Evolution Question

[Skeptik]

Here's a question for those who don't think the theory of evolution is correct. What is your theory?

I've been discussing this on a couple of other forums (I know, I need to get a life, but I'm not alone in that). Here are the competing "theories" that I've been disputing:

All life in Earth has always existed just as it is today. God spoke life into existence a few thousand years ago, just as described in Genesis.

Space aliens seeded the Earth with life, then used genetic engineering to create the species in existence today.

No kidding! I'm not making that up, honest!

So, do you subscribe to one of the two ideas (not theories, certainly) summarized above, or is there a third one to compete with modern science? If so, what is it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's a question for those who don't think the theory of evolution is correct. What is your theory?

I've been discussing this on a couple of other forums (I know, I need to get a life, but I'm not alone in that). Here are the competing "theories" that I've been disputing:

All life in Earth has always existed just as it is today. God spoke life into existence a few thousand years ago, just as described in Genesis.

Space aliens seeded the Earth with life, then used genetic engineering to create the species in existence today.....

Well, that would explain our aversion to salt water

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Where can I see this for myself? And do they actually become different species, or grow new appendages and such?

You can find online documentation of the changes that the 1918 Spanish Flu (which killed boatloads of people) went through. It shifted from a pig flu, to a VERY fatal human flu, and them shifted to a less fatal flu and back to a pig flu, iirc.

You're also seeing the evolution of antibiotic resistant super bacteria thanks to the overdosage of antibiotics in general. Bacteria and virus life forms produce so fast, with such small time intervals for a generation, that you can see them adapt and change very quickly.

We can also document changes in other life forms. There are very famous cases in changes of bird plummage as environmental change occurs.

At this point, there's some very clear throughlines in the evolution of certain species. Evolution supporters don't have all the answers, or completely evolutionary diagrams of every species, but that's why research is on going. At this point the mechanism is a settled fact, the questions that remain are the speed of evolution (how fast can a multicellular organism adapt), and the origins of the species (applying the process in reverse).

What I've always found strange is that many doubts about evolution are biblically based. However, if you read the New Testament, wouldn't a God that cares about even the sparrows have provided animals a means to survive a changing world? Not only that, the Noah's ark story goes from ridiculous fairy tale to outright believable if you allow for the idea that Noah saved a sample of the animal kingdom at the time, and today's variety is a result of evolution to the post flood world. Evolution seems pretty compatible to Biblical belief to me.

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

So we agree that natural selection exists?

Past that I think is fair to question and work through. As I understand, there are still a lot of questions to be asked even among the experts. I can't claim to have much more of an explanation to the species differentiation questions, as I'm a humble mathematician, not a biologist.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Space aliens seeded the Earth with life, then used genetic engineering to create the species in existence today.

I wish I could say this is new to me, but it is a variant on intelligent design. It's also a very old idea. David Brin's Uplift series involves this idea.

 

[westwall]

If we evolved from the oceans, how come we can't drink salt water?

Because it's been at least a billion years since the first animals crawled out of the sea and we've evolved further. Our renal system has been accustomed to fresh water and drinking sea water causes more water to be excreted than the amount taken in, leading to dehydration.

You're partially correct. Plants first colonised land at the beginning of the Devonian around 420 million years ago. Also tetrapods and arthropods populated the small continents that were extant at the time.

 

[hjmick]

Why can't we drink saltwater? Evolution. Duh...

 

[manifold]

...an effective evolutionary strategy

Quoted for posterity.

That phrase alone is worth a thousand laughs.

what a maroon!

 

[westwall]

Where can I see this for myself? And do they actually become different species, or grow new appendages and such?

You can find online documentation of the changes that the 1918 Spanish Flu (which killed boatloads of people) went through. It shifted from a pig flu, to a VERY fatal human flu, and them shifted to a less fatal flu and back to a pig flu, iirc.

You're also seeing the evolution of antibiotic resistant super bacteria thanks to the overdosage of antibiotics in general. Bacteria and virus life forms produce so fast, with such small time intervals for a generation, that you can see them adapt and change very quickly.

We can also document changes in other life forms. There are very famous cases in changes of bird plummage as environmental change occurs.

At this point, there's some very clear throughlines in the evolution of certain species. Evolution supporters don't have all the answers, or completely evolutionary diagrams of every species, but that's why research is on going. At this point the mechanism is a settled fact, the questions that remain are the speed of evolution (how fast can a multicellular organism adapt), and the origins of the species (applying the process in reverse).

What I've always found strange is that many doubts about evolution are biblically based. However, if you read the New Testament, wouldn't a God that cares about even the sparrows have provided animals a means to survive a changing world? Not only that, the Noah's ark story goes from ridiculous fairy tale to outright believable if you allow for the idea that Noah saved a sample of the animal kingdom at the time, and today's variety is a result of evolution to the post flood world. Evolution seems pretty compatible to Biblical belief to me.

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

Take a look at horses. When they first originated they were the size of your average housecat. As time went on the animals that were larger survived better than those that stayed small. After a few millenia horses were much larger, now they were the size of a dog. Given a great deal more time and the horse evolved into the size you see today. Because it was more conducive to survival. That's how evolution works. Though the term evolution is now a little dated. The last time I checked the newest term was Punctuated Equilibrium but that was 30 years or so ago

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

You can find online documentation of the changes that the 1918 Spanish Flu (which killed boatloads of people) went through. It shifted from a pig flu, to a VERY fatal human flu, and them shifted to a less fatal flu and back to a pig flu, iirc.

You're also seeing the evolution of antibiotic resistant super bacteria thanks to the overdosage of antibiotics in general. Bacteria and virus life forms produce so fast, with such small time intervals for a generation, that you can see them adapt and change very quickly.

We can also document changes in other life forms. There are very famous cases in changes of bird plummage as environmental change occurs.

At this point, there's some very clear throughlines in the evolution of certain species. Evolution supporters don't have all the answers, or completely evolutionary diagrams of every species, but that's why research is on going. At this point the mechanism is a settled fact, the questions that remain are the speed of evolution (how fast can a multicellular organism adapt), and the origins of the species (applying the process in reverse).

What I've always found strange is that many doubts about evolution are biblically based. However, if you read the New Testament, wouldn't a God that cares about even the sparrows have provided animals a means to survive a changing world? Not only that, the Noah's ark story goes from ridiculous fairy tale to outright believable if you allow for the idea that Noah saved a sample of the animal kingdom at the time, and today's variety is a result of evolution to the post flood world. Evolution seems pretty compatible to Biblical belief to me.

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

So we agree that natural selection exists?

Past that I think is fair to question and work through. As I understand, there are still a lot of questions to be asked even among the experts. I can't claim to have much more of an explanation to the species differentiation questions, as I'm a humble mathematician, not a biologist.

Much agreed. I took a college course in anthropology (at the time an unquestioning believer in all things related to evolution), so I'm familiar with the various tenets. Actually, I believed at the time that God probably created by means of the evolutionary process. My real beef with it nowadays though is/are; the first law of thermodynamics, and the problem of odered existence coming from randomness and chaos without a directing force. Steve (the "Hawk")'s new theory that gravity is all that was needed hasn't helped me much either.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

You can find online documentation of the changes that the 1918 Spanish Flu (which killed boatloads of people) went through. It shifted from a pig flu, to a VERY fatal human flu, and them shifted to a less fatal flu and back to a pig flu, iirc.

You're also seeing the evolution of antibiotic resistant super bacteria thanks to the overdosage of antibiotics in general. Bacteria and virus life forms produce so fast, with such small time intervals for a generation, that you can see them adapt and change very quickly.

We can also document changes in other life forms. There are very famous cases in changes of bird plummage as environmental change occurs.

At this point, there's some very clear throughlines in the evolution of certain species. Evolution supporters don't have all the answers, or completely evolutionary diagrams of every species, but that's why research is on going. At this point the mechanism is a settled fact, the questions that remain are the speed of evolution (how fast can a multicellular organism adapt), and the origins of the species (applying the process in reverse).

What I've always found strange is that many doubts about evolution are biblically based. However, if you read the New Testament, wouldn't a God that cares about even the sparrows have provided animals a means to survive a changing world? Not only that, the Noah's ark story goes from ridiculous fairy tale to outright believable if you allow for the idea that Noah saved a sample of the animal kingdom at the time, and today's variety is a result of evolution to the post flood world. Evolution seems pretty compatible to Biblical belief to me.

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

Take a look at horses. When they first originated they were the size of your average housecat. As time went on the animals that were larger survived better than those that stayed small. After a few millenia horses were much larger, now they were the size of a dog. Given a great deal more time and the horse evolved into the size you see today. Because it was more conducive to survival. That's how evolution works. Though the term evolution is now a little dated. The last time I checked the newest term was Punctuated Equilibrium but that was 30 years or so ago

That pretty well describes Natural Selection -- that recessive genes can emerge (within a given species that are already characteristic of that species) which offer physical traits that better enable the organism to survive in its environment. It is then able pass these traits on, while others without them don't live long enough to pass theirs on. What I don't see though is any evidence where one species takes on traits which are foreign to it. The fossil record seems to show that instead of there being "in betweeners" of the various species, there appear to be "jumps", with different species appearing through time. What exactly this suggests, I don't know, but there's a lack of evidence there for say, a snail becoming a bird.

Two additional problems are that, 1) mutations never seem to be something that's beneficial for the organism, and 2) there's never been a recorded case of a mutation being passed on from one generation to the next, and therefor carried on (N.S. not being considered a mutation, but a normal variant).

One last problem; when you consider say, a fish starting to grow arms or legs, or the long process it would take to form an eye over the aeons... these are things that go against one of the cardinal rules of N. S. --"survival of the fittest". An abnormality like this would be a less optimum variant of the species and would limit it's chances of survival, not increase them. An individual like this would most likely be 'selected out'.

 

[JBeukema]

If we evolved from the oceans, how come we can't drink salt water?

Who said we evolved from oceans?

 

[JBeukema]

Jillian,

Thank you for the apology. It is nice to know that there are still women who know-their-place. I hope you have a nice day.

Fr. Yukon

You are a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity.

No sign of intelligent life...

 

[JBeukema]

If we evolved from the oceans, how come we can't drink salt water?

Because it's been at least a billion years since the first animals crawled out of the sea and we've evolved further. Our renal system has been accustomed to fresh water and drinking sea water causes more water to be excreted than the amount taken in, leading to dehydration.

It's interesting to note that ocean dwelling mammals, such as dolphins, also cannot drink seawater. They get the water they need from the bodies of the fish they eat."

Can you source that, please?

 

[JBeukema]

But you'll admit that if evolution or Intelligent Designed worked as advertised, then we would be have evolved or developed the ability to safely process salt water for drinking.

What a HUGE design flaw!

Personally, I think women having a voicebox is a design flaw ( ), but what you or I wish has nothing to do with what actually happens over the course of evolution.

 

[JBeukema]

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Drinking salt water leaves us with less water in our bodies than before. The existing water in our bodies attempts to dilute the excess salt (salts are electrolytes that lead to a great deal of metabolic activity). The excess salts are carried through our blood system to the kidneys for removal, thus we are left with dehydrated cells and overloaded kidneys leading to the sick and crazy symptoms you describe.

With plenty of freshwater in our natural, terrestrial environment there is no selective advantage for ever having to drink salt water. WE didn't evolve from the oceans - other organisms did - WE didn't come along for a very long time after terrestrial organisms first evolved.

• 3 months ago

Why can't humans assimilate salt water? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[JBeukema]

But we "evolved" away from the far, far, far superior ability to drink salt water because....?

It wasn't advantageous to force every species in the world to be a coastel dweller.

Not a lot of sources of saltwater to be found inland.

That's pretty fucking lame.

70% of the planet is water, but undrinkable. Better to be able to process either salt or fresh water as the far superior survival strategy

That might make sense if Aquatic Ape Hypothesis weren't bullshit

 

[JBeukema]

If we evolved from the oceans, how come we can't drink salt water?

Or, if a magical being created us all, why can't we all weave magic?

Now that's a good question!

 

[JBeukema]

It seems to me that your vision of evolution is some human-fish hybrid running up from the ocean, nomming some bushes, and then running back. That's not how it works.

PFFT! Did you never play Zelda?

Zora - Zeldapedia, the Legend of Zelda wiki - Twilight Princess, Ocarina of Time, Spirit Tracks, and more

 

[JBeukema]

Evolution is not a scientific theory, it's the belief in magic.

Failure to believe that living creatures can evolve and adapt is on par with believing the Earth is flat or the Sun revolves around the Earth. It simply doesn't work. Especially when you can literally see single cellular organisms adapt and change over the course of days.

You deny Nylonase- the greatest proof of God's intelligent design ever documented by science?

 

[westwall]

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

Take a look at horses. When they first originated they were the size of your average housecat. As time went on the animals that were larger survived better than those that stayed small. After a few millenia horses were much larger, now they were the size of a dog. Given a great deal more time and the horse evolved into the size you see today. Because it was more conducive to survival. That's how evolution works. Though the term evolution is now a little dated. The last time I checked the newest term was Punctuated Equilibrium but that was 30 years or so ago

That pretty well describes Natural Selection -- that recessive genes can emerge (within a given species that are already characteristic of that species) which offer physical traits that better enable the organism to survive in its environment. It is then able pass these traits on, while others without them don't live long enough to pass theirs on. What I don't see though is any evidence where one species takes on traits which are foreign to it. The fossil record seems to show that instead of there being "in betweeners" of the various species, there appear to be "jumps", with different species appearing through time. What exactly this suggests, I don't know, but there's a lack of evidence there for say, a snail becoming a bird.

Two additional problems are that, 1) mutations never seem to be something that's beneficial for the organism, and 2) there's never been a recorded case of a mutation being passed on from one generation to the next, and therefor carried on (N.S. not being considered a mutation, but a normal variant).

One last problem; when you consider say, a fish starting to grow arms or legs, or the long process it would take to form an eye over the aeons... these are things that go against one of the cardinal rules of N. S. --"survival of the fittest". An abnormality like this would be a less optimum variant of the species and would limit it's chances of survival, not increase them. An individual like this would most likely be 'selected out'.

That's not exactly how it works. ANY mutation that is beneficial to survival is passed on to the next generation. Fish that can breathe air for example when they move from puddle to puddle. That was a mutation that allowed them to live while the others that couldn't died. All evolution begins with mutation. Most mutations are not beneficial so the critter dies. Oftentimes the mutation has no effect because the environment is not one to take advantage of it so it may become recessive or just die out. However, when the mutation and the environment combine to give a particular critter an advantage, then that critter thrives and the others die.