around. We went through this in design class. People did give different colors where they overlap.

Then you also have the factor of mixing colors and frequencies.

There is no definitive line like you're thinking. It's an analogue world we live in. Not digital.


If you go backwards then, when does the blue start? When the intensity of "blue" is high enough? Which frequency of blue?

Intensity (proportion) and hue (frequency) are not the same things by the way. You can have thousands of "red" frequencies mixed in different proportions together with "purplish-blue" frequencies mixed in in different proportions.

Color theory isn't as easy as you might think.


The mantis shrimp would disagree. He would divide in 16 primary colors where we have 3.

Hmm... I guess you're right. I suppose it doesn't work with color either.

But I think with Evolution, it might be case specific. Like I think the definition of birds is a paraves dinosaur that is either capable of sustained/indefinite flight(ignoring energy/fatigue limitations) or has descended from such creatures.

So the first dinosaur where it's body plan allowed it to sustain indefinite flight would be the first bird. Maybe it's immediate parents had "wings" that were just a millimeter too short.

Or better yet, how about cases where evolution happens rapidly or in seemingly sudden bursts, perhaps after an event of near extinction of a population? Wouldn't that make it easier to draw a line?

 

[Ouroboros]

Hmm... I guess you're right. I suppose it doesn't work with color either.

I like you.

I respect people who can admit, "hmm... yeah, didn't think of that." We don't do it enough to each other. It helps so much to keep up civility and respect. :bow: to you.

But I think with Evolution, it might be case specific. Like I think the definition of birds is a paraves dinosaur that is either capable of sustained/indefinite flight(ignoring energy/fatigue limitations) or has descended from such creatures.

So the first dinosaur where it's body plan allowed it to sustain indefinite flight would be the first bird. Maybe it's immediate parents had "wings" that were just a millimeter too short.

The first "bird" was a land-based dinosaur. It's like the emus and ostriches. They don't fly. They're still birds. But they of course de-evolved from birds.

The first bird had feathers, but the feathers probably helped the animals sprint better or something. Not sure. Some speculate that it maybe helped with heat dissipation. Personally, I don't know. I only know that the first birds in the fossil record had feathers but couldn't fly, and had a tail...

Or better yet, how about cases where evolution happens rapidly or in seemingly sudden bursts, perhaps after an event of near extinction of a population? Wouldn't that make it easier to draw a line?

The line for species is still very hard to draw. One is that you can have two "species" that can interbreed but produce sterile offspring. You can also have the same species that can't interbreed at all.

I think that perhaps the answer to how to categorize species must go back to DNA analysis. Different chromosome numbers, automatic new species. Same chromosome number but genome different enough for incompatibility, different sub-species. And so on. I heard something that there are talks about using DNA for taxonomy in the future, but it would be very tedious.

Another thing is that we have hybrids though cross-breeding. Some plants have been crossed with other plants so they multiple "family trees". Just like Jesus.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I like you.

I respect people who can admit, "hmm... yeah, didn't think of that." We don't do it enough to each other. It helps so much to keep up civility and respect. to you

Thanks People should know that there's nothing wrong with being wrong.

The first "bird" was a land-based dinosaur. It's like the emus and ostriches. They don't fly. They're still birds. But they of course de-evolved from birds.

The first bird had feathers, but the feathers probably helped the animals sprint better or something. Not sure. Some speculate that it maybe helped with heat dissipation. Personally, I don't know. I only know that the first birds in the fossil record had feathers but couldn't fly, and had a tail...

I thought Evolutionary Biologists actually defined birds as a paraves dinosaur capable of sustained flight(or descended from such like an ostrich) and any direct ancestor or relative that couldn't was simply bird-like. Because there's definitely dinosaurs, many of which are relatives and not direct ancestors, that are not considered true birds among scientists, but are still considered very bird-like. Wouldn't the creature you described be considered that?

Anyway, for the sake of argument, what if that was how we defined a bird? There could have been one individual paraves that was born that could sustain indefinite flight, but it's parents couldn't because one little thing was off, but were still exceptional gliders.

We don't have to say their offspring is a different species but we could still say it's a bird and it's parents are not.

 

[Ouroboros]

I thought Evolutionary Biologists actually defined birds as a paraves dinosaur capable of sustained flight(or descended from such like an ostrich) and any direct ancestor or relative that couldn't was simply bird-like. Because there's definitely dinosaurs, many of which are relatives and not direct ancestors, that are not considered true birds among scientists, but are still considered very bird-like. Wouldn't the creature you described be considered that?

True. I would have to look into it deeper to answer that. "Bird" is a very arbitrary word anyway. It's vague and to broad to really be used.

Anyway, for the sake of argument, what if that was how we defined a bird? There could have been one individual paraves that was born that could sustain indefinite flight, but it's parents couldn't because one little thing was off, but were still exceptional gliders.

Sure.

We don't have to say their offspring is a different species but we could still say it's a bird and it's parents are not.

Well, species is really a grouping of a whole population with certain shared phenotypes. It's just like your example of "birds' above and if and if-not paraves are the correct "breaking point" so to speak. That's why the cladogram was invented. It describes single morphological changes that can be observed and have some meaning or value to the species (group of individuals).

So if there are any particular lines to be drawn, it would be in the cladistic format.

--- edit

So let's go for a much more drastic example.

The step from single cell to multicells organism has been observed in laboratory. Did you know? That's a huge step from monocell to multicell behavior which is like humans suddenly being grown-together twins.

http://discover.umn.edu/news/scienc...ta-biologists-replicate-key-evolutionary-step

And they used brewers yeast... my favorite organism in the world. Cheers!

 

[FearGod]

Maybe this would be useful. Pictures are worth a thousand words.

Gradual changes,understood.

 

[outhouse]

The blind faith of creationist

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So let's go for a much more drastic example.

The step from single cell to multicells organism has been observed in laboratory. Did you know? That's a huge step from monocell to multicell behavior which is like humans suddenly being grown-together twins.

University of Minnesota biologists replicate key evolutionary step | Discover | University of Minnesota

And they used brewers yeast... my favorite organism in the world. Cheers!

Yeah that is probably a better example. It's easy to draw a line between unicellular and multicellular. This article even puts together four concrete criteria for something to be considered multicellular.

Bacteria with bodies – multicellular prokaryotes | Lab Rat, Scientific American Blog Network

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah that is probably a better example. It's easy to draw a line between unicellular and multicellular. This article even puts together four concrete criteria for something to be considered multicellular.

Bacteria with bodies – multicellular prokaryotes | Lab Rat, Scientific American Blog Network

Very interesting find. Thanks. :bow:

 

[Breathe]

Gradual changes,understood.

Yes, tiny, tiny, tiny changes over many generations.

 

[shawn001]

Gradual changes,understood.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Definition: What is Macroevolution?

"A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it’s not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years—more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."

Evolution 101: Macroevolution



I will mention this again Feargod, your breathing Oxygen because?

The early Earths atmosphere was mainly natural gas? The Earth started with no life on it, it would have been impossible.

We know what changed the early Earth's atmosphere to what we have today and added the oxygen and its because of evolution. Do you know what did it?

 

[shawn001]

By the way with the picture you posted.

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

"People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.

A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen."

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes | LiveScience

 

[shawn001]

Just FYI

"ARE BIRDS REALLY DINOSAURS?
June 16, 2011GregBirds23 Comments
Most of the time when we think of birds, we think of the things that make them birds, and not the things that make them dinosaurs. But that is because we often have the relationship between dinosaurs and birds reversed in our little primate minds; Much of what is bird-like is not exclusive to birds, but rather, to a larger group of dinosaurs. Birds have taken these particular traits in novel directions, but these traits existed independently of all the birdiness we usually attribute to our feathered, flying, bipedal friends, long ago, before the Great Extinction."

10,000 Birds | Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?