Contrary to wingnut claims, evolutionary theory does NOT...

[Youwerecreated]

What can you provide as proof there wasn't?

I can offer no proof either way.

It seems logical to me to assume that a family begins with a couple of parents not many.

To try and reason simultaneously that many humans came into existence is illogical.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.

Can you point out one positive mutation that benefitted an organism ?

How many mutations would it take for one organism to evolve into a completely new destinct organism ?

How many mutations does a human go through over their complete life ?

Where does the new information come from to produce a new species ?

Because as far as i can see a dog has the genetics to produce dogs and humans have the genetics to produce humans.

Of course, look at the finches of the Galapagos islands. There are many mutations amongst them that allow them to gather food on their particular island better than finches from the other islands would be able to do so.

I respectfully disagree with you the finches are not a product of random mutations they are a product of adaptations it was nothing more than microevolution.

"The two scholars, Drs. Peter and Rosemary Grant observed how, under drought conditions, birds with larger beaks were better adapted than others, thus their percentage increased. But this trend reversed when the cyclical conditions reversed. Furthermore, in times of drought, the normally separate species were observed to cross-breed. They are related after all. Darwin was right !

But is this really evolution? Even after the changes there is still the same array of beak sizes and shapes. This is variation and adaptation, not evolution."

http://www.icr.org/article/does-the-beak-finch-prove-darwin-was-right/

 

[Youwerecreated]

I posted the comment about Adam and Eve because I agree with you that bringing religion into this discussion was not advisable. Mabe that didn't come through

And while there is a Mitochondrial Eve (ME), that does not mean that we are the products of incest. It's more likely that ME had multiple mates as did her children

What can you provide as proof there was more than one human couple to produce all of humanity ?

What can you provide as proof there wasn't?

Are you saying there is no evidence proving more than one couple is responsible for the population of all humanity ?

 

[westwall]

What can you provide as proof there was more than one human couple to produce all of humanity ?

What can you provide as proof there wasn't?

Are you saying there is no evidence proving more than one couple is responsible for the population of all humanity ?

No, I am saying there is no evidence either way. There is no evidence to support the creationist theory nor is there evidence to support the evolutionary theory of human evolution...at this time. We have been able to follow the DNA evidence back to a singular "Eve" in Africa around 200,000 years ago.

However, it is more logical to assume there were many more humans alive at that time. We only have the evidence of her because her line did not die out. Was there a single human that evolved from apes however many millenia ago? I don't know. The preservation of fossils is so rare that there may never be a real answer to that question.

I do however not believe that everything we see today was created a mere 6000 years ago. That little missive is from the Bishop Ussher who one day decided to calculate how old the world was based on the lives of the people written about in the Bible.

There are many possible ways that man arrived on this planet. All of them should be investigated. All peoples points of view should be honored and not denigrated, nor however, should research be halted because of a belief system.

 

[pinqy]

Can you point out one positive mutation that benefitted an organism ?

Sickle cell. A mutation that affects hemoglobin. A single mutation, affecting only one allele, gives the individual resistance to malaria. If a person has it in both alleles, s/he will have sickle cell disease, giving a shortened life expectency of 42-48.

In sub-Saharan Africa, resistance to malaria is a very good thing, and historically, dying in your 40's wasn't too far off normal life expectency (some countries in the region still have life expectencies that low). In non-malaria regions, it's not a positive trait. So, evolution would predict that a trait like sickle cell would spread in areas where it gives a survival advantage and not be common in an area where it doesn't. Which is what we see.

How many mutations would it take for one organism to evolve into a completely new destinct organism ?

It depends. Anything where the new or seperate population would no longer voluntarily breed with the parent or cousin populations...a combination of mutations and natural selection. There's no set answer.

How many mutations does a human go through over their complete life ?

None, as far as I know. To the best of my knowledge, mutations occur at conception.

Where does the new information come from to produce a new species ?

Any mutation is new information.

Because as far as i can see a dog has the genetics to produce dogs and humans have the genetics to produce humans.

Right. But what is the relationship between dogs, wolves, and coyotes?

 

[sangha]

The fact that scientists use 'mitochondrial Eve' to describe our earliest common female ancestor as a species is probably just as confusing.

Possibly, but I doubt it. Wingnuts are so ignorant, they've probably never heard the term "mitochondrial Eve"

There are wingnuts on both sides.

That's my motto

 

[sangha]

The current genetic theory of human evolution includes a "Mitochondrial Eve" who lived around 200,000 years ago and which geneticists point to as the earliest known female ancestor of the race of modern humans. Obviously there were more females that lived at the time, but all of modern man traces our existence to her. At this time. With more research I am sure more discoveries will occur.

The problem is all theories are valid until proved otherwise, if you choose to bring religion into the discussion then you limit the available material. Just like a religious fanatic does from the other side.

I posted the comment about Adam and Eve because I agree with you that bringing religion into this discussion was not advisable. Mabe that didn't come through

And while there is a Mitochondrial Eve (ME), that does not mean that we are the products of incest. It's more likely that ME had multiple mates as did her children

That is certainly the most logical explanation. However, incest is also a possiblity however unpalatable that may be. Unless you honor all relevant and possible theories and study them fairly you are doing a diservice to science.

I don't think anyone has claimed that incest just did not happen. The notion that anything possible is being ignored is a straw man. I was merely refuting the notion that the only way homo sapiens could have reproduced was by incest.

 

[sangha]

The current genetic theory of human evolution includes a "Mitochondrial Eve" who lived around 200,000 years ago and which geneticists point to as the earliest known female ancestor of the race of modern humans. Obviously there were more females that lived at the time, but all of modern man traces our existence to her. At this time. With more research I am sure more discoveries will occur.

The problem is all theories are valid until proved otherwise, if you choose to bring religion into the discussion then you limit the available material. Just like a religious fanatic does from the other side.

I posted the comment about Adam and Eve because I agree with you that bringing religion into this discussion was not advisable. Mabe that didn't come through

And while there is a Mitochondrial Eve (ME), that does not mean that we are the products of incest. It's more likely that ME had multiple mates as did her children

What can you provide as proof there was more than one human couple to produce all of humanity ?

I never claimed there was more than one human COUPLE. I suggested more than one male MATE for Mitochondrial Eve.

IMO, this discussion would be more productive if your remarks were responsive to what was actually said.

 

[sangha]

Actually that is a legitimate question. If you weren't trying so hard to denigrate people and actually thought things through for a second or too, you would see that.

I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.

Can you point out one positive mutation that benefitted an organism ?

How many mutations would it take for one organism to evolve into a completely new destinct organism ?

How many mutations does a human go through over their complete life ?

Where does the new information come from to produce a new species ?

Because as far as i can see a dog has the genetics to produce dogs and humans have the genetics to produce humans.

Your questions demonstrate an ignorance of evolution that can not be resolved in a post on the internet. For example, you're first question can be answerd by anyone who knows anything about evolution, a group you are obviously not a member of. I suggest you start with a basic course on evolution.

 

[sangha]

I can offer no proof either way.

It seems logical to me to assume that a family begins with a couple of parents not many.

To try and reason simultaneously that many humans came into existence is illogical.

So doesn't it seem logical that many families (which is what we have now) begings with multiple couplings?

And why is this illogical? Logic usually leads to a proof, but you admit you have none.

 

[sangha]

Can you point out one positive mutation that benefitted an organism ?

How many mutations would it take for one organism to evolve into a completely new destinct organism ?

How many mutations does a human go through over their complete life ?

Where does the new information come from to produce a new species ?

Because as far as i can see a dog has the genetics to produce dogs and humans have the genetics to produce humans.

Of course, look at the finches of the Galapagos islands. There are many mutations amongst them that allow them to gather food on their particular island better than finches from the other islands would be able to do so.

I respectfully disagree with you the finches are not a product of random mutations they are a product of adaptations it was nothing more than microevolution.

"The two scholars, Drs. Peter and Rosemary Grant observed how, under drought conditions, birds with larger beaks were better adapted than others, thus their percentage increased. But this trend reversed when the cyclical conditions reversed. Furthermore, in times of drought, the normally separate species were observed to cross-breed. They are related after all. Darwin was right !

But is this really evolution? Even after the changes there is still the same array of beak sizes and shapes. This is variation and adaptation, not evolution."

Does 'The Beak Of The Finch' Prove Darwin Was Right?

Of course it is really evolution!!

Your ignorance is so complete that you think evolution only involves the creation of new species (ie speciation)

Evolution is the study of how the distribution of genes changes within a population over time. If the genes for a certain type of beak become more common within a population of finches over a period of time, then that is evolution.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well..if we do all have a common ancestor, there would have had to be some incest.

Wouldn't there???? Because all of us would have come from the same dad, so to speak...and that could only happen if his children had children with each other.

You mean like the Garden of Eden mythology? After all, if there was only Adam and Eve, who did the children have chidren from? Same for Noah.

 

[Ozmar]

...assert that man evolved from apes.


true story

While your post is brief, it is somewhat accurate.

Humans didn't evolved from the current "apes" we see today.